|
The Other Terrorists
Ravings from the Frothy Middle |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 March 2007 August 2007 July 2007 February 2007 January 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January My Links Little Miss Attila Dr. Forbush Thinks Slashdot Games Slashdot User Friendly James Randi Snopes Home of the Underdogs The Sun Online tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog In which the middle-aged Peacenik mouths off about War Drones--and all the other things that make him cranky. Pnorny! Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. He is reachable at: littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma
Blogger Main Site
|
posted by: stepdad (reply) post date: 09.16.04 (10:21 am) Lol... ok, do you guys check facts or do you just repeat anything you read over at moveon.org? The ban on automatic weapons has never expired. The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 and is still in effect today. Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax , and weeks of paperwork. That was true before the assault-weapon ban was enacted in 1994, and it remains true with the expiration of the ban at midnight Sept. 13, 2004. The ban that expired was a ban on some specific rifles that are all semi-automatic, none of them are fully automatic. You might also note that Bush has little to nothing to do with this ban, it was up to congress to extend this and they chose not too. So if anyone is to blame here it would be someone in Congress, say like a Senator or two, who never bothered to make this an issue or try and save the ban before it expired, and are now trying to score political points for it. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 09.16.04 (11:22 am) Reply to: stepdad Anti - Gun Groups and Anti-Abortion Groups are the two groups that continue to pass laws and repeal laws to crawl slowly to their goals. Guns kill people and the anti-gun groups will never be satisfied until all of the guns are off the street. Likewise Abortion kills fetuses and people will not be satisfied until all abortion is illegal. In reality this is never going to happen for either group, but they will continue to push to their goals. Outlawing and abortion practice or outlawing a few different types of guns is what these groups live for. However, I believe the government shouldn't be involved in either of these things. posted by: stepdad (reply) post date: 09.16.04 (12:29 pm) Reply to: DrForbush Doc, a gun has never killed anyone. The person using the gun does. A gun is a tool, nothing more. A lot more people in this country are killed every year by automobiles than they are by guns, but you don't see anyone trying to ban Honda's. I can use a hammer to kill people, if I wish, but you don’t see anyone trying to outlaw hammers. "However, I believe the government shouldn't be involved in either of these things. " But you missed a major difference between these issues. In the case of guns it is your Constitutional right to keep an bear arms, whether you choose to or not. As long as you do not use this gun in an inappropriate fashion other peoples rights are not at all affected by your ownership of a gun. However it the case of abortion there are two people involved, the mother and the fetus. Both are human beings and both should have rights, but only one does. The mothers right to privacy, while inferred in the constitution, cannot be held more sacrosanct than the childs right to live, or not to be denied life without due process of law. This makes the two issues widely divergent to say the least. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 09.16.04 (12:44 pm) Reply to: stepdad You wrote: "Doc, a gun has never killed anyone. " And this same arguement would go for nuclear weapons as well. However, we invaded another country because we thought that they had these dangerous weapons. I am not advocating that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, but I am pointing out the flaw in your argument. Also, not all people agree that a fetus is equal to a human being. Just because this is your belief does not make it true. The fetus can only survive because of the mother, and the mother currently has the right to terminate the fetus if she wants. That is currently her right, just like it is currently your right to own a gun if you choose. Those laws are only laws and can be changed if 67% of the people agree to change them. |
More Links:
POLITICS:
RELIGION:
|
