Is kerry pro-gun?

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: amdfanboySo you feel the same way about nuclear arms ? I wouoldn't mid a few.

I guess you dont realize that when the BoR was written, "arms" meant the weapons carried by individual soldiers, and "ordnance" was the heavier weapons of the day, such as cannons. Nuclear weapons fall into the "ordnance" category.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mookow
Vic, why cant you please just think of the children?

Heh. I am thinking of the children. Trying to make sure they don't grow up in a world completely defenseless against criminals and despots, like sheep amidst the wolves.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mookow
Vic, why cant you please just think of the children?

Heh. I am thinking of the children. Trying to make sure they don't grow up in a world completely defenseless against criminals and despots, like sheep amidst the wolves.

Maybe I should have appended a "" to the end of that.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: misle
Here's another crime-rate/gun story from the BBC.

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.

I certainly hope you arent attempting to use that article as an argument for gun control.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

http://www.sportsmenforkerryedwards.com/jkhunting.htm

not gunna read the whole thread but its all there, kerry has a 100% ( not metaphoricly, as in 100% of bills) anti-gun voting record

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I look down a bit on guns, but just because I'm not big on violence.

I support the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

I think some people get a bit buttwacky with the guns and I wish they'd stick with a couple of em instead of a collector's arsenal. (There -is- a thing called overkill) That being said, so long as their guns don't often go missing and wind up in a criminal's hand, I support their right.

I support a mandatory waiting period/backgroun check for the purchase of guns. I personally haven't seen any real reason why someone would need a gun "RIGHT NOW!" If the reasons are out there, I'd love to hear em.

To be honest, I don't think there is enough emphasis on being prepared should we need to take up arms against the government. Granted, I think you've gotta be a bit loony to actually consider it so it's not surprising that it's not a hot topic but, should our govt truly go astray, we the people MUST combat it, whether through diplomacy, dissent or armed conflict. :Q

I don't own a gun. The biggest "gun" I've shot is a pellet rifle.

 

[PatboyX]

i dont own a gun.
but i dont understand the big deal about the gun issue.
kerry seems to be pretty much on with how i feel. people should be able to have guns. no reason to get rid of them
but i also dont see this as being a very important issue for us right now.
but again, i dont own a gun. personally, it would not immediately effect my rights. however, a new restriction would probably make me feel a bit uncomfortable.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: loki8481
from the Kerry website:

John Kerry is a gun owner and he believes in the right to bear arms. During his announcement speech, Kerry emphasized his strong belief in the Second Amendment by saying bluntly: ?I?m a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment.? Additionally, Kerry has said he will work to defend hunting rights. ?I enjoy going hunting. I'm prepared to stand up and defend common sense on guns.? [Kerry Remarks at Mt. Pleasant, SC 9/2/03; ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11/10/02]

Hey, I think I've found one area that he hasnt flip-flopped his vote!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kerry is about as anti-gun as they get... Read the link from Red Dawn.... He is in the same category as Feinstein and Schumer...

I personally can't stand either candidate, but Kerry's piss poor stance on responsible gun ownership has left me with little choice come November...

what responsible person needs to own a fully-automatic assault rifle?

One who wants to exercise their full constitutional rights vs. a tyrranical gov't. The irony of this discussion is that Bush makes me want to go out and get a full auto M-14 carbine more than Kerry does.

LOL!! I personally have come to a crossroad on this issue and have decided that if they want my guns, they will have to take them by force. If that makes me a "terrorist" then so be it. Doesn't it seem rather ironic that the people who want to take my guns will need guns of their own to get them? Of course they are much more "responsible citizens" them I am, right?

 

[FelixDeCat]

If I had the money this baby would be fine. Fully automatic. Form a corporation and you can get the papers. Pre ban. And hey its already in Texas!

Kerry is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* pro-gun.

We dont need the gun grabbers to have one of their own in the White House.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Buck_Naked
Kerry is about as anti-gun as they get... Read the link from Red Dawn.... He is in the same category as Feinstein and Schumer...

I personally can't stand either candidate, but Kerry's piss poor stance on responsible gun ownership has left me with little choice come November...

what responsible person needs to own a fully-automatic assault rifle?

One who wants to exercise their full constitutional rights vs. a tyrranical gov't. The irony of this discussion is that Bush makes me want to go out and get a full auto M-14 carbine more than Kerry does.

LOL!! I personally have come to a crossroad on this issue and have decided that if they want my guns, they will have to take them by force. If that makes me a "terrorist" then so be it. Doesn't it seem rather ironic that the people who want to take my guns will need guns of their own to get them? Of course they are much more "responsible citizens" them I am, right?

You go!!

I wish I could have that state of mind but since people depend on me at the moment, I'm subject to abiding by the law, whatever that is. Which is why no way I'll vote for kerry...prolly another year of going fishing on election day.

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
If I had the money this baby would be fine. Fully automatic. Form a corporation and you can get the papers. Pre ban. And hey its already in Texas!

Kerry is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* pro-gun.

We dont need the gun grabbers to have one of their own in the White House.

I want one of these.
They are made just up the road from me.
My father in law was, at one point, working on the repair and use manual for it.
I have not yet seen one in person but from what I hear it is really wild!!

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: viivo

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: renierh

Originally posted by: misle
The only reason guns scare you is because you have been programmed by your TV and News to fear guns and think they are evil.

guns are made to kill or wound either animals or people. i can imagine they are fun for some people, but i fail to see how they can be used for anything positive.

This statement is so naive I'm flat-out at a loss for a reply.

A little devil's advocate: What positive things can guns be used for?

When you have a family to protect, you'll understand.

When one of your kids shoots the other, you'll understand.


Anyway, guns aren't the problem; a culture that believes that guns and vigilantism are a panacea is.

 

[Zephyr106]

The NRA is to the 2nd Amendment what the ALCU is to the 1st Amendment. Overzealous, hijacked by certain agendas, and raising the eye brows of many Americans.

Zephyr

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
The NRA is to the 2nd Amendment what the ALCU is to the 1st Amendment. Overzealous, hijacked by certain agendas, and raising the eye brows of many Americans.

Zephyr

Right. Read them both and find contridiction in either ACLUs' or NRA's poistion with whats written in the cases they defend. You won't. What you find is a nanny populus ie "there should be a law" types, and always eager to please politicans who try and strip down the constitution/BoR without going though proper measures to overturn it. Namely an amendment. Too much work and too hard so they just pass some unconstitutional laws and the only people there who are organized to fight them is guess whom? NRA and ACLU..


I think they should join up for a bit more power

 

[Rightwinger]

I'm certain many have already said something to this effect but I'll say it again:

Every self respecting gun owner will NOT VOTE KERRY. Bush? Probably? Badnarik? Possibly.

Kerry has voted against ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that respresents "Shall not be infringed"

I heard a saying once that went...If the Democrats had their way, we wouldnt have a military. We'd have 3 million men and women in uniform with rape whistles.

 

[EDoG2K]

First of all, I doubt Kerry will be making a huge push towards gun control, and even if he does try to push some legislation, they won't be taking your rifles away from you so stop your freakin whining. The fact that you all feel safer with guns is beyond me.

q]Originally posted by: Dissipate


First of all, in about 90% of cases involving a citizen using a gun as defense no shots are ever fired. But you are mistaken if you think that it is *impossible* to defend your home with a gun. There are numerous courses you can take that train you in both combat pistol shooting and home defense.

In most cases this training will give you the upper hand against some dumb crook/gangster anyday.[/quote]

90% a shot is never fired? Then 90% of the time you were safer without the damn gun. If I aim a gun at someone, I am going to shoot them. Thats what guns are for, that's what guns do, they kill and maim people, so use it right.

Before someone mentioned a gun as a good way to stop someone from raping their daughter. Let me give you some possible outcomes... pick one:
A) You shoot the rapist and accidently kill your daughter with the ricochet... then you go to jail.
B) You shoot the rapist and he and his family sues ... you go to jail and lose your house.
C) You shoot and kill your daughter's boyfriend and she never speaks to you again and you go to jail.
D) You accidently shoot yourself.
E) You wave the gun around and the creep runs off.

One of those will happen. You are better off without the gun.

Originally posted by: wpollack

Huh? Since when is not wanting to send our troops around the world to die in foreign lands un-american? Did I miss that memo?

(Besides, Kerry has said, very clearly, that he isn't pulling troops out until things are stable in Iraq, which means we'll have troops over there until my 4 year old son is old enough to join the military.)

JHutch

First of all, I don't like when troops die anymore then any other american, but they are fighting for freedom. Freedom which is needed very badly in that part of the world. Considering the fact that 99% or terrorists come form those countries I do think that the troops should stay there and fight. Maybe if we can free that area and teach people the correct way of life through freedom then there will be less terrorism. I don't know about you, but I don't particualry want to be sitting at work and have a plane come through the window. Keep the fight away from home and keep the troops there to fight it.

And Kerry def. did not say that his plan was to leave the troops there until there was piece. He said that when he is elected he will immediately bring troops home.

Bring them home, but bring them home when they are done creating peace. And I am sure they will be over there until your sons, sons able to join the militray and even later, but thats what it takes to get the job done then thats what america has to do.

Wow. New to AT and I wish you hadn't come. Go away.
What do you think the rebels in Iraq are fighting for?? How about THEIR freedom? The United States is an OCCUPYING POWER!! The sad thing is, with your guns and patriotism, all you gun-toting republicans would be the 'freedom fighters' of the US if we were ever occupied by a foreign power, if you weren't too chickensh*t to do anything, so why can you not sympathize with these particular freedom fighters?
Oh, and asswipe, for the last time- AL QUEDA is not from IRAQ!!!!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Rightwinger
If the Democrats had their way, we wouldnt have a military. We'd have 3 million men and women in uniform with rape whistles.

LOL I got a good laugh outta that...

You'll fit in fine here with that kind of rehtoric..welcome..


But so untrue...LBJ or FDR ring a bell?...hell clinton had like 5 "police actions"

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K
First of all, I doubt Kerry will be making a huge push towards gun control, and even if he does try to push some legislation, they won't be taking your rifles away from you so stop your freakin whining. The fact that you all feel safer with guns is beyond me.

q]Originally posted by: Dissipate


First of all, in about 90% of cases involving a citizen using a gun as defense no shots are ever fired. But you are mistaken if you think that it is *impossible* to defend your home with a gun. There are numerous courses you can take that train you in both combat pistol shooting and home defense.

In most cases this training will give you the upper hand against some dumb crook/gangster anyday.

90% a shot is never fired? Then 90% of the time you were safer without the damn gun. If I aim a gun at someone, I am going to shoot them. Thats what guns are for, that's what guns do, they kill and maim people, so use it right.

[/quote]

LOL, you have got to be kidding me. It is called holding someone at gunpoint, duh. The reason why shots usually aren't fired is because whoever is being held at gunpoint is going to comply. This is a no-brainer. Guns are a deterrent to crime, plain and simple. The fact that the vast majority of the time they don't have to be used actually makes them safer than a knife or a billy club.

Nice try at a *rapist scenario*, but you have comitted the fallacy of false dilemma by conveniently leaving out the true scenario. Watch Cops sometime and see how guns are used everyday to subdue criminals. If its good for cops, its good for responsible citizens defending their homes and lives.

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
[
LOL, you have got to be kidding me. It is called holding someone at gunpoint, duh. The reason why shots usually aren't fired is because whoever is being held at gunpoint is going to comply. This is a no-brainer. Guns are a deterrent to crime, plain and simple. The fact that the vast majority of the time they don't have to be used actually makes them safer than a knife or a billy club.

Nice try at a *rapist scenario*, but you have comitted the fallacy of false dilemma by conveniently leaving out the true scenario. Watch Cops sometime and see how guns are used everyday to subdue criminals. If its good for cops, its good for responsible citizens defending their homes and lives.

Hey, the last one choice in my rapist scenario fits your profile... unless you plan to shoot him in the back.

I don't know who said it, but the saying was something along this line.
"Gun control? We don't need gun control! What we need is bullet control! There won't be many drive-bys if a bullets cost $10k a pop!"

So what you are saying is an unloaded gun is 90% as effective as a loaded gun?

And I watch cops all the time. That trailer trash they show on that show makes me feel good about myself. I always imagine those hicks are the ones voting for Bush, even though they are the suckers w/o health care.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K

Originally posted by: Dissipate
[
LOL, you have got to be kidding me. It is called holding someone at gunpoint, duh. The reason why shots usually aren't fired is because whoever is being held at gunpoint is going to comply. This is a no-brainer. Guns are a deterrent to crime, plain and simple. The fact that the vast majority of the time they don't have to be used actually makes them safer than a knife or a billy club.

Nice try at a *rapist scenario*, but you have comitted the fallacy of false dilemma by conveniently leaving out the true scenario. Watch Cops sometime and see how guns are used everyday to subdue criminals. If its good for cops, its good for responsible citizens defending their homes and lives.

Hey, the last one choice in my rapist scenario fits your profile... unless you plan to shoot him in the back.

I don't know who said it, but the saying was something along this line.
"Gun control? We don't need gun control! What we need is bullet control! There won't be many drive-bys if a bullets cost $10k a pop!"

So what you are saying is an unloaded gun is 90% as effective as a loaded gun?

No, because the 10% of the time that you actually have to fire shots is going to count for a lot more than the 90% of the time that you don't.

And I watch cops all the time. That trailer trash they show on that show makes me feel good about myself. I always imagine those hicks are the ones voting for Bush, even though they are the suckers w/o health care.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K
I don't know who said it, but the saying was something along this line.
"Gun control? We don't need gun control! What we need is bullet control! There won't be many drive-bys if a bullets cost $10k a pop!"

You and Michael Moore just showing off your ignorance I guess. :roll:

Bullets are easy and inexpensive to manufacture. Most real "gun nuts" make their own even.

And why you gun control nuts think you will be safer when law-abiding citizens are stripped of the right to defend themselves is beyond me...

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: tec699
Suspossedly we live in a civilized society? Why do we need guns? We don't and the reasoning behind it is outdated:

1) To protect your family against the US government

-Yea sure. You and a bunch of your hillbilly friends are going to stop the US government? It isn?t going to happen. Before you can put your gun on a US military personal your family members are already shot and dead,

Ruby Ridge


2) To protect yourself against criminals

-The criminal almost always has the upper hand when committing a crime. How are you going to predict when a criminal is going to rob your family? You can't. Also, your gun is more likely to be stolen by a criminal if your house is burglarized. Finally, I don't have the stats but there are people that have been mistakenly shot by family members who thought that they were criminals.


3) To hunt for food and to lessen the population of deer.

-Why does anyone hunt anymore? I go to my local supermarket if I'm hungry! If the deer population is really that bad then the US government should deal with the situation.

Just my opinion guys.

Dont forget:

4) To keep criminals in check.

Thats right - if some unfortunate individual were to think of me as an easy target, Id have to bust a cap. Then he can join all his civilzed friends in jail - you know the sex offenders, check forgers, bank robbers, cop killers and the like. My Browning holds 13 hollow points, so Ill have at least 26 friends to back me up when I need them. Thanks fellas!

 

[Rightwinger]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
If I had the money this baby would be fine. Fully automatic. Form a corporation and you can get the papers. Pre ban. And hey its already in Texas!

Kerry is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* pro-gun.

We dont need the gun grabbers to have one of their own in the White House.

*ahem*

You arent up to snuff on current National Firearms Act regulations are you?

A: You do NOT need a corporation to "get the papers"
B: Pre ban in this case means pre 86, a better term for it is Civilian Transferrable - which explains the price.
C: Already being in Texas means nothing except not paying for shipping, you still need to do a Form 4 like anyone else.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: Rightwinger

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
If I had the money this baby would be fine. Fully automatic. Form a corporation and you can get the papers. Pre ban. And hey its already in Texas!

Kerry is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* pro-gun.

We dont need the gun grabbers to have one of their own in the White House.

*ahem*

You arent up to snuff on current National Firearms Act regulations are you?

A: You do NOT need a corporation to "get the papers"
B: Pre ban in this case means pre 86, a better term for it is Civilian Transferrable - which explains the price.
C: Already being in Texas means nothing except not paying for shipping, you still need to do a Form 4 like anyone else.

Heh... $13,800 for a sear gun, not even a Registered Receiver... If I had only known....

Even though there has only been one case of a legally owned automatic weapon being used in a crime (a sworn police officer by the way), the 1986 law that no longer allowed civillians to own automatic weapons manufactured after that date has only made class 3 stuff available to the rich. That weapon used to run about $2500.

IIRC, if you are a Law Enforcement agency, the read deal goes for about $1000...