Brady Campaign Hoping For Expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban

[SleepTech7777]

Here's a link to H.R. 1022.. I believe this is what the Brady campaign is going to base the comeback on.. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-1022

Why do I suddenly have the urge to kick EVERY demonrat right 'squar' in the nuts until they stop breathing??????

[mekender]

HR1022 is dead in committee... but that wont stop it from being slipped in as an amendment on another bill at the last minute like the lautenberg amendment was...

[mekender]

gun control isnt about the guns, it is about the control...

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

Spells, If they could outlaw guns, people would resort to swords, if they outlaw swords, they'd resort to knives, if they outlaw knives, they'd resort to clubs, if they outlaw clubs, they'd resort to sticks, if they outlaw sticks, they'd resort to rocks. if they outlaw rocks, they'd resort to hands.... are you going to outlaw HANDS!!!. If they do, how are you going to wipe your a$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE INSTRUMENT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE IDIOT WIELDING IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i doubt that it would go to clubs... keep in mind that a gun can be created with a metal pipe and a nail if you know how... it really isnt that hard to focus the direction of an explosion to propel a hunk of metal fast enough to kill.

[Erik]

What it would do is to give the strongest person, or gangs, the advantage.
Any big thug that is used to beating people up would easily pick victims that are smaller, and be totally safe in attacking them, knowing they will be defenseless.

Smaller persons, handicapped, and elderly person would have no practical way to defend themselfes. A club is not going to help much if the person using it isn't strong enough to do much damage with it.

That's the essence of why gun control is immoral, even in the perfect world where gun control would remove any firearm from the face of the earth. It denies the physically weaker person any practical way to defend themselfes.

[Mud_Dog]

gun control isnt about the guns, it is about the control...

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

Spells, If they could outlaw guns, people would resort to swords, if they outlaw swords, they'd resort to knives, if they outlaw knives, they'd resort to clubs, if they outlaw clubs, they'd resort to sticks, if they outlaw sticks, they'd resort to rocks. if they outlaw rocks, they'd resort to hands.... are you going to outlaw HANDS!!!. If they do, how are you going to wipe your a$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE INSTRUMENT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE IDIOT WIELDING IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i doubt that it would go to clubs... keep in mind that a gun can be created with a metal pipe and a nail if you know how... it really isnt that hard to focus the direction of an explosion to propel a hunk of metal fast enough to kill.

You might be able to ban all firearms, but that won't stop anyone from being able to roll their own. Hell, the firearm knowledge in my head would cause Sarah Brady to have multiple seizures just from the images...

[SleepTech7777]

i doubt that it would go to clubs... keep in mind that a gun can be created with a metal pipe and a nail if you know how... it really isnt that hard to focus the direction of an explosion to propel a hunk of metal fast enough to kill.

I know that. I just wanted to see what duufuss would think that the ultimate restriction on our rights should be. Like I suggested, no matter what the object(weapon), it is the one idiot who misuses it that is the reason that all have to suffer and pay for ONE IDIOT'S FOOKEDUPEDNESS!!!

And no matter what 'tool' ,for the use of self protection, 'de'volved to, those like spell would still want MORE regulation, even if it meant he could no longer wipe his own a$$ with his 'HAND'.!!!!

[Double Tap]

A wise man once said that "God created men, but Samuel Colt made them equal".

[arkythehun]

So the question remains, Spells: What arguments would you use to convince the vast majority?


Ag,

Bio weapons are, for the most part, not meant to kill an entire population. They are meant to degrade a population's / military's capability in a given area for a given period of time. They are less effective than tactical nuclear weapons in that they are often vector borne, extrememly susceptible to wind and weather, and difficult to produce in great quantities. (All reasons given as to why the U.S. no longer uses them as a matter of policy.) The "advantage" of them is that they are cheap to produce.

I draw the line with weapons that cannot be used to discriminate against an area target. Artillery and crew-served machines guns would still be allowed if I ran the circus. Nuclear, bio, and chem would not be.

[SleepTech7777]

I would allow nuclear weapons. They have prevented innumerable more deaths than they have ever caused, just by simply existing.

After all, I suspect that very few would want to ignite THAT fuse...

[mekender]

I would allow nuclear weapons. They have prevented innumerable more deaths than they have ever caused, just by simply existing.

After all, I suspect that very few would want to ignite THAT fuse...

i dunno, i know some good ole boys that would start that party with the phrase "hey, someone hold my beer while i try this!!!"