Bush makes another smart move

FX Meister

As can be seen here
Bush makes another great move legalising the sale of weapons which have no proper use except for killing people. Nice one

SkepticOne

This will give him the opportunity to "get tough" on the crime that ensues.

Gizzard

SkepticOne wrote:

This will give him the opportunity to "get tough" on the crime that ensues.

guys is a monster, you should see the ghouls at the GOP convention :eek:

mycroft

Hang on...

Bush isn't legalising them, he's just not renewing Clintons anti assault weapons ban.

It's worth noting that neither Kerry or the democratic party have been vocal in their opposition to this move.

No one wants to piss off the NRA....

Boggle

But sure dont you know that these 'fine' 'respectable' people only want to use them as hunting rifles.... Don't you know these are the most accurate long range weaponry available?!?!?

My ass!!!

Terrorists dont even have to worry about getting weapons into the country any-more ... they're readily available!!

GuanYin

FX Meister wrote:

As can be seen here
Bush makes another great move legalising the sale of weapons which have no proper use except for killing people. Nice one

Guns don't kill people, rappers do!

Actually, its a long help belief among the anti-gun movement that right wing america would give up their rights to vote before their right to own guns.

What a wonderful country.

dahamsta

mycroft wrote:

Bush isn't legalising them, he's just not renewing Clintons anti assault weapons ban.

Semantics. The end result is that assault weapons can now be used by private citizens again.

It's worth noting that neither Kerry or the democratic party have been vocal in their opposition to this move.

It's worth noting that you haven't actually researched this before posting it as fact. Not even locally:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1913548&postcount=86

Here's another 334 related articles, and 2860 possibly related. That's just for Kerry of course, there's probably a few more Democrats complaining about it, but Kerry's kind of aiming to be head honcho, n'est ce pas?

adam

koneko

There's something very worrying about a president that will happily bomb other nations to fight terrorism, but won't do anything to stop these weapons from being sold on his own soil. They have no everyday use. One could argue a pistol or shotgun could be used for self defence, but an AK47? Sad state of affairs, it really is.

Hobbes

mycroft wrote:

Hang on...

Bush isn't legalising them, he's just not renewing Clintons anti assault weapons ban.

It's worth noting that neither Kerry or the democratic party have been vocal in their opposition to this move.

No one wants to piss off the NRA....

The NRA aren't gun-toting crazies. They look at reasonable gun control and training others on using the weapons.

mycroft

dahamsta wrote:

It's worth noting that you haven't actually researched this before posting it as fact. Not even locally:



adam

Actually yes I have;

His campaign has hinted that they will turn to the issue on Monday - the very day the ban is set to die - leaving Kerry open to the charge that he's grandstanding. If he were to speak out today, or even over the weekend, he could be trying honestly to prevent the end of the ban, rather than commenting on something that already happened. But such is the habit of John Kerry. Cautious to a fault, he wants to wait until the very last minute, or beyond, before committing himself.

Kerry's once again made vague rumblings about it, while at the same time allowing himself to be photo'd holding a shotgun last Nov.

He's allowing himself to be seen as middle of the road, lets try and keep the NRA happy in the swing states, if he's really commited he should be doing as the above article suggests.

Then Kerry should raise an AK47 aloft and say: "This is an AK47, the same weapon terrorists used to storm that school in Russia. Republicans in Congress and President Bush want to put weapons like these back on our streets. We won't let them."

Both quotes from here

For example Bush says he supports the ban, Kerry says he supports the ban, its a big decisive issue and it has yet to make an impact on the campaign, so either Kerry doesn't really want to force the issue for fear of alienating the gun lobby, or once again he's sounding off message and confused, and striking light blows.

The NRA aren't gun-toting crazies. They look at reasonable gun control and training others on using the weapons.

Where did I say they were gun totting crazies? They're just people with an unhealthy obessesion with the 2nd amendment.

Finally 334 articles on such an important and decisive issue isn't really that much.

GuanYin

koneko wrote:

There's something very worrying about a president that will happily bomb other nations to fight terrorism, but won't do anything to stop these weapons from being sold on his own soil. They have no everyday use. One could argue a pistol or shotgun could be used for self defence, but an AK47? Sad state of affairs, it really is.

Au contraire, an Armalite AR-180 carbine gas-operated semiautomatic is very handy when you're a disgruntled working class american who's been pushed too far and fancies stalking from office to office in your work place, blowing away all your former colleagues.

Seriously though, just to put things into perspective, Thomas Butler a former scientist in the US was sentanced to two years in prison and approx 60K dollars (not to mention losing his job, his reputation and his medical licence) in fines because he sent sent plague bacteria from the US (where plague is endemic anyway) to Tanzania (where it is also endemic, and it was to a Tanzanian lab who owned the bacteria sample to begin with).

The sentence was deemed a lenient one because the judge has sense enough to realise he was sending it for medical research and humanitarian reasons.

So lets get this straight. Under Bush's laws, Buying automatics assault rifles that are used to kill people is legal. Sending a bacteria with the intention of conducting research to save lives gets you prison and your life ruins.

Just for sheer bogglement, the sentencing transcript is here

Its a wonder that Bush & his cronies haven't realised that making such weapons legal for purchase increases the opportunities for "terrorists" to attack the States from within.... Bloody typical.

Gizzard

America is fast turning into a nation of loons run by the scum of the earth

Call Me Jimmy

silly silly people..... no not the us citizens, you guys, jumping on the "it's-cool-to-hate-bush" thing, what's wrong with having an ak-47 if they can already have a shotgun? oooh the ak-47 can fire quicker and longer range, scary stuff..... like who cares? I mean u can kill some1 with a shotgun or pistol anyway, u losers see some law bush has or has failed to pass that u don't agree with and start all the "americans are scum of the universe lead by a retard" crap, give it a rest, we get it, u think bush is stupid......

dahamsta

So... eloquent...

adam /brushes away a tear

Sparks

Before the AWB went into place, how many crimes were being committed by AK-47 in the US?

And why would you worry about M-16s and AK-47s when they're legal, registered and bought with all the paperwork; when the vast majority of crime is committeed with illegally-held firearms?

And why worry at all, when the AWB never banned fully automatic machine guns, which have remained perfectly legal all along, along with such interesting things as Parrot Guns (working replicas of Civil War field cannons, firing 3-inch cannonballs over a mile and a half and which don't need a licence in the US), M80 sniper rifles, .50 caliber rifles, and so on?

The AWB did effectively nothing to make people safer or reduce crime. No real loss then.

PH01

What the US President does in his own country is his own business and of the citizens of that country.

therecklessone

PH01 wrote:

What the US President does in his own country is his own business and of the citizens of that country.

Grand.

If you see him around any time soon can you tell him what the Iraqi President does in his own country is his own, and the citizens of his country's, business. Oh wait a minute, too late...

Nick_oliveri

OOoooo snap! Nice one reckless.

xm15e3

Sparks wrote:

Before the AWB went into place, how many crimes were being committed by AK-47 in the US?

And why would you worry about M-16s and AK-47s when they're legal, registered and bought with all the paperwork; when the vast majority of crime is committeed with illegally-held firearms?

And why worry at all, when the AWB never banned fully automatic machine guns, which have remained perfectly legal all along, along with such interesting things as Parrot Guns (working replicas of Civil War field cannons, firing 3-inch cannonballs over a mile and a half and which don't need a licence in the US), M80 sniper rifles, .50 caliber rifles, and so on?

The AWB did effectively nothing to make people safer or reduce crime. No real loss then.

Not to mention that by banning bayonnet lugs, colapsing stocks, and flash supressers actually made the legal (semi auto) varients of real Assualt Rifles more accurate. Plus, the limit on pistol magazines with over 10 rounds gave birth to a whole class of magnum caliber sub compact pistols.

Now civilians have more accurate rifles, more powerful sub-compacts (than sissy James Bond .380), and 15 round magazines for my G20 are going to be dirt cheap again. They had hit over $100 for awhile.

And all the while, machine guns have always been legal...just pay your $200 stamp.

Sparks

Whatever about "assault rifles" (aside - the definition used by the ban doesn't match the definition used by most firearms experts, hence the mild derision often used towards the term), I find it rather ironic that in places like New York City, I could walk about with a 10mm pistol loaded with hollow-point rounds in a shoulder-holster; but my Anschutz 2002CA olympic air rifle would be illegal...

GuanYin

PH01 wrote:

What the US President does in his own country is his own business and of the citizens of that country.

Excellent, I'm glad I'm an american citizen so :rolleyes:

xm15e3

Sparks wrote:

Whatever about "assault rifles" (aside - the definition used by the ban doesn't match the definition used by most firearms experts, hence the mild derision often used towards the term), I find it rather ironic that in places like New York City, I could walk about with a 10mm pistol loaded with hollow-point rounds in a shoulder-holster; but my Anschutz 2002CA olympic air rifle would be illegal...

Man, don't pack a concealed weapon in any NE state. Much less in NYC. You can get a permit, but from what I understand you really have to be "Someone". They don't have a sense of humor about that.

In the west (and not California) you can open carry, and they will bust you for carrying concealed without a permit. But permits are cheap and easy to apply for.

Sparks

Er, XM, I was just trying to point out that firearms laws aren't necessarily always rational and so thinking that removing any of them is a bad thing is simply incorrect - I wasn't actually trying to bring up concealed carry (or even using firearms for self-defence) at all...

Gizzard

to the loser who gave negative rep with "dont generalise",

1 your a fking moron
2 **** off!

Is that specific enough for your

PH01

therecklessone wrote:

Grand.

If you see him around any time soon can you tell him what the Iraqi President does in his own country is his own, and the citizens of his country's, business. Oh wait a minute, too late...

Probably a bit curt my original comment and I sorry for that, but in essence the reality. What whoever does in their own country is their own business. And as non-citizens of the US you have no right to interfer in how the US is run. All you (and not you personally ) can do is 'comment'.
Allowing any Tom, Dick and George to own an automatic assault rifle is crazy on many levels. But, what can you do? It's America after all.

syke wrote:

Excellent, I'm glad I'm an american citizen so :rolleyes:

If you are an American citizen then you are best placed to do something about it. Fair play to ya if you do.

What whoever does in their own country is their own business. And as non-citizens of the US you have no right to interfer in how the US is run. All you (and not you personally ) can do is 'comment'.

ahh but the thing is that the way that the US is run, affects the rest of the world. Insecurities within the US increase the chance of another Terrorist strike, which make alot of people concerned with US domestic policies. The US has chosen to take the spot-light, and any legislation thats introduced or waived will be inspected and possibly criticised.

Sleipnir

PH01 wrote:

And as non-citizens of the US you have no right to interfer in how the US is run. All you (and not you personally ) can do is 'comment'.

Okay everyone, who here was interfering with how the U.S. was run?
Come on now, own up.
Tell me your names so I can give them to the police.

PH01, we are commenting and we do realise that boards.ie does not have a direct effect on U.S. internal policies, we don't need it spelled out.

PH01

Deleted User wrote:

ahh but the thing is that the way that the US is run, affects the rest of the world. Insecurities within the US increase the chance of another Terrorist strike, which make alot of people concerned with US domestic policies. The US has chosen to take the spot-light, and any legislation thats introduced or waived will be inspected and possibly criticised.

I agree. And it's one of the reasons why we're watching this US election with great interest. We're all hoping that that those US folks will vote Bush out of office, which will help bring an end to this nightmare.

I always thought that, on the whole, the US was a benign power more or less. But since Bush junior has taken power, this opinion has been greatly eroded.
But I'm hopeful.

GuanYin

PH01 wrote:

Probably a bit curt my original comment and I sorry for that, but in essence the reality. What whoever does in their own country is their own business. And as non-citizens of the US you have no right to interfer in how the US is run. All you (and not you personally ) can do is 'comment'.
Allowing any Tom, Dick and George to own an automatic assault rifle is crazy on many levels. But, what can you do? It's America after all.


If you are an American citizen then you are best placed to do something about it. Fair play to ya if you do.

Well it would be all well and good if american policies didn't effect ours, but unfortunately they do, either directly or by knock on.

Because of american laws there are many issues in drug sales, research, licensing (I have to apply to american for permission to work with infectious diseases because they put pressure on the companies that supply the reagents) travel laws etc etc.

The gun laws are less influencing but its one more ludicrous policy in a pretty large portfolio of them.

Incidently, pressure from world leaders/governments is another way the US can and has previously been influenced into changing its policies (Clair Pattersons work on atmospheric lead content is one example). Its not just about the voters.