ummm History lesson Helo those contries you mentioned. Canada, England and Australia, have the worlds lowest crime rates. hmmmm yea the criminal may have kept theirs, but there are not many criminals to begin with. Why, their Gov. respects the hunters and gun lovers, but also controls those who don't really need guns. And the reason you don't hear about those who defend their homes with weapons, is because here in PA, even if you have all the right in the world. you fire you got to jail.
A Self-Inflicted Gun Wound
-
Posted By: steady22 @ 05/21/2009 11:16:24 AM
-
Posted By: 269jstuk13 @ 05/21/2009 12:12:06 PM
All three of those countrys mentioned do not share a border with one of the biggenst drug exporthing countrys in the world, hell two of them are islands. Im not here to just stand for gun rights, if more laws are placed aginsted good people for what bad people do, where does it end?
-
-
Posted By: 269jstuk13 @ 05/21/2009 11:13:23 AM
I???m pretty sure an "Assault Rifle??? ban would prove absolutely nothing. The thought of it is distasteful and smells of stupidity. Here in the Union there are states in which a law biding citizen can not legally purchase an assault rifle, but some how the bad guys still get them. Just the same goes with Mexico. If any one thinks that taking guns away here will solve Mexico???s problem, there a fool. There a fool to think a drug cartel with millions of dollars won???t be able to get more guns from South America or from the Mexican police them selves. There is always going to be bad people in the world. Bad people will always create a problem of control. But putting more control on good people solves nothing. Making it illegal to drink and drive didn???t solve the problem of drunk drivers. It just made a source of revenue for your local law enforcement. So if you don???t think it???s necessary to own a gun, don???t buy one. I my self rather own a weapon and never have to use it, than need it and not have it. To me peace, is having a bigger stick than the bad guy.
-
Posted By: 269jstuk13 @ 05/21/2009 11:12:27 AM
I???m pretty sure an "Assault Rifle??? ban would prove absolutely nothing. The thought of it is distasteful and smells of stupidity. Here in the Union there are states in which a law biding citizen can not legally purchase an assault rifle, but some how the bad guys still get them. Just the same goes with Mexico. If any one thinks that taking guns away here will solve Mexico???s problem, there a fool. There a fool to think a drug cartel with millions of dollars won???t be able to get more guns from South America or from the Mexican police them selves. There is always going to be bad people in the world. Bad people will always create a problem of control. But putting more control on good people solves nothing. Making it illegal to drink and drive didn???t solve the problem of drunk drivers. It just made a source of revenue for your local law enforcement. So if you don???t think it???s necessary to own a gun, don???t buy one. I my self rather own a weapon and never have to use it, than need it and not have it. To me peace, is having a bigger stick than the bad guy.
-
Posted By: Germzzz @ 05/21/2009 10:09:46 AM
We live in modern times. Having an assault rifle in your house is just stupid. You know maybe if we were being invaded or something like that then yeah you know you gotta be able to defend yourself but ***, who has ever used their gun to defend themselves? The right to bear arms is a right that was written 300 years ago when we were being invaded by the english. Look around at where you live. Do you need a gun? And if you answer yes, would you still need one if there was a federal gun ban on the sale of firearms? No. Wake up America. Get educated and evolve with the times.
-
Posted By: HeloWrench1000 @ 05/21/2009 10:34:25 AM
Obviously you don't know your history or the reason for 2nd amendment which guarantees all other amendents. If you knew anything about the supposed definition of an assault rifle its any thing the govt. classifies as an assault rifle. That is why Americans should oppose any further bans of any kind. Further more if you were in the middle of a home invasion the police will arrive to put you in a body bag. There are litterally hundreds of thousands incidents annually where people have successfully defended themselves and families against criminals yet you never hear about them. Oh by the way in England, Canada and Australia where they have taken law abiding citizens guns, the criminals kept theirs.
-
-
Posted By: Germzzz @ 05/21/2009 10:15:43 AM
ephiny79 I agree with everything you said. The people who can't, well I feel sorry for you. You guys must really miss out being that close minded and uneducated. Its a pitty parents still raise kids like that.
-
Posted By: kennetha @ 03/26/2009 3:23:46 PM
Americans are just plain stupid when it comes to guns, some of the comments here are reflective of that. The most stupid comment ever is the "Guns Don't kill people....". If you think assult rifles are necessary in the USA, you're not smart enough to debate the issue!
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/26/2009 3:44:18 PM
They don't have to be necessary. We have the right to bear arms. End of story.
-
Posted By: ephiny79 @ 03/26/2009 5:19:51 PM
Come on, people, wake up. Yes, you have the right to bear arms. A ban on ASSAULT weapons is not a ban on your precious hunting rifles. We're talking about guns built for the sole purpose of killing people, quickly, en mass - not animals and not for your so-called "protection." You will hold on tight to your right to own a gun that you will never even want to own. It's absurd. But even if there were an all weapons ban, your position would be, "I have the right to play my sport and hit a few bucks this summer, and my sport is worth much more to me than thousands of lives, especially if they're Mexican." Am I wrong? That position is pathetically egocentric and blatantly unethical. ... So even if you couldn't care less about the lives of innocent Mexicans, how about Americans? Do you give a damn about them? The pistols that you so adamantly keep for "protection" accidently kill eight times as many gun-owners or their children as they do criminals. Perhaps you have that teenager mindset that you're indestructible - "that stuff only happens to the other guy."
-
Posted By: prividenye@msn.com @ 05/20/2009 11:06:50 PM
e-79, get a clue. the 2nd is about WAR. the very need to kill people en masse. it is not about deer, ducks, paper targets, skeet or any other red herring the anti-gun crowd wants to throw out there. you are obviously young as you are using dated and long-disproven statistics. that or you have th mindset of a college sophomore. quit getting your info from Brady. we keep guns, including your so-called "assault weapons" because we know for certain, we are not indestructible. and yes, it really is US and THEM. let them clean their own house.
-
Posted By: stenusmc @ 03/26/2009 5:35:48 PM
Ah, another voice of ignorance. Look up the actual definition of an 'assault weapon'. (Hint: it's a Class III weapon).
Your statement about handguns sounds like it came from the Brady website; you should actually check your facts before proving to the world you're ignorant on a subject.-
Posted By: ephiny79 @ 03/26/2009 5:44:36 PM
Calling everyone ignorant does not make you appear more intelligent. The fact remains that the ban they would propose is not a ban on the guns that ordinary citizens own.
-
Posted By: stenusmc @ 03/26/2009 5:48:02 PM
I wasn't calling everyone ignorant, only you, based on the absurdity of what you post. I think *you* are speaking from a position of ignorance, and refusing to do anything about it...
-
Posted By: ephiny79 @ 03/26/2009 6:23:58 PM
You're obsessed with the definition of assault here. What about the rest of what I posted? You think it's absurd to care about people's lives? ... And reiterating that I'm ignorant really will have no effect since I'm a member of MENSA.
-
Posted By: stenusmc @ 03/31/2009 7:42:25 PM
You hit the nail on the head. Training is all that should be required, period. No restriction on what you own, *if* you've been trained.
-
Posted By: tom343 @ 05/02/2009 7:27:49 AM
When training was a requirement or an impediment to voting, it was declared unconstitutional. What's different here? In Wisconsin, despite a state law that decriminalizes open carry of weapons and pre-empts municipal gun laws, the police, with impunity and with no criticism from say, the ACLU, are putting folks on the ground and taking their property and arresting them when they see these folks, ignoring the folks are in full compliance with state law.
-
-
Posted By: stenusmc @ 03/26/2009 6:59:42 PM
Caring about other peoples lives is what I do for a living...(note the USMC in my alias.) Ignorance has nothing to do with intelligence. Your blind acceptance of the anti-gun lobby's rhetoric without doing even a tiny bit of investigation is what makes you ignorant on the subject. Weapons are my job, if you will. I also went to school in a time when there were shooting ranges in the basement of the school, and we learned the basics of firearms safety and marksmanship. I can remember leaving my shotgun in the principal's office along with other students so we could go duck, quail or pheasant hunting after school. I am from a time and place that does not understand why people demonize weapons and not the people who misuse them. I use an AR15 for home defense, and I also teach others the defensive use of firearms. I have CCWs valid in 36 states. I have an inalienable right to protect myself or the life of an innocent that no government can take from me. I have the right guaranteed to me by the Constitution to keep and bear arms (the right of the people...). I have seen the damage weapons do in untrained hands. I have also seen doctors kill their patients. Guess which one of the two kills more people in this country?
-
Posted By: summer4077 @ 03/27/2009 9:00:22 AM
Therein lies the problem. You are a responsible gun owner--you have been trained and know that weapons are not play toys. However, many people are not like you. Those are the ones we need to regulate. I don't know what the answer is, maybe a certain number of hours of mandatory training per year for those who want to own guns? And assault rifles are not necessary for the average citizen. They should require a high level security clearance.
-
Posted By: theoracle7 @ 03/27/2009 9:59:55 AM
If you apply that argument, then it follows that parents should be regulated as well so that they don't have offspring that might not be capable of handling a rifle. As pointed out in Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", you had to be a member in Federal Service in order to have children - do you really want any politician now to go down the road the Nazis did 60 years ago? Once regulation starts, you can't stop it. If you think you can all by yourself, ask any Holocaust survivor.
-
Posted By: guardian57 @ 04/20/2009 3:30:29 PM
In Starship Troopers, you had to have Federal service to vote, not to have children
-
Posted By: guardian57 @ 04/20/2009 3:27:30 PM
In Starship Troopers, you had to have Federal service to vote, not to have children
-
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/27/2009 10:12:34 AM
Solution: Teach gun safety and basic marksmanship as a mandatory high school course.
-
-
-
Posted By: dmb12345 @ 04/05/2009 6:48:02 PM
Elitist- Mr.know it all- Run away from him another Messiah!!
-
Posted By: watchmen @ 04/05/2009 4:25:57 AM
That just means you have an I.Q. larger than your hat size,you need to study your history alittle more.
It's been my experiance that a High I.Q. doesn't mean you have common sence,and you always think your right
-
-
-
Posted By: stenusmc @ 03/26/2009 6:23:12 PM
I wasn't calling everyone ignorant, only you, based on the absurdity of what you post. I think *you* are speaking from a position of ignorance, and refusing to do anything about it...
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/26/2009 5:47:53 PM
This, coming from someone that insists that everyone who disagrees with her is has a "teenage mindset".
Hypocrite.-
Posted By: ephiny79 @ 03/26/2009 6:18:09 PM
Is that what I said? I meant that people who believe nothing bad will happen to them have a teenage mindset.
-
-
Posted By: praowolf @ 03/26/2009 6:03:40 PM
Why is it that in locations that ban guns, you get all this violence, malls, school shootings, etc, but places where guns are allowed and encouraged, are some of the safest locations, Shooting ranges, NRA meetings, police departments, sky marshals etc. Hasn't it sunk in yet, that these people are criminals, and making a new law banning guns, wont change anything because.................. THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!! They already broke the law, "oh gun ban!?!? Dam I should obey the law now!!" Come on people wake up!! Every US citizen, should be in possession of a firearm, well maintained and well secured, and teach kids the proper etiquette around guns, I dont have a gun personally, but I do know how to use one. If we EDUCATED people on guns, gun accidents would go down, if we ALLOW citizens to carry, the criminals will think twice about attacking "Hmmmm do they have a gun or not?? You know what I dont wanna be shot so I'm not gonna risk it." Gun control doesnt work, the war on drugs hasn't worked. When will we as a nation start to understand that we need to take care of ourselves, and not let our government take care of us. ..............
-
Posted By: praowolf @ 03/26/2009 6:02:54 PM
Why is it that in locations that ban guns, you get all this violence, malls, school shootings, etc, but places where guns are allowed and encouraged, are some of the safest locations, Shooting ranges, NRA meetings, police departments, sky marshals etc. Hasn't it sunk in yet, that these people are criminals, and making a new law banning guns, wont change anything because.................. THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!! They already broke the law, "oh gun ban!?!? Dam I should obey the law now!!" Come on people wake up!! Every US citizen, should be in possession of a firearm, well maintained and well secured, and teach kids the proper etiquette around guns, I dont have a gun personally, but I do know how to use one. If we EDUCATED people on guns, gun accidents would go down, if we ALLOW citizens to carry, the criminals will think twice about attacking "Hmmmm do they have a gun or not?? You know what I dont wanna be shot so I'm not gonna risk it." Gun control doesnt work, the war on drugs hasn't worked. When will we as a nation start to understand that we need to take care of ourselves, and not let our government take care of us. ..............
-
-
-
Posted By: kelly1942 @ 04/07/2009 1:01:32 PM
There are far more teenagers killed by automobiles than by handguns each year. Why do we allow car manufacturers to produce vehilcles that are not safe for Teens to drive? Any vehicle you purchase has the abilitiy to go faster than the speed limit. And yes, we have speed limit laws but does that stop the teens from going faster. We as a nation need to step up to the plate and take responsibiiity for our own action, not regulate or pass laws to protect ourselves. I secure all my handguns away from my children and lock the ammo up. I teach my chilldren gun safety. Dp you teach your child not to go faster than the speed limit? Ask them if they ever broke the speed limit. We all try to teach our chilldren the right things to do and obey all laws, yet some of them grow up to become criminals. I think TV adds to the increase in teen violence, not guns.
-
Posted By: ronron1790 @ 04/06/2009 5:18:22 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms for the security of our freedoms, so that the govt won't gain too much power over us.. think about it.
-
Posted By: wolfdoggy @ 03/27/2009 1:29:38 AM
Really? OK...let me pass that on. Hey! You guys fighting over there in Iraq! If you can hear me, this guy on this blog says that assault weapons are only for assault and not for defense. So hey, quite defending yourselves with those dang "assault weapons"!!! They are only for assault the guy said. So stop it! He sounds like he knows what he is taling about!!!!
-
Posted By: summer4077 @ 03/27/2009 8:57:42 AM
You actually just confirmed what he was saying. Assault weapons are not needed by John Q Public. The fact that people want to own them just because they can is quite disturbing. The military by all means needs assault weapons--not my freakin' next door neighbor.
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/27/2009 10:19:40 AM
"You actually just confirmed what he was saying. Assault weapons are not needed by John Q Public."
"Need" is not required by the constitution.
-
-
-
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/26/2009 5:33:24 PM
" So even if you couldn't care less about the lives of innocent Mexicans, how about Americans? Do you give a damn about them?"
Not really. I'm a bit of a misanthrope. -
Posted By: Osama Bin Login @ 03/26/2009 5:30:05 PM
"I have the right to play my sport and hit a few bucks this summer, and my sport is worth much more to me than thousands of lives, especially if they're Mexican."
Actually, yes. My rights are more important than your safety. Sorry about that.
-
-
Posted By: ephiny79 @ 03/26/2009 5:33:40 PM
Come on, people, wake up! Yes, you have the right to bear arms. A ban on ASSAULT weapons is not a ban on your precious hunting rifles or the guns you keep for "protection." They are weapons used to kill people, quickly, en mass. You will hold on tightly to your right to own a gun that you would never even want. Even if there were an all weapons ban, your position would be, "I have the right to enjoy my sport and hit a few bucks this summer, and I couldn't care less that my American RIGHT costs thousands of innocent lives, especially if they're Mexican." Am I wrong? That position is egocentric, racially hateful, and blantantly unethical. So, what about Americans? Do you give a damn about them? Those pistols you keep in your closet for so-called "protection" kill eight times as many gun-owners or their children as they do criminals. But you probably have than teenager mindset that you're indestructible - "that stuff only happens to the other guy." Step out of your bubble for a moment.
-
Posted By: flnative123 @ 04/27/2009 2:58:45 PM
ephiny79, Congratulations for having the brain power to be a member of MENSA! Seriously it is an accomplishment. However, just because you are book smart doesn't mean you can not be ignorant or do stupid things. As far as "hitting a few bucks this summer". Hunting season is generally during the Fall and Winter for deer. I use my AR-10 or my AK-47for deer hunting, my AR-15 for coyotes. As well, so do several of my family and friends use these types of weapons. I know you won't get the context of this message, but I felt compelled to add my thoughts. One other item, where did you get your statistics for the "guns kill eight times as many gun-owners or their children as they do criminals"?
-
Posted By: tom343 @ 05/02/2009 7:18:48 AM
Over the years folks like you have placed all guns into 4 categories and have tried to ban all four. Cheap pistols and revolvers are categorized as Saturday night specials in order to ban them. Expensive ones are categorized as high capacity cop killers, so you try to ban them, Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are categorized as assault weapons in an effort to ban them and manually operated rifles are categorized as high powered, capable of bringing down a 747 and you try to ban them. And in some venues, bows and arrows are categorized is firearms.
When did the left so blatantly stop trusting the people?
-
-
-
Posted By: dmb12345 @ 04/05/2009 6:46:52 PM
Exactly. "Kennetha"- You can challenge the constitution!!
-
Posted By: ephiny79 @ 03/26/2009 5:19:09 PM
Come on, people, wake up. Yes, you have the right to bear arms. A ban on ASSAULT weapons is not a ban on your precious hunting rifles. We're talking about guns built for the sole purpose of killing people, quickly, en mass - not animals and not for your so-called "protection." You will hold on tight to your right to own a gun that you will never even want to own. It's absurd. But even if there were an all weapons ban, your position would be, "I have the right to play my sport and hit a few bucks this summer, and my sport is worth much more to me than thousands of lives, especially if they're Mexican." Am I wrong? That position is pathetically egocentric and blatantly unethical. ... So even if you couldn't care less about the lives of innocent Mexicans, how about Americans? Do you give a damn about them? The pistols that you so adamantly keep for "protection" accidently kill eight times as many gun-owners or their children as they do criminals. Perhaps you have that teenager mindset that you're indestructible - "that stuff only happens to the other guy."
-
-
Posted By: TNBirdman @ 03/26/2009 4:29:32 PM
If you think that their not needed, then I feel sorry for you and sorry for the insults you gave to those that lost relatives and family during WWII. Having my grandparents come from Poland, we do not have a single relative there that survived it.
History always repeats itself, especially by those that forget it. Thanks for reenacting Hitler's gun control program.-
Posted By: Skidmarks003 @ 03/26/2009 4:43:01 PM
Sorry, got on stump there. I agree with you.
-
Posted By: Skidmarks003 @ 03/26/2009 4:42:18 PM
TNBirdman, how can you forget history when it's not taught to you in the first place!! The truth iss, with the media as it is today, our population is inundated with anti gun rhetoric to the point anyone owning one is demonized!! I agree, the 'true" history of firearms and their place in our country is what should be taught, not NBC and the other media outlets version.
-
-
Posted By: skankuser @ 03/26/2009 4:13:31 PM
The most irresponsible thing you can do in an argument is not understand what you're talking about. Assault rifles are select-fire weapons (fully-auto, semi-auto). The AR-15s and such you buy in stores today ARE NOT SELECT-FIRE, therefore, NOT ASSAULT RIFLES. To own a fully-automatic weapon to begin with, you have to have it federally registered with a Class III License, as well as pay a federal tax.
I assure you, the fully automatic FALs and G3s being used by these drug lords are not coming from the United States, but more likely from Latin and South American countries where guerrilla activity is more prevalent.
What is "plain stupid" is to attempt to comment on something you know nothing about. -
Posted By: regnar1194 @ 03/26/2009 3:57:23 PM
A mind is like a parachute it only works when open. You have come to this table and insulted the other side before the debate began, who is the stupid one here?
-
-
Posted By: sloopyloo @ 05/08/2009 8:36:18 AM
Assuming the facts inthe first paragraph are correct, Mexico is sending drugs and illegal aliens north to the U.S. and receiving cash and guns in return. The cops and politicians are collecting bribes from the cartels, and the government is collecting cash from the U.S. government to "help fight the war". They also collect 'remittances' from their people here.
How can they continue to play the victim in the above scenario? The American fools who use the drugs are the victims-right?-and the supplier, Mexico, is getting richer.
Now California is 'discussing' legalizing drugs because the state is so broke. And part of the reason for that is that the state is so generous with welfare to illegal aliens.
In a related story today, Obama is refusing to fund the wall at oour southern border, in part because Mexico is "insulted" by iit.
Mexico could be patrolliing the border to stop the aliens from coming; instead it is encouraging them to cross illegally.
To recap, Mexico is getting richer from sending the drugs and illegal aliens north, they are weakening the U.S. with drugs, and are stockpiling guns and other weapons they say come fro us, all the while playing the victim.
Sounds like a conspriacty to me.
-
Posted By: sloopyloo @ 05/08/2009 8:21:41 AM
Is Mexico involved in a conspiracy to destroy the U.S.? They collect billions from us to 'fight the cartels' while the cartels are paying their cops and politicians off. THey are shipping to the U.S. drugs and illegal aliens, and whine and cry that they are victims of the bad ole U.S. citizens who are actually the victims of their drugs. In return they collect guns and cash. What is wrong with this picture?
In a related story today, Obama has refused to fund the wall along the southern border, and Mexico has declared itelf 'insulted' over the wall.
Why isn't Mexico pocicing the border to stop the flow of drugs and illegal aliens to the north, and the flow of guns and cash south? Seems self-explanatory to me.
-
Posted By: mcgillagorilla @ 05/08/2009 12:16:47 AM
the first paragraph of the article is why i quit taking newsweek some time ago and why i can't wait for it to finaly fail.by not telling the truth and lying in reporting makes your magazine no better than the grocery store tabloid. your reporters and editors should be ashamed of themselves.
-
Posted By: PubliusMaximus @ 05/04/2009 1:11:47 AM
Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball are 100% WRONG in their lead paragraph. There is NO EVIDENCE that 90% of illegal arms in Mexico come from the United States.
The BATF has already ADMITTED the 90% number is WRONG -- so WHY are Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball publishing a MAJOR ERROR IN FACT.
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S. (Source: Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/)
-
Posted By: PubliusMaximus @ 05/04/2009 1:06:45 AM
There is NO EVIDENCE that "90 percent of the assault weapons" are coming from the United States. Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball are simply REPEATING PROPAGANDA from the Obama administration. The BATF has already ADMITTED the 90% figure was WRONG.
If Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball were journalism STUDENTS, the would FAIL their class for such a MAJOR ERROR IN FACT.
-
Posted By: Trooper101st @ 05/03/2009 10:04:34 AM
Even if they did ban assault weapons, the criminal element will still get thier hands on them. Where does that leave regular Joe's? Dead on thier living room floor. NO WAY. No ban on weapons, did the Mexicans ever take a look in the mirror? Thier Gov., police, army is rife with CORRUPTION. We are responsible for that? WTF? Suppport the 2nd Amendment, it was written to protect the American people from enemies, foriegn, and DOMESTIC. The domestic part is wat scares me.
-
Posted By: Aaron Allen @ 04/27/2009 11:40:52 PM
How's this: Only NRA members with clean records and no history of mental illness can posess firearms, accessories
for them, and ammunition in any quantity...All non-members wud be disarmed. All criminally-posessed arms wud be des-
troyed. The importation of military firearms of any type wud end and the interstate transportation of any 'strawbought'
guns wud be banned...Felonies committed with guns, real or fake, wud get 10-20 years automatically, including arms
found in stopped vehicles...Raids, sweeps, roadblocks. Stop issuing concealed gun permits by non-active law-enforce-
mentfolk...Wanna shoot? Go to licensed, NRA-sanctioned rang or join CMP [Civilian Marksmanship Program]...
Aaron Allen/ INdiana.-
Posted By: tom343 @ 05/02/2009 7:11:46 AM
As an NRA member, I say that's crazy! Why must membership in an organization be a test one must pass to exercise an enumerated right?
-
-
Posted By: tom343 @ 05/02/2009 7:08:52 AM
This article made a statement as if it was a fact; to wit, the drug criminals in Mexico buy 90% of their sub-machine guns here. here. There is no market these folks can go to here outside the military and perhaps crooked law enforcement to get these things here. So this is a lie.
In the article is asks why Holder has not put in an assault weapon ban. It's been in, It's been in since FDR's time.
Why doesn;t Newsweek trust its fellow citizens as much as it trusts the state?
-
Posted By: exnuke @ 04/30/2009 1:00:26 AM
Does anyone on the editorial board of Newsweek ever read any of the comments on their articles or do they just count the page hits they get from publishing outrageous B***S***? I for one believe it is time to start informing advertisers that their support of anti American propoganda means I can no longer purchase their products. Newsweek can find a little journalistic integrity or have their legal staff start drawing up the Chapter 11 paperwork.
-
Posted By: openandeductateminds @ 04/28/2009 4:23:50 PM
Congress should be ashamed for wasting our time and money with the ban in the first place. It did nothing but ban guns with "scary" features. Fully auto weapons have been illegal for the general public since the 30's. From what I've read the "assault weapons" ban got rid of stuff like guns with pistol grips, guns with collapsible stocks, guns with bayonet lugs and certain high capacity magazines. Actually I think maybe you could have one but not more of those features. Basically nothing that makes it anymore lethal than your average revolver. Unless there have been a whole sh*t load of bayonetting deaths that I'm not hearing about that ban was complete garbage even if you leave out the fact that criminals don't care about the laws anyway.
-
Posted By: RMcdoogle @ 04/28/2009 9:13:19 AM
It's to my understanding that 90 percent of the weapons TRACED (worth tracing because they have numbers on them) come back to the US, there are weapons from other regions in mexico also. Banning assault weapons won't put a stop to arming cartels, it's just an excuse to try and limit the power of the American people.
-
Posted By: RMcdoogle @ 04/28/2009 9:13:06 AM
It's to my understanding that 90 percent of the weapons TRACED (worth tracing because they have numbers on them) come back to the US, there are weapons from other regions in mexico also. Banning assault weapons won't put a stop to arming cartels, it's just an excuse to try and limit the power of the American people.
-
Posted By: memob54 @ 04/27/2009 8:59:04 PM
Let's be real U.S.A, a ban on guns won't do anything. We have made many laws to ban all sort of things that are a danger to socitey. The only reason guns are smuggle to Mexico is because the are illegal over their. They should start their own company in Mexico to produce their own guns and that would solve the problem of smuggling guns. Guns are a bussiness that just need oversight and better ways to track your guns like they track cars and register them. Yes people are dying from guns, thats always been the case since the frist gun. If their wasnlt any guns people would use alternative means to kill each other its part of nature. Solve problems by regulations and legalizing drugs and guns.
-
Posted By: acerprotek @ 04/27/2009 8:51:12 PM
Banning "assault" weapons in the US will have absolutely no effect in Mexico. The only people restricted by these bans are those that LEGALLY purchase firearms. Criminals have no regard for the law or bans and I have no doubt the Mexican drug cartels are getting their weapons elsewhere---and will still continue to get them, quite possibly with the assistance of certain government entities.
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- You guys thought he, like, carried arugula in his pocket to snack on Gibbs on Obama’s diet NYT
- It felt like the earth had split open Juan Martinez, of Tubul, Chile, on the Feb 27 quake NYT
- She kind of cleaned the place out Ben Russo on Palin and entourage at a gifting suite AOL
- I placed the receiver in its cradle and wept Rove on finding out he wouldn't be indicted NYT
- Everything there is to say about health care has been said ObamaAP
Discuss