StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Seems like every program i've watched in the past 20 or so hours, the gun control advocates are beating there drum harder than ever now.

The gun show loop hole on next,

Just what is an AR15 and how easy are they to get, tomarrow night.

1,000 Bushmasters are sold daily via the gun show loop hole....

Gun control advocates turn away from handguns and are now focused on assault weapons,

Yada yada yada.....

Shits gonna get deep...VERY DEEP.

Like I figured it would...

Get it now if you want it......tomarrow may be too late.

[Large Nazi Swastika image deleted- DW]

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer "Disarm the Citizenry," Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996


" Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It does not matter if you have to distort facts or even lie." (--Sarah Brady --Handgun Control , Inc. , The National Educator, January, 1994)


Rep. Waxman: " If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start
using their weapons to protect their rights,
makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!"

Rep. Waxman: “If they are militia people who think they’re going to defend America from Americans by having these weapons, and using them for that purpose, I don’t think they ought to have them.”

" The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" --Bill Clinton, during an interview on MTV in 1993


"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans . . . ."
--William J. Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban [on "assault weapons"], picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) CBS 60 Minutes, Feb. 5, 1995. Feinstein has a gun permit in the state of California


"... gun control should override any personal need for safety."
Feminist icon Betty Friedan quoted by Ann Japenga, Health, March/April 1994

"Ban the things. Ban them all."
Molly Ivins, Washington Post, Mar. 16, 1993


"Rather than shooting rapists, it is women's Christian duty to submit to rape."
Reverend Allen Brockway, editor of the official magazine of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church. Brockway, "But the Bible Doesn't Mention Pistols," Engage/Social Action Forum, May, 1977, pp. 39-40.


"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93


"I'm convinced that we have to have Federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal!"
Nelson T. Shields Founder of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"The Constitution is a radical document... it is the job of the government to rein in people's rights."
William J Clinton on MTV - 1992


There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers. I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.
Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992, at 9A

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996


"And it never, ever was interpreted that the Second Amendment meant individual's right to bear arms"
Rosie O'Donnell, Speaking with Katie Couric on NBC's "Today" June 2000


I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell on The Rosie O'Donnell Show April 19, 1999


"I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous."
Rosie O'Donnell during interview with Carolyn McCarthy as quoted in the Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55




Their march will go on .... will you stand against tyranny ?

Yup.

Assholes!!

The real defenition of gun control: Being able to hit your target.

What is up there is "Gun Confiscation"

So Manji, are you saying that I live in a tyranny. Democracies which have stringent gun control are not dictatorships or tyrannys, if the British people wanted guns we would elect a government who let us have them, can't you accept that a lot of people don't want guns?

Anyway, I believe your government don't let private citizens buy armed Kilo attack submarines or fully functional jet fighters, does that mean that you live in a dictatorship?

I support gun control [stop right now anyone who was going to flame]. But not the WAAAAAY out there gun control proposed by many of the "bleeding heart liberals" as they are called in the US.

Having spent much time while growing up on a farm I have a great respect for firearms and realise that they are, at times, a neccessary part of life. In some cases though, it can be downright ridiculous.

For example in Australia, automatic weapons are illegal, semi-autos with a magazine about 10rnd (I think) are illegal, semi-autos in general are strictly controlled, bolt actions and shotguns remain fairly readily available. Now, for your average utilitarian gun owner (not a target shooter or someone who carries one for "protection") a semi-auto or bolt action is the most you'll need for pest control, the occassional "putting down" and other general farm work. I mean, come on, who really needs an M2 browning to hunt possums?

Anyhow, firearms are fairly strictly controlled, there is a minimum age for licenses and a loooong application process that includes psych testing and a 3 month (again, correct me if I'm wrong) cooling off period. Hunters and target shooters can still have weapons, but they too are limited in what they can use. Guns when not in use are required to be stored in gunsafes, not sticking to this can result in prison time (yes thats right, prison for not securing your firearms).

After the Monash shootings we can expect even harsher pistol laws to come into effect. The fact remains however that those who *need* guns have them. Those that don't need them, can still get them but its much harder than just walking into a WalMart. Plus what you can but is strictly controlled.

Does anyone think that this isn't a good or even fair method of gun control?

gun control in the us is far too weak. nobody should be allowed to have guns exept for people who really need one. for example:
policemen when on duty.
hunters; only hunters with hunting licence. and only hunting rifles; no hand guns or automatic stuff.
maybe people who live in the outback or some place like that should be able to get a special licence for a hunting rifle, to protect themselves from wild animals, crocodiles or whatever roams the wilderness in australia.

Gun ownership should be regulated and their should be some standards to adhere to. That does not mean they should be banned.

Anyone remember that shocking POS movie Red Dawn where the Soviets invade America? You see a sticker on a pick-up truck (in Australia we call em Utes) saying

"You can have my gun... when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!"

The camera pans to dead redneck with a Colt 1911A1, a Soviet paratrooper kneels down, picks it up, and walks off.

Amusing ... though I don't know what they were trying to say with that.

Shit movie.

"Comrade, where shall we land our elite Vozdushno Desantniye Voiska company?"

"At this high school, comrade! Those teenagers won't know what hit them!"

"Look sir, its a small rural town with absolutely no strategic value whatsoever!"
"Excellent, commence the attack..."

Ok Most here by now know while I'm in favor of some forms of gun control not anything extreme as Weedadando mentions that the "bleeding heart Liberals" are suggestion

For those of you outside the US a quick break down of US Politics

Liberals-Know as Democrats, The Green Party these are the people who support Socailsim style programs of more goverment control + higher taxs
Free Heathcare ect ect anything like that is a "liberal" program.
Can basicly be summed up in they think your to dumb to know what you want and they think they know what it is
Most often assoicated with Scandals and Voting Fraud problems

Conservative-Know as Rebulicans normaly(I can't think of a smaller more extremist party assocated with them) They can be summed up in wanting less goverment programs and more invdiual control by the people because they assume they are not idiots
Most offten assoicated with Extremists, the Liberals have some extremists but nothing anywhere close to some Conservatives


Thats the basic break-down, Liberals think they know better, Conservatives think you know better. How closley they stick is dependant on the person but it should be noted Liberals Tend to towards hypocracy and contradicting themsleves while Conservatives normaly will stick to a position with C4 straped and the plunger in thier hand before they comprimse on the subject


Anyway to the orgional point

Hand-guns yes the most deaths are caused by them because they are readly aviable easy to concile, steal or make

My Browning MK III I paid over $500+ Dollers for, that is not a gun I got angrey went out and bought with a fifty

The main problem today is the cheep "saterday night specials" as they are called, Small Revolver or Semi-Auto hand-guns with substanderd parts and poor accurasy and numerous other flaws, however the one thing they do have going for them is they ARE increably cheap, I have seem $19.99 Hand-guns before and that is the problem is they are small and cheap and easy to get ahold of when angrey

Back to the orgional point Bushmasters, AR-15s, Even that .50CAL Shep brings up are rarley used to commit crimes as few criminals have the $900-$7000 nessary to buy the things

weemadando wrote:I support gun control [stop right now anyone who was going to flame]. But not the WAAAAAY out there gun control proposed by many of the "bleeding heart liberals" as they are called in the US.

Having spent much time while growing up on a farm I have a great respect for firearms and realise that they are, at times, a neccessary part of life. In some cases though, it can be downright ridiculous.
snip

NZ's laws are similar, but the licences are easier to get. If I have a general licence, getting a rifle is quite easy, over the counter stuff, but I cannot get a millitary/semi auto rifle with that, you ned another licence for that, but if you want a semi auto you can get one.
The recent sniper thing in America shows somthing I have long suspected, that a nut with a good bolt action is potentially more dangerous than a nut with a semi auto.
But one thing I am certain of, most mass killings are done by those with something loose in the head, and its those people who you must keep guns away from. America's gun issue, I think has as more to do with culture as anything, not the firearms themselfs, but perhaps more should be done to keep the mental patient types away from firearms?. NZ does not have these problems {bar the odd nutter}, and only 27 NZ police officers have been killled on duty since 1897, and our police are unarmed as a general rule.
Another thing I am certain of, banning guns is stupid and illogical.

weemadando wrote: Anyhow, firearms are fairly strictly controlled, there is a minimum age for licenses and a loooong application process that includes psych testing and a 3 month (again, correct me if I'm wrong) cooling off period. Hunters and target shooters can still have weapons, but they too are limited in what they can use. Guns when not in use are required to be stored in gunsafes, not sticking to this can result in prison time (yes thats right, prison for not securing your firearms).

Except that this didn't stop one crazed asian asshole from going nuts.....

MKSheppard wrote:Except that this didn't stop one crazed asian asshole from going nuts.....

False dilemma; the "zero gun regulation" crowd invariably points to the fact that countries with gun control still experience shootings in order to claim that gun regulation is completely useless. The fact that these countries typically have one tenth the murder rate of the United States (or less) is quietly ignored.

Is that because of the guns? Maybe. Is it because of culture? Maybe. Is it because of both? Probably; it's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. But since the alteration of culture involves the suppression of even more basic rights (freedom of speech, thought) than the regulation of guns, most humanist countries go after the guns.

I can go out and buy a gun in Canada if I want to. There's some red tape involved, and I can't buy an unlimited variety of military weapons, but I can buy a gun nonetheless. I don't see why my country, typical of gun-control countries, should be compared to Nazism or a dictatorship. I'm really sick of the slippery-slope fallacies and false dilemmas employed by the "zero regulation" gun advocates. There is a reasonable middle ground, and many countries employ it without sliding into dictatorship.

PS. As for the argument that an armed citizenry will keep the government in line, that is simply ridiculous; the balance of power between militaries and militias has shifted vastly toward the former since the time of your Founding Fathers, thanks to the march of technology, so stop quoting their authority as support for the idea. People often point to Afghanistan as an example of militias overcoming a military, but they ignore the fact that the Soviets did easily seize control of all the major population centres without a serious fight. They couldn't root the Mujahedin out of the mountains and they eventually withdrew because it wasn't worth it (particularly when the Americans started sending a stream of military hardware and advisors to help the Mujahedin), but a dictatorial American government isn't going to withdraw from its own country because it's expensive. To use that as an argument for militias actually overcoming a military is moronic. Somalia is a better example of a militia against a military with air support; 19 American dead, 1000 Somalis dead.

Darth Wong wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:Except that this didn't stop one crazed asian asshole from going nuts.....

False dilemma; the "zero gun regulation" crowd invariably points to the fact that countries with gun control still experience shootings in order to claim that gun regulation is completely useless. The fact that these countries typically have one tenth the murder rate of the United States (or less) is quietly ignored.

Did you not get the part about people having to undergo a 3 month waiting
period and a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION before they can buy a gun in
Australia? All that stuff didn't do a damn thing.....especially the PSYCH testing....

Can you please explain to me why the scientific method obviously doesn't
apply to gun control laws?

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:Except that this didn't stop one crazed asian asshole from going nuts.....

False dilemma; the "zero gun regulation" crowd invariably points to the fact that countries with gun control still experience shootings in order to claim that gun regulation is completely useless. The fact that these countries typically have one tenth the murder rate of the United States (or less) is quietly ignored.

Did you not get the part about people having to undergo a 3 month waiting period and a PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION before they can buy a gun in Australia? All that stuff didn't do a damn thing.....especially the PSYCH testing....

Compare Australia's gun homicide rate to that of America, please.

Can you please explain to me why the scientific method obviously doesn't apply to gun control laws?

Pot calling the kettle black. Compare Australia's gun homicide rate to that of America, please.

I made a point that people like you stubbornly draw false dilemma fallacies; if it fails to stop 100% of all gun homicides, then it's completely useless. Thanks for proving my point (interestingly enough, this is the same fallacy used by the idiots who advocate "abstinence-only", no-condom sex education programs to fight STD transmission in schools).

Darth Wong wrote: Pot calling the kettle black. Compare Australia's gun homicide rate to that of America, please.

Are we going by per capita rate or overall number of homicides? America
does have 300 million people vs australia's 25+ million....

As for the scientific method, you should have seen the uproar that our
Republican candidate for governor here in Maryland caused when he
said that he'd "examine some of Maryland's gun laws," including
the State's ballistic fingerprinting law, with an eye toward repealing
them.

Ballistic fingerprinting is a crock, and it's costing us millions each year
to simply run the damn program here in MD, AND NOT ONE CRIME HAS
BEEN SOLVED BY OUR DATABASE.

There need to be sensible gun regulations. They should close the gun show loophole immediatly. There's no point to a law with such a massive hole.

Sensible gun control can both reduce crime AND still allow citizen to own guns. Just because deadly weapons are regulated doesn't mean thengovernment is going to come take your guins.

Stormbringer wrote:There need to be sensible gun regulations. They should close the gun show loophole immediatly. There's no point to a law with such a massive hole.

There is no such fucking massive hole. If you want to buy a gun at a gun show,
you must have to go thru the background check and fill out the forms....

Ask me......I had to wait for the background check to go through at a gun
show before I could walk away with a Ruger 10/22 years ago.....

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Pot calling the kettle black. Compare Australia's gun homicide rate to that of America, please.

Are we going by per capita rate or overall number of homicides? America does have 300 million people vs australia's 25+ million....

And the murder rate will still be far lower, per capita, in Australia, as it is in Canada. Did you know that Toronto, the fifth largest metropolitan city in North America (behind Mexico City, New York, LA, and Chicago), has around 100 homicides a year? Compare that to a typical American city.

As for the scientific method, you should have seen the uproar that our Republican candidate for governor here in Maryland caused when he said that he'd "examine some of Maryland's gun laws," including the State's ballistic fingerprinting law, with an eye toward repealing them.

What does that have to do with your insistence on employing false-dilemma fallacies and slippery-slope fallacies, or the scientific method? Are you implying that the entire concept of gun regulation lives or dies with the validity of the ideas of one man?

I want my M-16!! How DARE those mother fuckers take away MY right to own a Bazooka, several cruise missles, and a nuclear weapons. Those fucking bloody bleading-heart lie-berals. What will they do when they meet a mugger in a street corner huh? HUH? Well I don't know about them, but I'LL be carrying around my three AK-47s. He'll never know what hit him.

Darth Wong wrote: What does that have to do with your insistence on employing false-dilemma fallacies and slippery-slope fallacies, or the scientific method? Are you implying that the entire concept of gun regulation lives or dies with the validity of the ideas of one man?

Did you know that the sniper that terrorized the DC area brought his
AR-15, and passed the NATIONAL INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM, even though
he had a restraining order against him by his ex-wife, which made it ILLEGAL
for him to own a gun?

Shit, what's your suggestion, Mike, pass more laws? Revise the laws we have
to close "loopholes"?

Hell, good luck Mike, let'see how one more gun law will solve crime......



WOW, all those laws haven't even slowed down crime in this country.....

MKSheppard wrote:WOW, all those laws haven't even slowed down crime in this country.....

A chart for word-counts of gun laws? Who cares?

What makes you think I'm pushing for wordier gun laws? I'm just saying that the idea of gun regulation makes sense. You insist on changing the subject to "is a specific gun law well-written". Like most NRA types, your use of logical fallacies is frequent and unapologetic.

As for the inability of the laws to make crime go away, you are presuming that you know what the gun homicide rate would be without those laws in place. And half the reason for the huge size of the laws is the loopholes that people like the NRA insist upon.

Murder is already illegal and against the law many many ways over.
Do these laws stop Murder?

MKSheppard wrote:Murder is already illegal and against the law many many ways over.

Do these laws stop Murder?

No, yet we would be crazy to remove the laws against murder! Don't you understand that this is precisely why your argument against any form of gun regulation is a fallacy?

Face it, Shep. You are a violent ex-convict. There is no way any reasonable set of gun laws in the world would allow you to get a gun. And while we cannot make it impossible, we can at least try to make it difficult for you to get around the laws.

I reiterate: the logical fallacy in your argument is identical to that of the moronic "condoms don't work 100%" argument used by the abstinence-only crowd in sex education: it is a "black and white" fallacy. Please look it up.

*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*