Did you fail European History, BL? World War I would have still occurred even if the Archduke hadn’t been assassinated. The years leading up to the “War to end all wars” were full of militaristism and nationalism; everyone was just looking for an excuse to go to war. Actually, that’s a pretty relevant comparison then. George W. Bush wanted to go after Saddam and took an essentially unrelated incident and used it to justify war.
Don’t forget current events.
The problem with that site is that it is highly bias. It’s whole point is to make the automatic weapons ban seem bad. The two sites Cala posted had no bias or personal opinions on the ban. It just stated the facts. Who knows if the authors of the sites support the ban or not. Also, I don’t see why you’d not support the ban unless you are planning to buy an automatic weapon for God knows what reason. Unless you are planning on starting a militia to over throw the government, I can’t really think of a reason to need an automatic weapon. Fuck, even in the military we only use automatic weapons for support. We use M16s on semi since if you use auto or burst you won’t hit shit. M240s and M249s are just support weapons we use to keep people back, but aren’t used for the actual fighting as much. Unlike games where pray and spray is is fien and encouraged. The real-life application is very different. Heck, why else do you think we support marksmanship so much and the saying of “One shot, one kill.” Bottomline, assualt weapons aren’t needed. You can’t have weapons in your car or carry them aroudn, so what is the point? There are great restrictions on what you can shoot.
EDIT: After looking through the site a bit, the site has some wrong information and is quite misleading. Such as ti says that they are easy to shoot with a minimal amount of instruction. That is wrong. Shooting in real life vs games and shit is quite different. Also, ti says that in these post 9/11 days everyone needs one to protect themselves from threats. Wake-up call. That is why we have the most powerful military in the world. Not only that, but assault weapons do jack shti against a plane crashing into a building. It says that they are better for competitions. Well, if you want, you can change the rules slightly. Heck, it is actually possible to qualify with a civilian version and competitions are handled where magazines changes aren’t done too much since it is about accuracy in a time limit.
notes yar, my points are being less and less to the point, i am getting kinda impatient with this thread though, so my comments and points are less thought out, and possibly ill-concieved. But everyone does seem to be blaming bush for a lot of shit he isnt responsible for. I have been studying Shakespeare lately more than history and current events. I keep wanting to shout “CRY HAVOC, and let slip the dogs of war” and “The winter of our discontent has been made glorious summer by this sun of York” and “So flies the reckless shepard from the wolf, so the first harmless sheep doth yeild it’s fleece and next his throat unto the butchers knife.”
My favourites though are from Richard the 3rd, but they are too many to post here… and worthy of a whole new thead on the subject. Isnt it funny how when you study a subject quite passionately, it snuffs out what you have learned before for a while, untill you have the time to actually sort things out in your mind… am maybe i am just insane…
EDIT:
Infonick, the first link she posted was pretty straight foreward. But the 2nd one, when i start seeing shit about “the killing machines” and “sarah brady” i think biased. And yes, the AWB was a very bad thing.
As to your question about “why would anyone want to own one” that page has a good answer. i’ll copy and paste for you,There are many answers to that question. It’s kind of like asking a car enthusiast why they would ever want to own a 425 horsepower 1968 Corvette Stingray. There are many reasons, some objective, some emotional. All of them legitimate, at least to the driver.
In many ways, military style rifles are the “sports cars” of the gun world. They are noisy, fast, fun and they are “attention getters.”
So, let’s look at a few reasons that people own military style rifles.
First of all, military rifles are easy to operate. They are ergonomically designed so that people of every shape and size can use them. Military rifles are generally lightweight, so they are easy to carry and hold. They are also designed so that an individual can become proficient with them after a minimal amount of instruction. The military style rifles that can be purchased by the public incorporate these same design features.
By the nature of their original purpose, military rifles are designed to be reliable. They have to be able to function in virtually every type of environment, whether it is snow, rain, mud, or sand. Civilian versions of these weapons feature similar reliability because they are built to the same manufacturing specifications.
Military style rifles are fun to shoot. They don’t have much recoil, so they don’t hurt your shoulder the way some other rifles do. (Shotguns come to mind!) Military style rifles shoot ammunition that is used by many countries. The military rifles of the United States typically use cartridges that have been adopted by all of our NATO allies and are manufactured around the world. The AK family of military style rifles uses cartridges that are manufactured in China or the former Soviet Union. The result of this is that ammunition for military style rifles is readily available, and relatively inexpensive. Therefore you can shoot military style rifles quite a bit without “breaking the bank.”
Another feature for many enthusiasts is the availability of “after market” accessories for military style rifles. From flashlight attachments, to specialized optics, there are a tremendous number of products and gadgets available to customize or improve the operation of a military style rifle.
From a practical standpoint, military rifles are very accurate. This fact makes them useful to certain groups of hunters and competitive shooters alike. Specialized competitions designed for military style rifles are increasing in popularity. These “practical” competitions are timed events that require the shooter to fire at multiple targets at a variety of distances and locations. Full capacity magazines, (also banned by the 1994 act) are a requirement for this type of competition since every re-load costs a couple of seconds.
Let’s not ignore the value of these rifles for personal defense. With the right type of ammunition, military style rifles can be a very effective defensive weapon. Many police agencies have recognized their value and have adopted their use in close quarter tactical operations. In these post 9/11 days, prudent Americans recognize that we are all vulnerable and should be prepared to defend ourselves, our families, our communities, and our country from threats that can strike us anytime and anyplace. A well-trained person, armed with a military style rifle can provide a deterrent and, if necessary, an effective defense. Full capacity magazines, whether for rifles or pistols, are also very important in this role, particularly in a situation where a homeowner finds him/herself facing multiple attackers.
Military style rifles are well designed and very reliable. They are fun and economical to shoot. They can be easily “customized.” They are accurate and they can also provide an effective defense for yourself and your loved ones.
The real question should be: Why wouldn’t you want to own one?
No one is really “blaming Bush.” We are just giving credit where it is deserved. Iraq? He pushed us into it. Patriot Act? He pushed that and wanted that too, “to protect us from terrorist.” I don’t see how that is really blaming him. He did the actions and pushed them. Iraq can’t realy be seen as anything but his doing since everyone was against it…except Rumsfeld.
All this poll proves is that the majority of people here are either democrats or democrat sympathizers.
WRONG- I am a registered Socialist.
Born_Loser, yeah, I’m sure your military style rifles will really come in handy when we’re attacked by terrorists who are willing to die for their cause.
And oh my, not having full capacity magazines really would slow down competition times! They’ll have to change them more often, getting slower times, thus ruining the entire sport! Surely we shouldn’t ban things that are so much fun! People also have fun by driving in ways that are considered reckless! How dare they make something illegal that some people consider fun!
Also, your arguments are kind of extremely biased. So it is ok for republicans to try to pass a bad law like the patriot act, and the democrats only oppose it because they are the other party? If it was the other way around you’d be arguing how the republicans were better for trying to stop the corrupt democrats from passing it.
BL, I read that page which si exactly my point. It is bias and those aren’t reasons for people to really want to or need to own one. Did you read my reply?
And about the whole terrorist threat thing:
Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack in 2001 (in America) were about one in a million. Your chances in 2000 were zero. Your chances in 2002 were zero. 2003? Zero. And so far in 2004 zero.
There is a higher death rate of people who died crossing the street than attacked by terrorists in the United States- and it has been like this for a damned long time. Should we take precautions against terrorists? Yes. Should we PANIC about it? Fuck no.
I’m a democrat and I supported the war on terror. HOWEVER, Saddam isn’t Bin Laden…Bush going after Saddam after Bin Laden was the one who attacked us is like me kicking my cat because my dog wreaked the furniture. IT’S JUST DUMB.
Needless to say, I’ll be glad knowing my vote will cancle out one Bush vote this fall.
Actually, it is kicking the cat because you think you see the cat raising one of it’s four legs in preparation to piss on the furniture.
Whether you saw right is irrelevant.
Bin Laden isn’t necessarily the one who caused 9/11 either. Bush had to pick a target, so he figured he’d be smart and go with the good old policy of presumed guilt before innocence of a random person 
Actually, it was proven. bin Laden admitted it in tapes he released. There was also evidence such as capabilities.
It’s still kind of sketchy… no video tapes have been released by the administration, so all we have their word.
We don’t have proof that they’re authentic. Maybe bin Laden was just trying to up his recruitment rate and made himself a little more public.
If he is, then he still deserves what is happening. You can’t claim murder and expect nothing of it.
I never said he shouldn’t be hunted down for claiming it. I’m just saying it might not be true.
What IS happening? I haven’t heard of Bin Laden since Saddam attacked us…wait what? Saddam didn’t attack? He didn’t even have weapons to attack with? Bush makes no sense.
Your mother attacked me you sicko! Bin Lden, you mother, and I are having a grand old time her at Kerto’s place. Chow. :ulty: :hyperven: