You have admitted right here that the ban is just a shallow and utterly meaningless piece of legislation. The only logical advocacy is an overall fear/hatred/general malignance towards firearms as a general group.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

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. -- US Constitution

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

US Code: Sec. 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes:

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

b) The classes of the militia are -

-----1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

-----2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

According to these two documents, all federal gun control is illegal beyond all debate. The National Firearms Act is an infringement, the 1989 Import Ban is, and so on and so-forth... Well, the point is

Anyone who favors illegal legislation to pander and kowtow to special interest groups like the VPC, as opposed to favoring legal repeal of such illegal legislation to pander and kowtow to such special interests as the NRA and the Pink Pistols, doesn't get my vote. The AWBan is an admitted (by its authors) step, a small step but a step all the same, in totally banning firearms in the US. Even if you're so rabidly anti-gun that the word O-Gauge has you foaming at the mouth and/or frothing at the crotch (thank you, George Carlin) you can't deny the absolute criminality of such legislation. I should be able to go down to the surplus store (Klinton got rid of this expense reducing program, sadly) and pick up a few M-16s, grenade launchers, machineguns, and enough ammo to go partying at the range all weekend, and I shouldn't have to pay over 200 dollars in transfer taxes per item just to do it all! I know a few friends who'd love to do this sort of thing, who have a completely spotless record, and are fine, upstanding citizens.

That depends on Kerry's viability. Tell you what, after the election, we'll count up all third party candidate votes and throw them on Kerry's count. If he still loses, it doesn't matter.

Remember though, that you have to count district votes, not popular, as the popular vote, while the one we should be counting in today's world, means nothing before the election law.

Anyone but bush doesn't count. The democratic supportives make you think that Bush is making the economy fall, when actually it's fallen cause of the world trade center losing many stock records, and all of our main manufactuares moved out of the us and into europe.

The US is much, much safer Since 911, I havn't gone to a place where someone would think about killing, or stealing, or something under that category were they'd use a weapon wihtout seeing security guards, cameras, and/or metal/weapon detectors.

Your generalisations and mislabelling suggest the contrary

Quote:

and I am not anti-Christian.

Your frequent attacks and persistent derisions suggest the contrary.

NB: Mouse. This is a political discussion. Religion has become a factor in the presidential race. Kerry brought it up in his speech in Boston. Are we able to discuss the presidential campaigns here or not. The "religious right" in America has a huge voting bloc which heavily influences the election. Many of faith are completely put off by Edwards advocacy of partiqal birth abortions for example, and yet also the Republicans lack of social support. (Health care) It can become "the lesser of two evils". Voting against the democrats because killing babies is considered worse than denying the poor proper health care. </font>[/QUOTE]I have to admit out of expeirience with my parents that either he is droping healthcare, or it is the lawyers, and/or state gov's fault.
Bush actually is the lesser of 2 evils, to add to Yorick's statement Kerry and most of the democrates are hypocrytes and liars.

Your generalisations and mislabelling suggest the contrary
</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. I have routinely gone out of my way to avoid generalizations. You cant force me to accept your opinions so you attack me instead. You have mislabeled me.
Your frequent attacks and persistent derisions suggest the contrary.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You cant tolerate or respect my opinions, so you label them as attacks and derisions.

Continue with the character attacks and my only reply shall be to tell you how wrong you are.

4 bush
3 kerry
1 nader
2 anyone but bush
1 indifferent communist
1 undecided
edit:
2 kerry
1 greater of two evils "jk"
[img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-02-2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Keal ]

Well, you're not denying the poor anything. You're just not giving them something. It's not like they'd paid a bill for healthcare and then you decided to not serve them as they'd paid for. That would be denying them.

The thing is, the poor are being taxed redundantly. They can at a given percentage only account for 5% of the taxed income. My solution: Stop taxing the poor shmoes, and then sooner or later (sooner rather than later) abolish all income taxes, and shrink government accordingly. I want all money going into any programs to be an A->B situation. No funny-money or book-cookery.

No problem Mouse. I didnt want to discuss religion in the first place, but in expressing my disagreement with some of Bush's words and policys I don't think I could have used words other than "religious idealouge" to express my exact opinion.

Also, I did avoid refering to Bush's religion by name because my disagreement has nothing to do with his particular religion or his personal practice. Once again it is his words and proposed policies as a national leader.


Anyway, I apologize for even bringing it up. I should have known better- as a usual suspect- that mentioning the "R" word, even in a small passing comment, would cause trouble.

Speaking of polls....

This site:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

has an intersting take on the use of polls to estimate electoral outcome.

Enjoy!

Change that to 4 Kerry instead of anyone but Bush. I said that I'd support and vote for Kerry.

[ 08-03-2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

Oblivion, you've bought into the NRA knee-jerk to any gun legislation hook, line, and sinker. I haven't. It's that simple. Being so loggerheaded on an issue makes them look as crazy to me as being against cars makes the Sierra Club look to me or as being against animal ownership and leather shoes makes PETA look to me. I tend toward the middle.

I agree with you that I'd prefer less restrictive gun laws in some respects. Not in all respects. Of course, living in the Democratic Republic of Illinois inside the Peoples' Union of Chicago, I suffer the harshest gun laws in the nation. And it pisses me off. :mad: Of course, neither Bush nor Kerry can nor will change my situation.

All that said, I don't vote on one single issue. I look to all issues, see which candidate agrees with me more in the totality of the situation, and vote for that candidate.

I mean, I'm absolutely against the illegalization of marijuana as well, but again, neither candidate will change that, so it's not on my list of "hot button" items to vote for. Even if one candidate had vowed to change it, I think I'd still consider a little doobage to be less of an issue that the economy, balancing the budget, the environment, and some other issues that I simply care more about.