Well this should get the USA element of the site all fired up about their right to bear arms and before you all start, I am NOT saying ban all guns.


(October 2002) The largest terrorist organization in the world strikes again. While the entire country is focusing on the phantom sniper, thousands of USA citizens are exercising their right to own a gun and, with that gun, they are doing exactly what the sniper is doing: killing innocents. Americans, especially in the south and the Midwest, love guns. They have lots of them, and they normally shoot their neighbors, family members and schoolmates with them. (How unusual: an American kid shoots classmates). Now they also shoot random people at gas stations and parking lots.
There are about 200 million guns in America (100 times the Iraqi army) and 20,000 people killed every year (500 times the number of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan). Firearm deaths per 100,000 people (CDCP, Bureau Of Justice Statistics, 1998): 14.24 in the U.S., 4.31 in Canada, 0.7 in Holland, and only 0.41 in England (where not even police carry guns). Which means that if you live in the U.S., you are 40 times more likely to die of gunshots than if you live in Britain. Murders by handguns (1996): 15 in Japan, 30 in Britain, 211 in Germany, 9,390 in the United States. Which means if you live in the U.S., you are 300 times more likely to be murdered than in you live in Britain. In 1999 Americans were certainly reassured that "only" 6,000 workers were killed by colleagues in the workplace, a 10% drop from 1994's figure of 6,600, but still just about twice the number of people killed in Kosovo by Milosevic. The scariest data are about the "other" thousands of deaths by handgun: they are suicides and accidents. In the U.S. a child a day is killed by a handgun. All these numbers have been getting worse since Bush became president, thanks to his pro-guns attitude. If you define "terrorist" as "causing terror in the public", the N.R.A., the organization which protects guns, can claim to be, de facto, the deadliest terrorist organization in the world.
It is not even true that the right to bear guns is written in the Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago.
This is not only the effect of a pervasive "culture of guns", but also the effect of a pervasive "culture of cowardice". They shoot victims who cannot defend themselves, victims who don't even know are being shot at. This is precisely the kind of shooter that the NRA (National Rifle Association) represents. The vast majority of NRA members are hunters, people who shoot harmless animals for fun. It is no surprise that someone, or their children, started shooting harmless humans.
The NRA has been spending billions of dollars trying to protect the rights of criminals to kill people and the rights to get away with it. The NRA has opposed any law that would help police track down who owns the gun that killed. And George W Bush has lent his power to help the NRA succeed in establishing the rights of criminals to kill. This is now such a widespread culture that dwarfs any act of terrorism carried out by Muslim extremists: 40 Americans a day are killed by shooters protected by the NRA. That's the equivalent of a World Trade Center attack every two months. Countless Washington politicians are being bribed every week to kill legislation that would hurt the rights of criminals to kill. If this is not treason, what is treason? These are politicians who are helping terrorists kill Americans. If an American Taliban was sentenced to 20 years in jail, what would be an adequate punishment for these coward politicians who sell the lives of thousands of Americans?
The XM-15 used by the sniper is manufactured by Bushmaster Firearms in Maine. Bushmaster's motto is: "the best guns, by a long shot". Bushmaster has made it clear that the XM-15 has been tamed in order to comply with a law passed in 1994 that limits what rifles can be sold to the public. That law expires in 2004, and the NRA has bribed enough politicians to make sure it will not be renewed. Bushmaster has basically told sniper wannabes all over America that, comes 2004, they will be producing a far more deadly gun. The owner of Bushmaster is Richard Dyke: he was the chief fundraiser for George W Bush in Maine.
As we go about investigating "weapons of mass destruction", we shouldn't forget that 20,000 Americans are shot dead every year: isn't that a case of "mass destruction"? Isn't the NRA as guilty as Saddam? Isn't George W Bush the number one traitor of the USA? If we are willing to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, why not the hell out of the NRA's headquarters? If we offer millions of dollars for the capture of Osama, why not offer millions of dollars for the capture of the NRA leadership? If we ask countries around the world to round up friends of Osama, why not round up the many friends of the NRA in Washington? It would save a lot of American lives.
As we fight world terrorism, we shouldn't forget that the largest terrorist organization in the world is based in the USA: the NRA. The NRA is responsible for the deaths of many more Americans than Osama ever dreamed of killing. It even exerts a huge influence on the Washington government: isn't that as scary as Iraq?

It is not even true that the right to bear guns is written in the Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago.

This here I disagree with. I am tired of people making up their own translations of the Constitution such as this one here.

I will say though, that the NRA is just a bogus organization. Getting mad at Smith & Wesson when they were going to start sending locks with their guns. Why would that be such a horrible thing. Guns wouldn't be such a bad idea, if the majority of the people in this country weren't bankrupt in the brain department...

I agree with Thor on this one. Too many people ignore or discredit the parts of the constitution they don't like...or they try to come up with alternate meanings.

As for guns themselves, a firearm by itself will never harm anyone. It's the idiot holding it that kills another human being. I spent several years in law enforcement and I can tell you that if someone gets it in their head to kill someone else...depriving them of guns won't stop them from killing. They will simply find another tool to do the job.

So I guess that means that after guns are banned, knives, axes and shovels are next.

There is only one sure way to stop gun violence and that is to make it punishable by death to commit a crime with a gun. People commit crimes with guns because the punishment is not yet severe enough to stop them from doing so. It should be a capital crime to commit a crime with a gun in your possesion. Use it or not you get the death penalty. It should be carried out within 30 minutes of your sentencing in court. With gun ownership comes responsibility. It also needs to be made a law that if somebody else commits a crime with your gun that you get the death penalty as well if it can be proved that your negligence allowed a the gun to fall into the hands of the criminal. GUNS DO NOT MAGICALLY JUMP UP AND SHOOT THEMSELVES OFF. IT TAKES A HUMAN BEING PURPOSEFULLY EXERTING FORCE ON THE TRIGGER MECHANISM!!! IT IS TIME TO GET TOUGH ON THE CRIMINALS WHO COMMIT THE CRIME AND STOP BLAMING LEGAL GUN OWNERS, GUN CLUBS, AND GUN MANUFACTURERS.

I think the main point about guns are they are a fairly impersonal way of killing - it's too easy to squeeze a trigger.

Now taking an axe or shovel to someone means getting up close and personal and risking harm yourself. Also it's a lot harder to accidentally kill yourself or someone else with an axe or any other bladed weapon.

You have a point there, but banning guns won't stop killing completely.

Besides, how many criminals do you think own firearms legally? And how many would simply turn them over if they were banned?

Actually, a lot of arms dealers are to blame for this mess...

banning guns would mean a whole helluva lot less cases like colombine.

i was bullied terribly at school. if i had been in the states i could have got a gun and killed easily. but coz in the uk it would have been much harder, and although many 15-year-olds will say different, they haven't got the stomach for a fight up close with a blade

Guns don't need to banned, but you shouldn't be able to just walk up and buy a semi or fully automatic weapon over the counter - no questions asked especially easy 2nd hand.

This article is one of the stupidest yet and even starts out so incredibly wrong:
"(October 2002) The largest terrorist organization in the world strikes again. While the entire country is focusing on the phantom sniper, thousands of USA citizens are exercising their right to own a gun and, with that gun, they are doing exactly what the sniper is doing: killing innocents. Americans, especially in the south and the Midwest, love guns. They have lots of them, and they normally shoot their neighbors, family members and schoolmates with them. (How unusual: an American kid shoots classmates). Now they also shoot random people at gas stations and parking lots. "
Yeah, my neibors and I shoot at each other all the time to where you can say it is a common occurance. And my son, the little Daddy's Sniper, he's bagged 6 teachers, 14 students and has shot the principal in the arse three times just to torment the old bugger.

Gosh, this is not even an article, it is pure vomit, written by a total moron who has no idea what "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is all about, nor does he know what the NRA is about, nor does the dim-witted buffoon know who really protects the criminals. Point in case:
"The NRA has been spending billions of dollars trying to protect the rights of criminals to kill people and the rights to get away with it."
This is outright propaganda, as the NRA does not prevent the courts from punishing those who commit a crime with a firearm. As a matter of fact, the government is woefully sorry at prosecuting gun-crimes as they should. I wonder why an administration that was full of gun haters like the last administration was the worst at prosecuting federal gun crimes? Come on, think like you're a member of a conspiracy website and figure out how the government profits from lawlessness.

20,000 firearms-related deaths, that is correct. Half of that number is suicide, though. What is the percentage connected to firearms being used to repel personal crimes? And, how about accidental disccharges, stupidity has its price, too, you know. But what could be the price of relinquishing our right to keep and bear arms? Why did the Founding Fathers find it so important that the citizen's right to keep and bear arms be included as protected God-given rights?

If you'd really like to get a little isight on their thoughts, read Federalist Papers, numbers 12, 19, 28, 39, 46 and 48. These will help quite a bit.

As far as the article, I am glad it has been posted here, even in its entirety (against procedure) as it highlights the capability of people to lie and distort truth and fact for their agenda. This particular agenda is one belonging to the "Agenda", as they cannot clamp down on their chattel property if that property is armed and willing to defend their cable TV's.

[Edited on 12-8-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

As an Englishman, it's not an issue I've ever had to face (that said: the reaction to Dunblane was absurd); but given the number of deaths by gunfire (non-suicide) I could see that being just as easily a case for bearing personal arms: otherwise, maybe, the numbers would be much higher. if there are that man armed criminals about -I'd certainly want a gun.
I'll never forget my first ever Fly-Drive holiday in the States and the car-hire chap advising me to strip off all the transfers (decals) immediately as that would identify me a tourist and therefore ipso fact unarmed.
I can see the logic of the law-abiding being allowed small-arms (and facing stiff penalties for any infrigements of relevant legislation e.g. storage - it must happen that little kids find dad's legal gun - foolishly accessible): the way England appears to be going I'm not sure we won't be needing them there soon.
As for the Constitution: think there's much to be said for the notion that the Amendment was there to enable citizens to resist an equally-armed tyranny and was, tehrefore, intended in some sense to be "future-proof"

The article invites discussion. If not the gun laws, if not ultra-capitalism, what does invite so much violence in the United States, comparable only to messed up &crime-dominated countries like Russia ?

As a gun owner, I will say that the NRA is a waste of time and money. I never did join and I never will. These are the idiots that push the issue too far and make all gun owners look bad. (before you NRA members go nuts on me, the IDIOTS I am refering to are the top guys in the "association" not the individual members)

The more they push their so called issues over on the govt, the more the govt is going to try to ban all guns. I believe we should have the right to own guns. There are some that should be banned for anything other than military. I am talking fully automatic weapons. Anything other than those though, should remain legal.

The only thing NRA is good for is their semi-motto, as I say it all the time. The govt can have my guns when they pull them from my cold dead fingers.

Thanks first to TC, you saved me a TON of typing

This logic just cracks me up:

It is not even true that the right to bear guns is written in the Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago.

So I guess the first amendment only applies to the printing press and quill pen. You are also only protected from illegal search and seizure if you live in a hand hewn log cabin.
Then we have this little gem:

That law expires in 2004, and the NRA has bribed enough politicians to make sure it will not be renewed. Bushmaster has basically told sniper wannabes all over America that, comes 2004, they will be producing a far more deadly gun.

The truth is that the traditional anti-gun politicians realized that pushing the issue is political suicide.
And how exactly are these guns going to be MORE deadly? Yeah, that flash suppresor actually makes the bullets bigger as they leave the barrel, yeah that's it. [/sarcasm]

This one as well:

The NRA has been spending billions of dollars trying to protect the rights of criminals to kill people and the rights to get away with it.

WHAT???????
The NRA is trying to get the govt. to prosecute gun criminals MORE harshly, as TC pointed out.
This whole "article" is a piece of propogandist disinformation.
Won't surprise me if you see a law suit filed against the author for slander.

Originally posted by Fry2
Thanks first to TC, you saved me a TON of typing

This logic just cracks me up:

It is not even true that the right to bear guns is written in the Constitution: the Constitution talks about guns that were available at the end of the 18th century, and was written before the US developed a true army. It makes no reference to "every future evolution of guns". Therefore, the only guns that are constitutionally legal are the ones that were available two hundred years ago.

So I guess the first amendment only applies to the printing press and quill pen. You are also only protected from illegal search and seizure if you live in a hand hewn log cabin.
Then we have this little gem:

That law expires in 2004, and the NRA has bribed enough politicians to make sure it will not be renewed. Bushmaster has basically told sniper wannabes all over America that, comes 2004, they will be producing a far more deadly gun.

The truth is that the traditional anti-gun politicians realized that pushing the issue is political suicide.
And how exactly are these guns going to be MORE deadly? Yeah, that flash suppresor actually makes the bullets bigger as they leave the barrel, yeah that's it. [/sarcasm]

This one as well:

The NRA has been spending billions of dollars trying to protect the rights of criminals to kill people and the rights to get away with it.

WHAT???????
The NRA is trying to get the govt. to prosecute gun criminals MORE harshly, as TC pointed out.
This whole "article" is a piece of propogandist disinformation.
Won't surprise me if you see a law suit filed against the author for slander.

Amen Fry2, took the words right out of my mouth.

Liberals are what is killing this country, take the guns, sue everybody, don't work it's okay, NAFTA rocks......sorry ,er, got off topic.


No one will ever take my guns, I have the right to carry weapons, my founding fathers blessed me with that gift. I have never shot at anyone, nor menaced a soul with my fire arms. I will protect my family if someone breaks into my home, you'd better believe it. There will be no Ramsey case involving my family. You come in my home and menace me or mine and you will be shot, period. People don't see the liberal's big picture here, take the guns, take control, take control.

I pray that people see the light someday.

I see most of you say 'they won't take my guns'

Plural not singular - if as you say they are only for shooting people threatening you or your property why do you need more than one and why more than a simple pistol?

Its obvious none of you gun toting folks can read because I have said in each post that I don't think guns should be banned but I guess you are blind to anything that isn't totally in line with your view of the world.

Hey why don't we all carry personal nukes and bio weapons then we can all feel really safe from the terrorists too.

I see most of you say 'they won't take my guns'

Plural not singular - if as you say they are only for shooting people threatening you or your property why do you need more than one and why more than a simple pistol?

Its obvious none of you gun toting folks can read because I have said in each post that I don't think guns should be banned but I guess you are blind to anything that isn't totally in line with your view of the world.

Hey why don't we all carry personal nukes and bio weapons then we can all feel really safe from the terrorists too.

Huh?
No one said that guns were only for defending ones home. I have different guns for different uses. It's tough to shoot skeet with a handgun...trust me
You don't shoot long range targets with a shotgun and you don't use a high powered rifle at an indoor pistol range.
More to the point though, why do we need more than one? The police and military have more than just pistols as well. The true purpose of the Second amendment is to prevent the people from being "outgunned" by a corrupt government. Quite simple really.
I read just fine. No one was aiming (no pun intended) ANYTHING at you personally. We just read the article copy and paste job and commented on the material.

By the way, where do I get those personal nukes?

Originally posted by johnb
Hey why don't we all carry personal nukes and bio weapons then we can all feel really safe from the terrorists too.

Cool, is there a waiting limit on the nukes? Or do I have to take a safety course?

"NRA - Deadliest Organization in world"

...smile when you say that, Pilgrim!