behold a pale horse

Originally posted by ilovehaters
has anyone read what william cooper read about aids now that is completely believable i think the govt created it to help reduce the population......

Could it also be that the government is lifting the assault weapons ban in the hopes that one faction of the poverty classes will wipe out the other and a few more extraneous members of society???

[edit on 11-9-2004 by j2ts2]

Originally posted by j2ts2
Could it also be that the government is lifting the assault weapons ban in the hopes that one faction of the poverty classes will wipe out the other and a few more extraneous members of society???

The ban on assault weapons is being allowed to expire because of heavy lobbying by the NRA, who are funnelling millions to Republican members of Congress, as well as the White House. This is another unfortunate incident of allowing special interests to decide legislation just because they have a strong cash flow.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 11-9-2004 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by j2ts2
Could it also be that the government is lifting the assault weapons ban in the hopes that one faction of the poverty classes will wipe out the other and a few more extraneous members of society???

The ban on assault weapons is being allowed to expire because of heavy lobbying by the NRA, who are funnelling millions to Republican members of Congress, as well as the White House. This is another unfortunate incident of allowing special interests to decide legislation just because they have a strong cash flow.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 11-9-2004 by Masonic Light]

A a free man, and not as a mason, I must say that I do not like weapons restrictions, but I understand them. I am a member of the NRA, and I support their campaigning on these issues, though I do not agree with all of the NRA's positions.

My problem is that there are lots of gun laws already that are not being enforced. It is not a matter of prevention, in my mind, but of strict enforcement of existing laws. Instead, the antigun forces really seem to want ALL guns removed from private hands, which makes for these ridiculous fights over "assault" weapon bans, because the end game for the antigunners is no guns.

Do I think we need assault weapons? Heck no... do I think guns are just for hunting? Heck no. I have a 12 ga short barrel pump mossberg with a pistol grip for home protection and a colt .45 automatic with silvertips as well. I also have a 9mm Krag bolt action for hunting... I don't need a mankiller like an assault weapon, but if I wanted one, why should an antigunner object?

The argument about criminals and guns is specious, and the antigunners know it, but I am willing to admit that the assault weapons ban, in and of itself is not a bad thing, except that it is just one more nail for their argument.

I will give an example that is not directly related to guns, but to law enforcement:

In California, we have the three strikes law, which sends a three time felon to prison for 25 years IN ADDITION to whatever sentence he receives for the third "Strike". However, if a felon actually did the FULL TIME for which he was sentenced, there would be no need for a three strikes law.

Why not eliminate the parole board and require that a prisoner do EVERY SINGLE DAY of his sentence? At HARD LABOR. No TV, no weight sets, no basketball... 8a to 7p hard labor... reducing boulders to sand or digging holes that are then refilled, I don't care, and good behavior the expectation, not the reward. If they act out, add time to their sentences. If they go to school and maintain good grades, they could get out of the labor, otherwise, 10 oz hammers and boulders...

My point is that we are, in relation to guns and crime, addressing the wrong issue. With guns, the punishment for abuse of a weapon or the illegal possession of a firearm should be swift and draconian... say 15 years for illegal possession of a firearm and the same IN ADDITION to any other sentence for the unlawful use of a firearm in conjunction with ANY other crime.

Lets stop trying to disarm and make defenseless the honost citizen... the police, in many instances, are powerless to act, and I should be able to defend myself and family.

I completely understand and agree with the right to bear arms. But the assault weapons provision, although it has been dealt with on the Campaign Issues forum, is an important topic.

I realize that most NRA members use the "government restriction" argument, but the fact remains that the government can restrict arms possessions. For example, I don't think anyone's going to argue that it's ok for civilian citizens to construct a nuclear weapon, or a chemical bomb, and government has the right to outlaw possession of these things by civilians in order to protect fellow citizens.

I suppose the main question is: where do we draw the line? The fact is that no one is going deer hunting armed with an assault rifle; these weapons exist for the purpose of murder, not hunting. With crime as rampant as it is, I think the last thing our criminals deserve is easier access to assault weapons.

Fiat Lvx.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I suppose the main question is: where do we draw the line?

The main issue is: who decides where we draw the line?

I support the right to keep and bear arms and I am sure I would draw a much wider circle of acceptable weapons than even the NRA. However to me that is a minor issue. The major issue is that corporations and special interest groups, such as the NRA, routinely purchase our government officials. And it is these organizations that are controling the drawing of all sorts of lines which establish the limits on what is and what is not permitted in our society. I would much rather see corporate and special interest group contributions prohibited entirely. The right to contribute politically should be limited solely to registered voters. Until the power to determine where the lines are drawn is restored to the people, any discussion we might have on where to draw the line concerning gun ownership is nothing but idle chatter.
.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I suppose the main question is: where do we draw the line?

The main issue is: who decides where we draw the line?

I support the right to keep and bear arms and I am sure I would draw a much wider circle of acceptable weapons than even the NRA. However to me that is a minor issue. The major issue is that corporations and special interest groups, such as the NRA, routinely purchase our government officials. And it is these organizations that are controling the drawing of all sorts of lines which establish the limits on what is and what is not permitted in our society. I would much rather see corporate and special interest group contributions prohibited entirely.

The right to contribute politically should be limited solely to registered voters. Until the power to determine where the lines are drawn is restored to the people, any discussion we might have on where to draw the line concerning gun ownership is nothing but idle chatter.

But I am a registered voter, and very active politically. I write letters, make phone calls, go to grass roots Republican meetings, serve on committees, make speechs, knock on doors... but when it comes to issues like guns, why should we NOT get together to make our COLLECTIVE voices heard? Especially when our opponents, those in favor of completely disarming the public, get together and scream THEIR beleifs, and have the media abetting them???

As a registered voter, I donate money to causes I believe in, so that my voice WILL be heard... and the courts have already decreed that limiting campaign donations is a violation of free speech, so this issue is NOT going to go away.

I do not know of a single candidate for office who favors the banning of all weapons. But assault weapons, as their name implies, have no purpose outside of war, and no one needs an automatic weapon to defend himself unless he's engaged in military combat.

However, this if off-topic; the Campaign Issues forum is more suitable for it.

Fiat Lvx.

You don't know of a candidate in favor of that?

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, to name just FOUR. Look carefully, the list of politicians that want guns banned or removed from all legal uses reads as whos who of the Democrat/Socialst/Liberals...

and shamefully, a few Conservative Replublicans as well... Jim Brady for one.

Originally posted by theron dunn
the courts have already decreed that limiting campaign donations is a violation of free speech, so this issue is NOT going to go away.

I do not wish to limit campaign donations in anyway. Anyone that is eligible to be a registered voter should be able to contribute as much money as they desire and should be able to exercise free speech to its fullest extent. Corporations and special interest groups have no body, mind or soul and should not have same the rights as an individual that has these attributes, nor should they have any standing in the electoral process. The link in my signature line provides several draft amendments to take away human rights from corporations. IMHO it should be expanded to cover special interest groups and non-profit corporations as well.

Lets bring the people back to "We the people...".
.

Take away the human rights from corporations... hmmm, as a corporation owner, I would have to make the argument that the corporation, in itself, has no rights. At best, it could be considered an idiot child, with guardians... at best. The corporation cannot vote, but it can, in the name of the board, as voted on by the trustees/board of directors, take action to protect the corporations interests.

A corporation IS the shareholders consolidated will, hopes, desires, and speaks for them on issues relating to the corporation. A corporation is not some mindless, soulless entity, it is the staff, owners, employees, shareholders that comprise it. Without them, it is but a name.

I do not see or understand the need to remove human rights from a corporation that does not have any in the first place...

But, hey, that's just me... as a shareholder in several corporations and the partner in another couple of corporations, I just don't see your objection.

Originally posted by theron dunn
You don't know of a candidate in favor of that?

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, to name just FOUR. Look carefully, the list of politicians that want guns banned or removed from all legal uses reads as whos who of the Democrat/Socialst/Liberals...

None of these people are in favor of banning all weapons. They are in favor of keeping the ban on assault rifles, not banning rifles and pistols.

To see this wisdom in this, we only have to consider the subject of this very thread, William Cooper, author of "Behold A Pale Horse." A conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, Cooper was violently anti-government, and pro-militia. He was being investigated for participating in an illegal weapons ring; when the police raided his house, he opened fire with an assault rifle, which he had purchased legally (before the ban). He was shot dead by a handgun issued to a law enforcement officer during the battle.

Our men and women in law enforcement face this type of criminal every day; the last thing they need is to be confronted with these psychos armed with assault rifles. Putting them back on the street for criminals to easily access will cost more than just a few innocent lives.

Fiat Lvx.

I have no problem with handgun ownership, but Bill and Hillary and Maxine and Kennedy and Brady and... the list of liberals goes on and on about this issue, WANT guns restricted. The "assault rifle" ban is a red herring, as these folks all want greater and greater levels of gun control.

Why? Because an armed populace is a dangerous polulace? In part, but I think, following their antics for the past twenty years that the reason is that they want the public MORE dependent upon the government, which, after all, knows better, and less self dependent.

More felons are killed while committing crimes in the US by armed citizens than by armed police officers.

www.wowessays.com...
www.saf.org...
www.pcpages.com...
www.firearmsandliberty.com...
www.firearmsandliberty.com...
www.pulpless.com...

and hundreds more.

I would rather see EVERY citizen armed than the honest law abiding citizens disarmed in the face of wolves, not to slander or defame the four legged animals. As Heinlein wrote, an armed society is invariably a polite society.

I am not advocating the wild wild west here, far from it, but the majority of citizens that WISH to carry should be accomodated, and the punishments for misuse of a firearm made draconian and sure.

I lived in Arizona for a time, a state that allows ANYONE over 16 to carry a concealed firearm, and I can tell you that violent crime was waaaayyy down there, as a result of citizens being armed. One allegorical incident, a punk from an LA gang tried to car jack some gentleman in a parking lot at gunpoint. The punk was shot dead by four passersby, who saw what was happening, drew THEIR weapons, and shot the punk dead.

New York is KNOWN for muggings. Why? because all the criminals KNOW the citizens aren't armed, and when one guy took some punks out on a subway with a gun, crime went down for a short while as the criminals reevaluated their targets.

Do we need assault rifles? Hell no. Should we be able to own them? Why not? Do we need bazookas? No, not really. Should we own them? Hell no...

But where do we draw the line in the face of foes that want ALL handguns and rifles banned?

Originally posted by theron dunn

But where do we draw the line in the face of foes that want ALL handguns and rifles banned?

I've never heard anyone in the USA ever say they wanted all handguns and rifles banned. It's the weapons of war that civilians do not need. People simply do not need assault rifles, hand grenades, and missile-to-air rocket launchers to protect themselves against crooks.

Hunting rifles are completely legal for sportsmen, and handguns are completely legal for self-defense and recreational shooting. No one is trying to take away the citizen's right to own them. Requiring background checks is not restricting people's freedom, it's attempting to limit gun possession to law-abiding citizens.

Fiat Lvx.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by theron dunn

But where do we draw the line in the face of foes that want ALL handguns and rifles banned?

I've never heard anyone in the USA ever say they wanted all handguns and rifles banned. It's the weapons of war that civilians do not need. People simply do not need assault rifles, hand grenades, and missile-to-air rocket launchers to protect themselves against crooks.

Hunting rifles are completely legal for sportsmen, and handguns are completely legal for self-defense and recreational shooting. No one is trying to take away the citizen's right to own them. Requiring background checks is not restricting people's freedom, it's attempting to limit gun possession to law-abiding citizens.

Fiat Lvx.

Here my brother:

www.handgunfree.org...
www.floridaguncontrol.org...
www.stopgunviolence.org...
www.nal.usda.gov...
www.constitution.org...
www.gunowners.org...
www.banhandgunsnow.org...
www.handgunfree.org...
www.guncite.com...
www.killer-essays.com...
www.jointogether.org...

are just a SMALL sampling of the ban handguns nutters in this country alone.

Sorry, my brother, but as an NRA member, I do follow this stuff, and I know whereof I write. Barbara Boxer is just one of MANY to be on the ban guns bandwagon.

Originally posted by theron dunn
Do we need assault rifles? Hell no. Should we be able to own them? Why not? Do we need bazookas? No, not really. Should we own them? Hell no...

But where do we draw the line in the face of foes that want ALL handguns and rifles banned?

Why not? Because you can do a lot of damage very quickly with an assault weapon. Ditto with a bazooka. You already said that we don't need them, so why take the risk? Working with the Marine Corps, I often run in to the view that we should be able to have something only because we enjoy it and for no other reason, regardless of the consequences. Should we all resort to toting AK-47s because our handguns are no longer adequate for self defense? I think that a line needs to be drawn, and both assault weapons and bazookas should be on the other side.

Where do we draw the line in the face of foes that want all weapons legalized? Strike the balance.

Originally posted by theron dunn
I have a 12 ga short barrel pump mossberg with a pistol grip for home protection and a colt .45 automatic with silvertips as well. I also have a 9mm Krag bolt action for hunting... I don't need a mankiller like an assault weapon, but if I wanted one, why should an antigunner object?

See my bold bit, I am sorry but you make me choke on my drink. You don't need a man killer?? you own 2 already!Any gun is a potential man killer.

12 ga short barrel pump mossberg = Man Killer
colt .45 automatic with silvertips = Man killer
Assult Rifle = Better man killer

This is where America is so messed up IMO. Families feel the need to have guns in the house to feel safe, my god I would HATE to live in a place like that.

Also I can't understand why people think:-
' Yeah, lets go outside today and shot something'
'What we going to shot dad?'
'Racoons and deer son'
What for dad?
'FUN SON, FOR FUN'

I understand some people living in the middle of nowhere with big cats, beers wondering in the house at any time, but America have to sort its guns out. Didn't Bush allow guns in church? no wonder most are ready to jump into war, you got 'gun love' all pent up inside you!

I might get 'shot down' in flames for this post but I don't care.

I don't need a man killer but I own a 12g mossberg shotgun!!!!!!


The gun sellers NEED and LOVE street crime to fuel the gun culture
To fuel the gangs to fuel the wannabe mafia crews.
Which in turn fuels the citizens fear which means more gun money
Which fuels the govenment to fuel the media into putting more fear out.
Which fuels the citizens to arm up, more gun money.
Which fuels dad to show son how to shoot which fuels sons need for a gun which fuels more gun money.

I guess if American banned guns tomorrow 'someone' would loose quite a bit of money. Its always about the dead presidents!!!

[edit on 12-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

I am in the military and i a die hard republican ( but as i have said beofre i vote for whoever gives the military the most money). I think assault weapons should be given as a reward.....like if you are a gun owner of 10 years and you dont do anything stupid like kill your wife or shoot the neighbors dog or run down your street in your underwear toting your 12 gauge talking about www.abovetopsecret.com then you should get the right to have one assault weapon....... i think assault weapons can be used for things besides "assault". i went deer hunting with a " assault" weapon!!! it was a ar-15 with inteligent scope and it was pre ban so it was fully automatic however it had a selectable swith it is very accurate and very little recoil!!!! its a dream gun but i should be able to own one because the crazy mexican gangbanger or some crazy black guy decides he wants to shoot up a school with one so if he cant handle onoe then lets take everyones away???? thats bullsh!t and you know it. thats like saying well some americans are obese so lets do away with all the mcdonalds restaurants to help everyone out!!!! you all need to figure out a better way to keep guns out of criminals hands then to just take them away from everyone

DELETE!
sorry

[edit on 12-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Ilovehaters.

Could you post that in my new thread please? under general conspricies!! American gun control! thanks.

Originally posted by ilovehaters
i should be able to own one because the crazy mexican gangbanger or some crazy black guy decides he wants to shoot up a school with one so if he cant handle onoe then lets take everyones away???? thats bullsh!t and you know it.

OR your White highschool kids who have had enough of being unpopular. (great start to your argument, well done )

Gun reply here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra

Also I can't understand why people think:-
' Yeah, lets go outside today and shot something'
'What we going to shot dad?'
'Racoons and deer son'
What for dad?
'FUN SON, FOR FUN'

[edit on 12-9-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

I agree. What could be more perverse, insidious or evil than a man who takes his pleasure from death.