The following information is from the NRA website: (surprise, surprise!)
The following are just a few of Kerry’s votes against America’s sportsmen and gun owners:
Kerry voted to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including many common rounds used by hunters and target shooters (Vote No. 28, March 2, 2004).
Kerry co-sponsored current legislation to ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, a gigantic step toward bringing Australian-style gun control to the U.S. (Signed on as co-sponsor of S. 1431 on Nov. 21, 2003).
Kerry voted to hold the highly regulated American firearm industry legally responsible for the illegal acts of violent criminals (Vote No. 24, March 2, 2004; Vote No. 25, March 2, 2004).
Kerry says, “I think you ought to tax all ammunition more, personally, I think you ought to tax guns.” (CNN “Late Edition,” Nov. 7, 1993).
Kerry has a 100% rating from gun-control groups, and is called “a hero” by anti-hunting extremists such as PETA.
“Kerry’s numerous anti-gun votes present a red flag for hunters and sportsmen, but this savvy voting bloc will not be fooled by election-year campaign tactics,” concluded Cox.
Hmmm… Now back to your regularly scheduled “SnakeSpirit spews crazy bullshit” thread. Can you like, back any of this up? Like, with facts and stuff? Like, not from the NRA website?
Can we get Snakespirit a Reeder-style “Bitching about all the people trying to take away my Constitutionally-protected right to carry firearms as part of a well-regulated militia” catchall thread?
Just because data is from the NRA website doesn’t make it null and void, does it? In fact, most of what’s quoted is followed by a cite (albeit not a link).
Now the PETA thing…
I’m going to doubt that Kerry actually sought the endorsement of PETA, but rather was given the endorsement as the only viable candidate that PETA could back, and threw in the ‘hero’ bit to appease their rabid base.
All of this does in fact seem, IMO, to paint Kerry as one who too often changes his mind about things. That said, I don’t think Kerry is trying to rip the guns from the hands of lawful gun owners, but rather that he actually believes the things he’s voting for are good ideas, which, again IMO, they’re not.
(c’mon November!)
You know, Snake, I don’t care if you want to have a bitch about Kerry, or about gun laws, or about Kerry sneaking, Grinch-like, into houses in the dead of night to steal your guns from under your pillow. Go for your life, I won’t stand in your way.
What pisses me off is that my country is being used an implicit insult (ie, they’re such crazy ideas, it’s like they’re Australian ideas!). For some reason, you seem to want to take a swing at Australian gun laws in every one of these threads. You’re usually wrong about the specifics, too, like when you accused us of having an all-out gun ban and being “firearm-free”.
You can make your point without this tedious nonsense about Australia, so kindly leave it out. This ill-timed digs at Australia seem designed just to piss people off, and that’s skating dangerously close to trolling, IMHO.
In brief (as I don’t feel up for pointless expatiations, the bills are available to all who care to read them at www.senate.gov) S. 1431 (the Australian-style bill) was apparently a 2003 attempt to renew the '94 AWB, while eliminating the sunset provision and clarifying definitions of weapons banned therein. This basically did nothing the '94 ban didn’t do (AFAICT), and still grandfathered pre-'94 weapons, as well as allowing ban-compliant “assault weapons.”
S. 1805 (the centerfire rifle ammo bill) was actually just a rider on the civil liability of arms manufacturers bill, attached by Sen. Kennedy. It provided that restrictions be imposed on armor-piercing ammunition; granting that after a certain date, the Attorney General be granted the authority to ban centerfire rifle ammunition greater than .22 caliber when, in tests conducted using Body Armor Exemplar, the ammunition proved to have greater armor piercing capabilities than standard, copper jacketed ammunition (presumably the standard would be the FMJ ammo provided for in the Geneva convention, or something equivalent.)
Granted, both are bullshit, but neither are a serious threat to gun ownership in America. A cause for concern, perhaps, but not a reason for the sky-is-falling alumino-millinery histrionics that SnakeSpirit is engaging in. Attempting to ban guns outright would be political suicide and would cause massive unrest in many parts of the country. The phrase “cold dead hands” comes to mind.
Priorities, people. Would you really prefer more illegal and costly wars as well as international ostracism to being unable to mount a barrel shroud on your AK-47?
No, Roger, no joke. I personally have two, one Russian and one Chinese clone.
They are, in their present state, no different than any standard hunting rifle (large caliber, low capacity magazine).
We indeed are allowed to have any non-militarized weapon. Those with a Class III Federal Firearms License are allowed to have militarized weapons, with the exception of explosives and rockets and the like.
Thanks for the clarification. Are “militarised weapons” the same as “assault weapons” - as in the assualt weapon ban being lifted - or is that a different class altogether?
I neglected to say; some states, including Illinois, have a firearm owners ID card, that you must have to purchase firearms and ammunition in the state. To get the card, you must pass a criminal history check. The database is monitored for criminal activity periodically, (at least here in illinois) and from time to time actions are taken, but not as often as are likely necessary. It is interesting to note, however, being arrested for Domestic Violence in IL, means that you lose your weapons until trial.
It’s a funny classification, really. The ban, specifically named the Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Ban, dealt with 19 specific firearms, as well as semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that had specific features. Also included in the ban was large capacity magazines.
These are different from militarized weapons, in that they are not fully automatic, many do not have a bayonet lug, and cannot be shortened (i.e. folding stock).
About 35% of American Households have at least one firearm (that data is from 1994, so I would expect a slightly higher number by now, perphaps 40-45%, but that’s only a guess)
Isn’t there already a sales tax on guns and ammunition? I think there is. That’s a whoosh. So now he (Kerry) wants to enforce the laws we already have, and keep felons from getting guns too? The Commie bastard. ROFL. I won’t say anything about PETA, except that they have already discredited themselves with all their wild claims and misadventures. In this case, filtering out the noise and spin, Kerry and Bush are basically saying the same thing - enforce laws that are already on the books, don’t mess with the law abiding people.
It’s all a big whoosh. It would not affect the sorts of guns people buy for hunting or target shooting. How many people go hunting with full or selectable rate automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets anyway? Ooh! Ooh! A bunny! Where’s my Thompson! I can see someone might argue that a semiauto is a sporting gun; semiautos are popular with skeet shooters for good reason. Semiauto rifles are convenient, but they do not magically make you more accurate. Most of them are not on any ban list anyway.
Maybe the “asault weapon” law should just be rewritten in a way that makes sense.
Maybe instead of using it to “cop out” or pander to one group or another, it should be written in simple English. Maybe the politicians should have consulted people who know more about the guns themselves - the military, the law, sportsmen, even the NRA, to really “nail” the definitions down.