Kerry makes ABSOLUTELY no sense connecting terrorism to firearms sold in U.S.

I am a supporter of Bush and the right to bear arms, but I believe there should be a ban on assault weapons in the US. No one needs them to hunt or anything like that.

I think gun supporters feel that if you take this away it is just one step towards outlawing all weapons and this logic is flawed. Just like the Pro-Choice people who think every piece of legislation passed (i.e. Partial-Birth abortion ban) is just a devisive ploy to ban all abortions.

I am against abortions, but the majority of Americans do not feel that way. Fine. However, the Partial Birth Abortion ban is the right thing to do as most Americans feel they are unnacceptable. That is it. It's not going to ban all abortions.

Similarly this assault weapons ban is not going to repeal the right to bear arms, but it also is probably the right thing to do and supported by a majority of Americans. I'm hoping the only reason this ban is not still in effect is because the law was flawed and needs to be rewritten. If this is the case, I would like to see action and get a reasonable law put in place to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands.

Just out of curiosity/ignorance ... how hard would it be for me to just go and buy an assault weapon right now? Are there more stringent requirements than a normal gun? I would hope that at a minimum this would still be the case.

 

Don't you just love it when threads do not go the way you planned for it to go?

 

Nope Josh--no harder to obtain a brand-spanking new AK-47 or M4 carbinelike the armed forces use without the fire slector for three-round-burst. Same as if you went to Walmart and bought a Rem 700 30.06 to nail that big buck you've always wanted.

 

I mean as far as the legality of buying them--unless your community or sate has an additional ban

 

Just curious Pimphand, exactly what types of weapons are you concerned about. Is it the M4A3 style semi-automatic rifles, high-powered rifles, high capacity pistols? What weapons concern you in the hands of the public?

 

exactly the first thing that popped into my mind.

 

On the subject of the original post... I personally don't believe that the stance he has taken on this issue is beneficial to his election hopes, but he is clearly copying Bush's very successful strategy:

If you want the public to support you, then make your cause anti-terrorism and they will.

A large percentage of the public still believe that there is an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection largely due to the fact that the Bush administration tries to blur the line as much as possible. The term "terrorist" can be incredibly vague and the administration uses it to include radical Islamic terrorist from 9/11, Iraqi insurgents who use suicide and car bombs, pre-war Iraqi terrorists (which turned out not to exist), and every other criminal that they can reasonably or unreasonably call out, just like Kerry has done by calling out the Washington snipers as terrorists.

And, by the way.... The Washington DC snipers weren't terrorists (especially the radical Islamic type). They were serial killers. Serial killers are responsible for a lot fewer killings than terrorists are, and it is a ridiculous thought to write legislation to prevent serial killers. Banning assault weapons because of the Washington snipers is akin to banning freezers because of Dahmer.

 

This would be your opinion.

The Washington DC snipers could very well have been both terrorists and serial killers.

 

BTW, I do support an effective ban on assault weapons. If you are that interested in firing assault weapons, I believe you should join a state militia, the Army, or the Marines... organizations that have legitimate reasons for arming themselves with weapons designed to efficiently kill large numbers of humans.

They don't call them assault weapons for nothing.

I just don't think that "Because I like them." is a legitimate reason, but I can't argue the point any better than Pimphand24 has already.

 

Like I stated, the word "terrorist" is incredibly vague. They were definetly not terrorist in a national security type definition, like the radical Islamic terrorists of 9/11, who were motivated by politics and are really one of only a couple types that the federal government are concerning themselves with.

They were terrorists in a sense that their actions instilled fear, but if the definition of "terrorist" becomes "one who instills fear", then half the world would be considered terrorists. US soldiers instill fear in Iraqis. I certainly don't want to call US soldiers terrorists.

 

Which of the following would be categorized as terrorists:

Uni-bombings
WTC bombing
OK city bombing
9/11
Anthrax letters
DC sniper

At what point were we sure it was or was not a terrorist attack?

I posit that the DC sniper was a terorist attack since it was very plausible that that most considered the attack "terroristic" while they were occuring. IOW, during the attacks would you have been surprised to find out that the DC sniper was an OBL foot soldier?

 

When it comes to making legislation and federal policy, it doesn't matter what people THOUGHT they were. It matters what they ACTUALLY were.

Calling the Washington snipers "terrorists" is extremely convenient for politicians because they can then lump them into all other terrorist groups and strengthen their assault weapons arguments by creating more fear. If the public would be more critical and demand that politicians called all of these different groups with different causes and different means what they actually are we would be better off.

It is dangerous to be frivolous with these words. Banning assault weapons because of the "terrorist" Washington snipers makes absolutely no sense for the reasons I stated before. How can you develop good policy when people aren't even talking about the same things?

An excellent example of why it is dangerous to do this is in China. China calls Taiwan separatists "terrorists". That is false, but if the world allows them to lump them together with radical Islamics, then their arguments against Taiwanese separatists are strengthened. A war between China and Taiwan could have major World impact because the US would probably be drug into, since the US has made promises.

 

There seems to be no common sense in this country any longer.

No one needs assault weapons...they should be banned.

The rights issue is moot as the constitution can and should be amended.

DD