The CDC's new National Vital Statistics Report shows that the long decline in annual gun deaths and gun homicides that began under the Clinton Administration in the 1990s came to a halt in the first year of Ashcroft's (and President Bush's) tenure. In 2001, gun deaths in the U.S. rose by more than 3 percent, from 28,663 the previous year to 29,572. Gun homicides also rose, albeit by a slightly lesser rate, from 11,071 the previous year to 11,348 in 2001. The FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the rise started in 1999. It also says that in 1999 there were 8,440 deaths by all firearms and 6,658 of those were by handguns. In 2001 there were 8,719 homocides by all firearms and 6,790 by handguns. Table 2-10
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf The Justice Department has had little or nothing to say about the documented connection between the nation's lax gun laws and terrorist organizations' exploitation of them. In May, a Congressional Research Service report found that loopholes in U.S. gun laws can be exploited, and already have been, for purchases of assault weapons and explosives by terrorists. I would like to know more about this if anyone has a link to the information. Why would they want to buy a semi auto-rifle here when they could get the real thing in a different country? Why are they even allowed to buy a firearm without being a citizen?
Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay wrote in a commentary that he believes the influence of the National Rifle Association (of which Ashcroft is a member) has kept the Bush Administration mum on the issue. "A free flow of assault weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles is the NRA's goal, despite the benefit it presents to the terrorists who aim to deny us the freedoms that Bush and Ashcroft claim to defend," Sudbay wrote. "When it comes to the gun issue, the White House repeatedly contradicts its own anti-terror message, a glaring lesson in hypocrisy that benefits only terrorists and the NRA." Lets take the first sentence...true. How does letting a citizen buy a .50 caliber "sniper rifle" benefit terrorists and deny us freedom though? Are they gonna somehow arm themselves(terrorists) and attack us who are already armed on our own land? I dont think they would stand much of a chance. And what does he mean in the last sentence? How is allowing a US citizen to own a gun contradicting an anti terror message??? "Fuck with us and we'll shoot ya" is kind what i am reading here. And again i am not seeing how owning a gun is benefitting the terrorist but i can see how it would benefit the NRA.
This assessment stands at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the arming of state militias, and not individuals. They did? I didnt know that the SCOTUS ruled that individuals do not have the right to own guns. Someone should have told me, i would have joined my state militia so i could still catch pheasant season this year.
In May, 2002, the Justice Department filed briefs to the Supreme Court stating that it has officially adopted the NRA position that the amendment guarantees broad individual rights. The reaction? Criminal defendants across the land, including the "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, now cite their new Second Amendment rights.You mean we havent taken John Walker Lindh's right to carry or own a firearm away yet? Yet, he just said that according to the SCOTUS, individuals dont have the right to have a gun unless they joined a state militia. Did Jonh Walker Lindh join a state militia? Does having an individual right to own a gun somehow give criminals and John Walker Lindh the ability to own a gun legally?
Besides handing the Justice Department unprecedented powers to spy on us, Congress has allocated more than $30 billion this year for the Office of Homeland Security to try to keep us safe from terrorists in the U.S. and is considering President Bush's ill-defined request for $87 billion to fund the military and reconstruction activity in Iraq. Meanwhile, police departments and crime-prevention programs all across the U.S. are being decimated by budget cuts. "Sounds to me like we would have more money for the Office of Homeland Security if we didnt bomb the shit out of Iraq for no real reason. Cant get much homeland security with budget cuts in police and crime prevention programs. This is the only thing that made sense in the whole article and about the only thing that wasnt a lie. Hell this little story was so full of....hoooey....that maybe this part wasnt even true. But he has the numbers right, i will just go for and say its probably true.
This is a continued discussion from a different thread. The Italics are from the article in discussion and the non-italics is what i had to add. Can anyone reasonably proove me wrong? Can John Walker Lindh really walk into Dicks Sporting Goods tomorrow and buy a gun? Can a terrorist walk into a gun dealer, pick up a .50cal and go on a shooting rampage? Does banning a certain firearm from citizens somehow ban it from terrorist or make us safer from terrorist attacks?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
