billytran

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Sep. 02 2002,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ralph, The California assault weapons law lists characteristics. Â Go here to read them. Â Now, tell me how any of the features listed make a gun more dangerous. Â These guns are used in less than three percent of gun crimes. The California SNS law does not ban any cheap guns whatsoever. Â Go here and you'll see several cheap brands such as Bryco and Phoenix.<span id='postcolor'> why don't you show me that these guns are used less than 3% in crimes statistics? you constantly use it as your basis, but i can't find it anywhere. the features such as forward grips give more accuracy, along with folding stocks. also, this law is enacted recently, showing that older law was not effective. and that shows how gun companies lobbied there way in, so banning cheap guns? let me get this straight for you. SNSs were widely used because of 1. easy to conceal-they are small. 2. cheap to purchase. if you want to claim that price should be the factor in choosing guns, then Ruger .22s or anyother rimfire pistols on market fall in to that category. and making a restriction using price ain't gonna cut it. so what legislature had to do was choose some characteristics of SNS, not the price.<span id='postcolor'> A forward grip provides more accuracy? I guess that's why most precision rifles have forward grips... oh wait, no they don't. Even if it did help with accuracy, would you want to ban a gun because it's accurate? And a folding stock can only hurt your accuracy. A flimsy plastic or wire stock is not as solid as a fixed stock. You ignored all of the other features. Go here if you want statistics for assault weapons use in crimes. Rimfire .22 pistols happen to be used a lot in crimes. They are also generally cheap. So the California law which tried to ban cheap guns failed. The assault weapons ban had no effect on crime because the scary looking guns aren't used in all that many crimes. So basically California's gun control laws couldn't have had any effect on the crime.

Ralph, The California assault weapons law lists characteristics. Go here to read them. Now, tell me how any of the features listed make a gun more dangerous. These guns are used in less than three percent of gun crimes. The California SNS law does not ban any cheap guns whatsoever. Go here and you'll see several cheap brands such as Bryco and Phoenix.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in any case, RedRogue, thanx for link. continuous decline in crimes in California(in the per 100k section), while its gun control getting stronger shows that it is working. so 'only criminals get guns and they will increase crime level' is just not gonna work.<span id='postcolor'> Okay, think about this: California's recent gun laws have been very ill-contrived. Their "assault weapons" bill only required registration of guns that only look scary and are used in less than three percent of crimes with guns. They also passed a bill to ban cheap guns. I won't go into how the legislators were just trying to keep guns away from poor people with that bill. But the "Saturday Night Special" bill only ended up banning higher end expensive pistols. The cheap Jennings and Phoenix guns were approved for sale under this bill. Neither of these had any effect on crime. In general, gun laws in the country have been weakened (through concealed carry laws) and crime has dropped. For every state that increased gun control there are several who eased up on the laws.

A violent crime commited without a gun is still a violent crime. You guys are making it sound like countries that have low gun-crime have low violent crime. Kurtz, people in America have guns to protect against criminals, not other people with guns. The majority of crimes are commited with knives, bats, and screwdrivers. If you took away guns, only criminals would have guns. That makes no sense at all. You think people in America don't feel safe at night without a gun? Most people don't own guns and feel perfectly safe. People just like to have protection. I'd bet that the average American feels safer at night than people in any other country in the world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 30 2002,02:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So far the ICC seems pretty impartial, so I dont know why you are assuming they wont be...<span id='postcolor'> Pretty much every UN summit ends up criticizing America for something or other. Look at the Kyoto Treaty, it would only lower temperatures by one degree and destroy American industry. You just can't have a a court on an international scale that's not political. There are already ways to deal with war crimes. The UN will just try to hurt America on this one.

Wow, this is amazing. You're criticizing men who killed the commandant of a concentration camp. There's no mention of how the Russians raped and looted a hundred times more than the Allies did.

I enjoy driving my Mazda RX-7, but I can't wait for the new RX-8 to come out. It's gonna be awesome!!!

I think Iraq building it's nukes right now is like Germany's build-up prior to World War II. Something has to be done to stop him from lobbing a nuke at Israel or having someone sneak it into America. You think a regime change would be destabilizing? Saddam's nuclear program would be very destabilizing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 22 2002,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should America, Britain and France go and help Russia with its war in Chechnya since Russia saved their arses in WW2? And not just a biased statement, If Russia hadnt had most of the German Armed forces attacking it, the war for the other Allies could have gone very diffrent.<span id='postcolor'> How does that translate into Russia saving America's asses? By that same logic you could say America save Russia's ass because if America wasn't in it then the Germans could have commited almost all of their forces to the Eastern front.

We'll probably bomb the hell out of his b/c stockpiles and then send in our guys wearing NBC suits. Iraq's biggest threat is it's nuclear program, if they get nukes it will be scary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 15 2002,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no..most of 'strict' gun laws that are implemented are from 80s and mid 90s. as i said earlier, is it because of strict law that gun crimes go up? then it would mean that getting rid of strict law would curb crime. bu then again, you claim that in 60s, when guns were rampant, they had more crimes!  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Also, about the getting robbed with three guys with guns, no one says that you have to use your gun every time.  You use discretion, if you don't think you can win the situation don't pull it out unless its your very last resort.<span id='postcolor'> then what's the point of having a gun when it is useless? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ruud said that its better to give criminals what they want.  Does that mean that you should let a burgular rape your wife if he breaks in.  Should you let him kill your kids too?<span id='postcolor'> Typical rightwing-scare tactic  Here's a situation i can give you. If someone breaks in, would you rather get yourself killed by resisting? If it's to the point where robber was able to get in, your chance of resistance is quite low. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> As for school shootings, these are isolated incidents that happen every couple of years.  More kids die from high school football than from school shootings.<span id='postcolor'> yes, and more awareness about kids giving off signals has subdued school shootings. but football game deaths are accidents while shooting is planned. also, when school shooting starts, police, who are better trained can be sent and subdue the suspect, but in football game that is not possible. so your comparison is not good.<span id='postcolor'> The crime in the 60's was caused by the turbulent social conditions, not the prevalence of guns. Afterwards, rime stayed up because of the strict gun control laws which brought in more gun control laws that only worsened the situation. In the late 80's and early 90's states began passing laws that allowed concealed carry and violent crime started dropping. The situation where three guys with guns is a very unlikely situation, you are more likely to face one attacker. If you are against multiple attackers (which is an unusual situation), they probably won't be armed with guns they'll probably have knives. I wasn't using a scare tactic, I was using reality. Rapes and murders happen alot. There is a low chance you'll get killed resisting. All that one has to do is pull the gun out, point it at the attacker and tell him to stop. If he doesn't then you shoot him. The only way to get killed is to pull out a gun while grappling or by hesitance to use your gun. Football deaths are usually from negligence, like not drinking enough water and running around for three hours in 98 degree heat. School shootings often result from the negligence of parents and the kids friends to realize that their is a problem (though the kid deserves most of the blame). With the awareness we have, school shootings have dropped alot. There was only one that I can recollect in the last year.

I'm still in high school, but I'm applying to West Point (US Military Academy), hopefully I can get in but if not I'll just do ROTC (officer training) in college.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 15 2002,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the U.S, the areas with the harshest controls have the worst statistics whereas the regions with easier access to weapons have much less crime. <span id='postcolor'> could it be that those "HARCH" controls were implemented because of BAD STATISTICS? afterall, if there weren't any bad situation, why would harsh controls be implemented?<span id='postcolor'> Ralph, Crime rose a lot during the 60's because it was a very turbulent time in America, thus leading to the implementation of several gun controls. Today, the areas with the stictest gun control have higher crime. Also, about the getting robbed with three guys with guns, no one says that you have to use your gun every time. You use discretion, if you don't think you can win the situation don't pull it out unless its your very last resort. Ruud said that its better to give criminals what they want. Does that mean that you should let a burgular rape your wife if he breaks in. Should you let him kill your kids too? As for school shootings, these are isolated incidents that happen every couple of years. More kids die from high school football than from school shootings.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 13 2002,00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hitler didnt invade Switzerland because they were neutral, and a good place for Nazi's to stash their gold. Â If you believe it is because of their militia, you need to study history a little more.<span id='postcolor'> Hitler had several reasons to invade Switzerland. Neutrality had nothing to do with it. The Nazis had two ways to go around the Maginot line, Switzerland and Belgium. Both were neutral but he went with the path of least resistance. Later, Hitler need a quick route to send men to Italy which Switzerland would have served well for but again it wasn't worth it. Stashing gold had nothing to do with it either, he could have just invaded and still kept his gold there (along with all the other gold he could have stolen from Switzerland). Several times the nazis came up with plans for an invasion of Switzerland. When his generals told him that it would cost about 200,000 German lives to invade Switzerland Hitler knew it wasn't worth it.

I think every adult who is not a drug user or criminal should be able to buy and carry a gun. Here's my proposal: -At 18 you can buy handguns, rifles and shotguns provided you are not a drug user or criminal. The bore size is limited to fifty caliber, and the barrel length on rifles and shotguns is 16" -The background check is an instant system. There are no waiting periods because if someones life is threatened they need a gun as fast as possible. There is no registration either, no criminal would ever register his gun. -You can buy full-auto, explosives and +.50 caliber weapons at age 21 with an extensive background check and these are registered with the state. The US has only had one person killed with a legally owned machine gun under this system. Illegal machineguns are few and far between. -No magazine capacity, it takes two seconds to reload so it wouldn't make a difference. Also no bans on military-style semi-automatic guns. They can be used by the people of a country to fend off foreign or domestic threats. In the LA riots of '92, many Korean shopowners stood on top of their stores with semi-automatic AK's to keep looters away. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because of thier armed populace. -Everyone over 18 who can buy a gun can carry it concealed or openly with the exception of court houses, airplanes, etc. Concealed Weapons Permits really scare criminals. Why do you think states with the right to carry have such low crime stats? -Gun safety courses in all public schools. -You can shoot if you believe yourself to be in immediate and serious danger. You can't expect an 85 year old woman to defend herself with anything other than a gun. Mace and stun guns are ineffective most of the time. Even if you could take away all of the guns there would still be the same amount of violent crime. If someone really wants to off another person they'll do it with whatever they can find be it a knife or poison or whatever. If someone can't find a gun to rob with they'll use a screwdriver. In Britain they banned handguns and now the police have started carrying them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,19:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak? In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads) I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'> In real life it would take several RPG's to disable an Abrams. Abrams has ERA and composite armor which are not easily defeated.

First of all, Saudi Arabia is nowhere near as oppresive as the Taliban was. The Taliban participated in all kinds of horrible atrocities such as the murders of women for no reason. Saudi Arabia's problem is that they have supported terrorism. However, there is a lot of movement against Saudi Arabia in the US. If the US invades Iraq, we will have very little reason to support the Saudis since we'd have easier access to Iraqi oil and could probably have pretty good access to Russian oil as well. There is a big movement in the US growing against the Saudis.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (rat @ Aug. 08 2002,03:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dont think i heard of any innocent Iraqui civillians or Afghans hurt by allied attacks getting squat<span id='postcolor'> The Afghans are getting a whole new government that is free of oppression, and the Iraqis will eventually get one too.

The US is a voluntary union... a state has to make the decision to join. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state cannot leave, so by default the 10th amendment gives them that right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,20:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> The constitution gave them the right to secede, which they did. That made them a separate nation.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 07 2002,06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol!Warin, could you find me something that says the sates can not secede and form their own country. Besides you being a Canadian why would you care about the War for Southern Independence? I said slavery was wrong, but both sides where racsist, but the winner writes the history. <span id='postcolor'> Main Entry: re·bel·lion Pronunciation: ri-'bel-y&n Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance The south lost.  Therefore they were rebels by the above definition. Therefore Lincoln, by maintaining the Union, was a good president.  If the south had won (read some Harry Turtledove ) then we'd being having a toally different discussion.  And I dont really care, I am merely pointing out that the whinging being done almost 150 years later is pointless  You lost.  <span id='postcolor'> The South had its right to secede from what was (until Lincoln destroyed the 10th amendment) a voluntary union. After they formed the CSA, they were a whole different country therefore it was not a rebellion or a civil war. The CSA lost, and was taken over by the Union as a result of the war between two countries. Under your logic, the French in WWII were rebels.

Well, I absolutely hate Clinton for all that he did. He corrupted his office and the whole country. Lincoln was good for helping to free the slaves, but he really screwed over the tenth amendment. The War of Northern Agression was all his fault. LBJ was the man who did most of the escalation in Vietnam, not Kennedy.

Okay Denoir, what would you have done if you were the American president at the time?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 06 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Civilians are not to be considered as valid targets. Or perhaps you consider them to be valid targets? In that case by that logic you think that the WTC attacks were quite legitimate act of wars.<span id='postcolor'> Industrial centers are valid targets, and civilians work there. Hirsoshima was a huge industrial center, and it also had a large military base. Denoir, what would you have done if you were the US president?

Walther P-99's aren't German made, they're made by Smith & Wesson. HK, Sig, and Glock make far more reliable and accurate guns than Walther... but I guess whatever suits you suits you. I like the Walther PPK, it's pretty fun to shoot.