No, the others were.Kmarion wrote:
Do you think these guys were chinese vietnamese?
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009268780
Kmarion, it's called illegal.
And as for the above link, Kmarion, it's in Sydney. They actually have different laws, believe it or not.
Why am I not surprised that this happened in the poorer parts of Melbourne? It's good that such occurances are far rarer than in your cities anyway.The Age wrote:
Three Melbourne men who burst into a housing commission flat chasing a modest drug debt and shot a man dead will serve at least 45 years in jail between them.
And as for the above link, Kmarion, it's in Sydney. They actually have different laws, believe it or not.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2007-12-20 17:22:01)
Guess what? Murder is illegal here also. I know the occurances are more frequent here.. but then again you lost your rights and you still have firearm violence.some_random_panda wrote:
Kmarion, it's called illegal.Why am I not surprised that this happened in the poorer parts of Melbourne? It's good that such occurances are far rarer than in your cities anyway.The Age wrote:
Three Melbourne men who burst into a housing commission flat chasing a modest drug debt and shot a man dead will serve at least 45 years in jail between them.
And as for the above link, Kmarion, it's in Sydney. They actually have different laws, believe it or not.
We have different laws per state as well. In fact Florida's laws looked a lot like the ones you posted.. Shocker!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So are you saying that a decrease in violence is not preferable? Perhaps we're just more sensible than those in Florida.Kmarion wrote:
Guess what? Murder is illegal here also. I know the occurances are more frequent here.. but then again you lost your rights and you still have firearm violence.some_random_panda wrote:
Kmarion, it's called illegal.Why am I not surprised that this happened in the poorer parts of Melbourne? It's good that such occurances are far rarer than in your cities anyway.The Age wrote:
Three Melbourne men who burst into a housing commission flat chasing a modest drug debt and shot a man dead will serve at least 45 years in jail between them.
And as for the above link, Kmarion, it's in Sydney. They actually have different laws, believe it or not.
We have different laws per state as well. In fact Florida's laws looked a lot like the ones you posted.. Shocker!
On the other hand, yeah, I guess we could roll back our gun laws and increase firearm violence, because violence is violence and the number of people killed doesn't matter.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2007-12-20 17:29:23)
Yes that's what I'm saying. I prefer violence . I have a little news for you, listen closely. There are crazy assholes everywhere. There is a reason they call it random acts of violence. And if you had paid attention to my previous post in this topic you would have seen I agreed to the more stringent regulation. I just don't want some assclown in Washington making that call.some_random_panda wrote:
So are you saying that a decrease in violence is not preferable? Perhaps we're just more sensible than those in Florida.Kmarion wrote:
Guess what? Murder is illegal here also. I know the occurances are more frequent here.. but then again you lost your rights and you still have firearm violence.some_random_panda wrote:
Kmarion, it's called illegal.
Why am I not surprised that this happened in the poorer parts of Melbourne? It's good that such occurances are far rarer than in your cities anyway.
And as for the above link, Kmarion, it's in Sydney. They actually have different laws, believe it or not.
We have different laws per state as well. In fact Florida's laws looked a lot like the ones you posted.. Shocker!
I really need to put something in my signature that says I advocate tougher gun regulation. People assume too much when you try and explain smaller government.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Fine, fine, enough bickering in this topic.
Gee, you make a simple, half/joking suggestion and a pack of wolves descend on you.
Gee, you make a simple, half/joking suggestion and a pack of wolves descend on you.
My apologies.. People have been trying to pigeon hole me lately . Assumptions are pretty much the only thing that irritates me here.some_random_panda wrote:
Fine, fine, enough bickering in this topic.
Gee, you make a simple, half/joking suggestion and a pack of wolves descend on you.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
some_random_panda wrote:
Fine, fine, enough bickering in this topic.
Gee, you make a simple, half/joking suggestion and a pack of wolves descend on you.
first of all, i can't do the quote in a box thing otherwise i would take up two pages, my fellow Americans say all i wanted to say after each, and every, misconceived post by a foreigner.
OK here goes; wow! those of you that live here in the USA are informed, and each of you spoke very eloquently, and without anger, even though yet again as herrr_smity said "why do people that don't live in the USA care so mutche about gun laws in the US of A". or about any of our politics in general. CLEAN UP YOUR OWN BACKYARD, and when your country is PERFECT, get back to me, kthxbye!
i don't think i have enough karma points to give to all of those that posted such informed, well thought out, and IMO, perfect replies. but i will give to those that i can till my karma runs out and i will have to owe those that i cant give to.
also on the other hand there is no negative karma so i will make a list of both.
sergeriver -13 ; for 1st of all minding our business not yours, then for each successive uninformed post thereafter
lowing +4 ; great points, each and every one
=obs= estebanrey -4 ; 1 for not living here and 3 for your 3 lame points
nappy -2 ; 1 for each of your posts. go read them, nothing more to say
some_random_panda -4 ; 1 for being a foreigner with lots of opinions about a country in which you do not live, and 3 for your posts
kmarion +5 ; wow for a while i thought we might be long lost twins, but you are from Florida, and I'm from California, excellent points, all of them
cougar +1 ; perfect
turquoise +1 ; for being informed, yeah very scary
konfusion +2 ; well said, follow and enforce the ones we have, WHAT A CONCEPT! yes please! we have strict laws, they are not enforced
g3 genius +1 ; yes as Americans we should feel that way, other countries already have theirs restricted so they don't mind. WE should!
feos +2 ; both excellent points, guns are a right, driving is not, we kill more people on our roads every year than with guns, THINK PEOPLE!
spark -1 ; oh come on now, REALLY? get a grip man, and then hold on, its gonna be a wild ride for you through life
rdx-fx +2 ; for the judge post, and for the amendment post, learn those people, THEY ARE IMPORTANT, or impotent if you don't care
herrr_smity +1 ; for reasons aforementioned
sgtslauhter +-0 ; for OMGWTF?
OK here goes; wow! those of you that live here in the USA are informed, and each of you spoke very eloquently, and without anger, even though yet again as herrr_smity said "why do people that don't live in the USA care so mutche about gun laws in the US of A". or about any of our politics in general. CLEAN UP YOUR OWN BACKYARD, and when your country is PERFECT, get back to me, kthxbye!
i don't think i have enough karma points to give to all of those that posted such informed, well thought out, and IMO, perfect replies. but i will give to those that i can till my karma runs out and i will have to owe those that i cant give to.
also on the other hand there is no negative karma so i will make a list of both.
sergeriver -13 ; for 1st of all minding our business not yours, then for each successive uninformed post thereafter
lowing +4 ; great points, each and every one
=obs= estebanrey -4 ; 1 for not living here and 3 for your 3 lame points
nappy -2 ; 1 for each of your posts. go read them, nothing more to say
some_random_panda -4 ; 1 for being a foreigner with lots of opinions about a country in which you do not live, and 3 for your posts
kmarion +5 ; wow for a while i thought we might be long lost twins, but you are from Florida, and I'm from California, excellent points, all of them
cougar +1 ; perfect
turquoise +1 ; for being informed, yeah very scary
konfusion +2 ; well said, follow and enforce the ones we have, WHAT A CONCEPT! yes please! we have strict laws, they are not enforced
g3 genius +1 ; yes as Americans we should feel that way, other countries already have theirs restricted so they don't mind. WE should!
feos +2 ; both excellent points, guns are a right, driving is not, we kill more people on our roads every year than with guns, THINK PEOPLE!
spark -1 ; oh come on now, REALLY? get a grip man, and then hold on, its gonna be a wild ride for you through life
rdx-fx +2 ; for the judge post, and for the amendment post, learn those people, THEY ARE IMPORTANT, or impotent if you don't care
herrr_smity +1 ; for reasons aforementioned
sgtslauhter +-0 ; for OMGWTF?
Another gun law is definitely going to prevent another Virginia Tech. You're already not allowed to carry on campus.sergeriver wrote:
They aren't taking any right away. Maybe you want another Virginia Tech.G3|Genius wrote:
Only you, right?Nappy wrote:
most people shouldnt be allowed guns!
Being American, I am wary whenever a right is restricted or removed. It's the frog in boiling water. Take away rights slowly enough, and no one will notice until there's too big a hold to do anything about it.
Animal Farm, in real life.
I do not think that it logically follows that stricter gun laws will prevent future murders. There are killings in other countries where guns are illegal.
I think that the FPS video gamers are jealous of the Americans who can actually use a gun!
I think that the FPS video gamers are jealous of the Americans who can actually use a gun!
for the record sir, your "suggestion" was not " half/joking" let me quote you. "So are you saying that a decrease in violence is not preferable? Perhaps we're just more sensible than those in Florida.some_random_panda wrote:
Fine, fine, enough bickering in this topic.
Gee, you make a simple, half/joking suggestion and a pack of wolves descend on you.
On the other hand, yeah, I guess we could roll back our gun laws and increase firearm violence, because violence is violence and the number of people killed doesn't matter."
of course a decrease in violence is preferable, are you slow? or simply being obstinate? and no you are not more sensible than anyone.
and for a case in point: look at Washington D.C. guns ,in every way are outlawed, but firearm violence and shootings are rampant. Arizona on the other hand is completely different, open carry, and way less crime rate. YOU FIGURE IT OUT SON.
edit: spelling, nothing else!
Last edited by -=CB=-krazykarl (2007-12-20 21:02:42)
This bill just shows how a news story can lead to a law being enacted that is touted as "gun control", but in reality is hardly that, in fact probably hurts the idea of regulation.
Here is text of the bill, have fun reading it: HR 2640
It allows for some mental health patients (through Veteran Affairs) that were previously restricted from purchasing weapons to reapply - similar to a program run by the ATF that was scrapped due to inefficiency and cost overruns. Further, it forces the states to adopt a similar program or be declined the opportunity to gain grant money to update their (already incredibly backlogged) NICS database (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). If the VA does not act within 1 year, the applicant can file a lawsuit to restore his/her privileges, despite previous Supreme Court precedents denying this right.
Despite being touted as a bill devised to further regulate the ability of mental health patients to procure weapons, the bill actually eliminated some mental health records that were previously required to be submitted to the NICS. Some mental records will be allowed to be wiped from the NICS as if they never occurred.
This bill had some good measures tucked into it. As is usually the case, the NRA lobbyists got control of the bill and actually forced changes that benefit the gun lobby. Calling this bill a "Gun Control" bill is not a misnomer, it's plain out wrong.
Interestingly, in the original House vote, the only vote against the bill came from Ron Paul.
It is funny to see the various sides of the "gun control" debate in this thread try to debate the positives and negatives of this new bill (still not signed by GWB into law as far as I know) without actual knowledge or understanding of the bill's measures. People see "gun control bill" and immediately take up sides.
Baa, Baa.
Here is text of the bill, have fun reading it: HR 2640
It allows for some mental health patients (through Veteran Affairs) that were previously restricted from purchasing weapons to reapply - similar to a program run by the ATF that was scrapped due to inefficiency and cost overruns. Further, it forces the states to adopt a similar program or be declined the opportunity to gain grant money to update their (already incredibly backlogged) NICS database (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). If the VA does not act within 1 year, the applicant can file a lawsuit to restore his/her privileges, despite previous Supreme Court precedents denying this right.
Despite being touted as a bill devised to further regulate the ability of mental health patients to procure weapons, the bill actually eliminated some mental health records that were previously required to be submitted to the NICS. Some mental records will be allowed to be wiped from the NICS as if they never occurred.
This bill had some good measures tucked into it. As is usually the case, the NRA lobbyists got control of the bill and actually forced changes that benefit the gun lobby. Calling this bill a "Gun Control" bill is not a misnomer, it's plain out wrong.
Interestingly, in the original House vote, the only vote against the bill came from Ron Paul.
It is funny to see the various sides of the "gun control" debate in this thread try to debate the positives and negatives of this new bill (still not signed by GWB into law as far as I know) without actual knowledge or understanding of the bill's measures. People see "gun control bill" and immediately take up sides.
Baa, Baa.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-21 16:14:39)
That's some scary shit, Ken. What the fuck is the only response I can manage at the moment....KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
This bill just shows how a news story can lead to a law being enacted that is touted as "gun control", but in reality is hardly that, in fact probably hurts the idea of regulation.
Here is text of the bill, have fun reading it: HR 2640
It allows for some mental health patients (through Veteran Affairs) that were previously restricted from purchasing weapons to reapply - similar to a program run by the ATF that was scrapped due to inefficiency and cost overruns. Further, it forces the states to adopt a similar program or be declined the opportunity to gain grant money to update their (already incredibly backlogged) NICS database (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). If the VA does not act within 1 year, the applicant can file a lawsuit to restore his/her privileges, despite previous Supreme Court precedents denying this right.
Despite being touted as a bill devised to further regulate the ability of mental health patients to procure weapons, the bill actually eliminated some mental health records that were previously required to be submitted to the NICS. Some mental records will be allowed to be wiped from the NICS as if they never occurred.
This bill had some good measures tucked into it. As is usually the case, the NRA lobbyists got control of the bill and actually forced changes that benefit the gun lobby. Calling this bill a "Gun Control" bill is not a misnomer, it's plain out wrong.
Interestingly, in the original House vote, the only vote against the bill came from Ron Paul.
It is funny to see the various sides of the "gun control" debate in this thread try to debate the positives and negatives of this new bill (still not signed by GWB into law as far as I know) without actual knowledge or understanding of the bill's measures. People see "gun control bill" and immediately take up sides.
Baa, Baa.
I guess we should have known when we found out the NRA was backing it..lol
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel … x?ID=10407
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel … x?ID=10407
Virginia Tech Families Praise Congress For Strengthening Brady Background Checks, Urge President To Sign The Legislation I'm confused.. I guess i'll have to dive into this one.Washington, D.C. - Relatives of those killed and injured at Virginia Tech offered their thanks today to members of Congress who worked to pass legislation yesterday that would strengthen the Brady background check system. The bill, H.R. 2640, which provides incentives to improve the states’ submission of records of dangerous people into the Brady system, was passed late Wednesday as Congress adjourned for the holidays
Xbone Stormsurgezz
quite right. A first step in the right direction.sergeriver wrote:
The US Congress has approved the first major gun control law since 1994, improving background checks on buyers.
A first step in the right direction. GG.
edit: code correction.
Last edited by djphetal (2007-12-21 18:29:02)
Not nearly as many killings as in America though.G3|Genius wrote:
I do not think that it logically follows that stricter gun laws will prevent future murders. There are killings in other countries where guns are illegal.
I think that the FPS video gamers are jealous of the Americans who can actually use a gun!
Short story... The families didn't do their research.Kmarion wrote:
I guess we should have known when we found out the NRA was backing it..lol
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel … x?ID=10407Virginia Tech Families Praise Congress For Strengthening Brady Background Checks, Urge President To Sign The Legislation I'm confused.. I guess i'll have to dive into this one.Washington, D.C. - Relatives of those killed and injured at Virginia Tech offered their thanks today to members of Congress who worked to pass legislation yesterday that would strengthen the Brady background check system. The bill, H.R. 2640, which provides incentives to improve the states’ submission of records of dangerous people into the Brady system, was passed late Wednesday as Congress adjourned for the holidays
Trusting Congress to serve their needs was their first mistake though....
If you're ever in a car in some scary, shithole, government housing project area of some crime-ridden dump like East St. Louis or Compton, there's no better feeling than knowing that you have a 45 in the center console.
There is probably more about it. I havent had a chance to look for "longer" stories. I'm not going to assume that families that lost loved ones didn't research. They have more motivation to investigate than anyone of us.. that for damn sure.Turquoise wrote:
Short story... The families didn't do their research.Kmarion wrote:
I guess we should have known when we found out the NRA was backing it..lol
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel … x?ID=10407Virginia Tech Families Praise Congress For Strengthening Brady Background Checks, Urge President To Sign The Legislation I'm confused.. I guess i'll have to dive into this one.Washington, D.C. - Relatives of those killed and injured at Virginia Tech offered their thanks today to members of Congress who worked to pass legislation yesterday that would strengthen the Brady background check system. The bill, H.R. 2640, which provides incentives to improve the states’ submission of records of dangerous people into the Brady system, was passed late Wednesday as Congress adjourned for the holidays
Trusting Congress to serve their needs was their first mistake though....
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I did find this though.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 219-9.html
Just another example of Bush only giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 219-9.html
Just another example of Bush only giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Give him the Nobel Prize.Kmarion wrote:
I did find this though.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 219-9.html
Just another example of Bush only giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
lolsergeriver wrote:
Give him the Nobel Prize.Kmarion wrote:
I did find this though.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 219-9.html
Just another example of Bush only giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ted Nugent!
AMEN. or better yet, in your hand. I am not nor have i ever been, a violent person. But i have been on the receiving side of unprovoked, and unwarranted violence. NEVER AGAIN!Dersmikner wrote:
If you're ever in a car in some scary, shithole, government housing project area of some crime-ridden dump like East St. Louis or Compton, there's no better feeling than knowing that you have a 45 in the center console.