Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Agreed, but if I were to rob somewhere I'd rather have a gun, or I could throw a game at them. I'm sure Saddam thought that too.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Not necessarily, during the last election a lot more negative things were said about gore than Bush. Gore was old and boring, Bush was interesting to read about. The main bias in the press is to make money. IMO Kerry is more boring than Gore.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I think you missed the point. Those folks are blaming a GAME for *causing* the murder. The majority of people are loudly proclaiming that is bull****. I agree.

Similarly, a gun cannot influence your mind and suddenly "force" you to commit a crime.

eh? :confused:

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

No, but it does make it a whole lot easier, with more destructive results too than a knife or bat. It is an appliance specifically designed for use as a weapon and particularly effective in that re-guard.

I think I remember that one of the many varying reasons for the legalisation of the war was that Saddam had broken countless UN resolutions in the past. I'm not certain if that one was used in the US but I would put money on it. He had no respect for the UN hence he broke their rules, which indirectly (Bush) or directly (Blair) resulted in his removal. So in that respect the UN does matter.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

But how many murders are spur of the moment things simply because a gun was easily available, where if the murderer had to make an effort other than simply go to the bedroom drawer they may have had the chance to calm down? Guns may not "force" people to commit a crime, but they do a damn job of facilitating the act.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Fox news however desends into racism against the french at some points. Also those comment are openly pro-bush and anti kerry. That is not fair and balanced

But you do not make it easyer for them. A knife is harder and kills one person at a time. A automatic rifle is easy and can kills loads of people at a time

Murder is one by the person but you do not make is easy. Would you give WMD to terrorists? They can still kill you anyway so whats the harm?

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Is this why the prisons in the US are filling up with people at record rates?

By your argument the government should legalise all recreational drugs, but I can`t see that happening any time soon.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Yes they should. And I don't see that happening anytime soon either. It is very frustrating because they are wasting bloody billions of dollars on this "war on drugs."

Morality doesn't come from the government; it comes from the people.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

so you think that drugs should be legal? Why? What possible good will come out of that? More people will become addicted, it will be harder to give up, more strain will be put on health.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Why? Because it is YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to do whatever you want to do if it doesn't infringe on anyone's right. If you want to smoke some weed in your home with some friends, what right do I have to tell you you can't do that?

I don't. Your rights stop where mine starts.

Really? Then why is addiction rates in Netherlands lower than in the United States? Making something legal won't cause everyone to suddenly try it and become addicted.

I have no opinion on a the legality of drugs in a society where society funds health care. I don't want to live in such a society. It really does complicate things. Because, now I can say, we should outlaw [this] and [that] because I'm paying for YOUR health care. It gives others justification to make decisions over other people's individual rights.

No thanks.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

You CANNOT claim that rights protect breaking laws. Drugs are a awful thing and you cannot make some of the worse drugs legal just because you have some stuffy idea that your rights allow it.

Your rights should not effect the rights of other people, and alllowing drugs and weapons will be a recipe for disater. For a start drugs takes away your self control. Would you make it legal to drink and drive because 'its your right'?

How can you claim to be fighting terrorism when your allowing people to legal carry powerful weapons? What need do people have for powerful weapons? Protection? Well you have handguns for that

Automatic weapons are designed for ONE reason and thats to kill a lot of people quickly and you do not have the right to allow people to have a weapon that can do this

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

So we should make alcohol, which is many times worse than marijuana, and cigarettes, which is many times more addictive than marijuana, illegal. Right?

I see absolutely no connection to me owning a powerful weapon and terrorism.

That question is not for you to ask. Just because you can't see what a dam is for doesn't mean there isn't a river on the otherside.

If you ask that question, you can justify taking away ANY right based on "I don't see why you should have that right."

And how many crimes do you see committed in the United States with high powered assault weapons?

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I am against drugs because they spark biological changes and cause priority changes beyond rational thinking, thus damaging society as well as the individual.

It would also take free enterprise to a dangerous level and likely increase crime.

Sure I wish people were responsible to make the right choice on their own, but judging by the raising levels of obesity I am finding this less and less likely.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

I never said we should allow tabacco, stop putting words in my month to try and make my agurment unmined. I never said that. As for alcohol thats tricky as there is no harm in moderation and i support touger laws on abuse of it. But herion and such are worse

Effectivly, you are making it easyer for a terrorist to carry weapons by making them legal

Awful point, A dam IS useful a weapon is not. What do you need a weapon for? The fact that you cannot jusfity a reason shows you dont know one either. SO you support allowing powerful weapons for no reason other than rights?

What will the weapons be used FOR? answer me that! What is the one thing these weapons can do? KILL


Not many, because they are banned but what will happen when avagre joe can walk around with a automatic rifle

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

The keyword here being "moderation." Heroin can be taken in moderation too, in the safety of your own home.

You are hypocritical that you want to outlaw one drug, but not the other. Why? Your argument is that it alters your state of mind and can be dangerous to others. Well, alcohol does the same thing. If you want to take that position, clearly state to me that you support banning alcohol so I can know where you stand.

So? What is your point?

What do *I* need one for? Sporting.

Really? Since when? The manufacturers made tiny changes to the guns that were banned, so they became "unbanned." Additionally, guns in circulation are legal.

http://www.calssportingarmory.com/AssaultRifles.htm