Someone PLEASE debunk this

Rashbaum:The first part of your post was absolutely hilarious. Walking like John Wayne...

Suffice it to say I know more about arms than you do. First, whatever laws governing the sale of ugly, semi-automatic rifles happen to be, it will still be illegal for children to purchase them, as will unregistered possession (by adults or children) of automatic weapons. While the two categories sound similar, they are not. A little research on your part should make this clear. Second, ugly, semi-automatic rifles cost way more than the average tiny tot's (or even high-schooler's) budget will permit. Have you priced out AR-15s, Uzis, and Galil's in America recently, or do you think they grow on trees? Third, have you tried carrying, much less concealing one of these rifles, to the point where you could carry one undetected into a school without arousing suspicion? Most of them weigh more than 8 pounds, and are in the range of nearly 3 feet long, if not longer. So no, however wired school-children are, they're not going to be smuggling semi-automatic assault weapons into school in their backpacks, much less machineguns. Fourth, these weapons are used in less than 2% of all gun crimes. Not all crimes total, but all crimes involving a gun. That's so small a statistic as to be hardly worth recognizing, as stated by our very out FBI, CDC, and nationally recognized police departments.

You also ignore the fact that all children (heck, most criminals too) if they're going to commit a crime with a firearm, will obtain their weapon illegally, through illegal channels. Tightening controls on my dad's ability to purchase a hunting rifle or even an ugly military look-alike does absolutely nothing for the availability of crime guns. If you'd do some impartial research, you'd learn that. I know I did, back when I was anti-gun.

Re:Voting white founders back in the 1700s. How long is this going to hang over our heads. It was TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!!! Give it up already! We've paid for whatever collective sins we've committed a LONG time ago. (I suppose it wouldn't help at this point to point out that slavery was very nearly outlawed by the Constitutional convention, that nearly all of them, with the exception of the southern states wanted to abolish it, that they ONLY permitted it to continue because the south would've broken away if they hadn't, and England probably would've tried to take back both countries, and that the founders wrote into the Constitution a delayed Prohibition on the import of slaves [a compromise between the majority who didn't want slavery, and the minority who would've destroyed the country if they couldn't have slaves]).

I'm not even going to address drugs. I've wandered too far off topic as it is. This thread is about the tyrannical Patriot Act 2 and mandatory psycological testing. If someone can debunk the Newsmax article I posted yesterday, please do.

Adrian

with regards to the article and taking into account what I told you about believing nothign but the bbc and reuters as far as internet stuff goes...

it's just full of normative statements. It's just people saying oh this might happen and that might happen. Not once does it outrightly say: this IS what's going to happen.

worst case scenario syndrome again there Adrian. And even at that, what's wrong with psychologically screening someone wether they want to be or not?

Lol, I’ve a funny feeling you and I could keep a thread running indefinitely Adrian, and it really was more a case of me utilising a touch of hyperbole to try and get my point across about the rights of police to stop people who are acting in a suspicious manner. The police stop people in my country for driving too slowly sometimes, just to check they aren’t overcompensating for being drugs or are on drugs and I’m sure the same thing must happen in the US. No-one objects to this, we don’t want people driving under the influence and endangering life… I don’t see the difference between this and pulling up someone who is acting in a manner that suggests they could pose a threat to other people.

Guns (sorry goose… rifles and pistols)… well, that’s not really what we got onto this topic for… suffice to say you are correct, you will, without doubt, know more about them than me as that’s your interest, and although I incorrectly used the word “automatic” as a blanket term I am aware of the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon, having grown up on an number of Air-force bases I have been in contact with more interesting weapons than would legally be found in most households stateside.

I also wasn’t implying that rifles or pistols would be sold to children, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find out the necessary restrictions for firearm purchase... in practically all cases of children bringing firearms into school it has been a gun from home they have with them.Yes you may be right and perhaps the majority of major crime will be undertaken with illegally obtained guns but what about the huge majority of the 30,000+ deaths per year that aren’t directly linked to organised criminal activity… what about the gun accidents? What happens when a burglar decides he needs to be armed “just in case” as everyone has the right to keep arms? These are rhetorical questions by the way… I know from our very many exchanges what your views are on this… feel free to stick ‘em down again though if you feel the need

This is a classic! I particularly like the “It was TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!! Give it up already!” bit… Can you not see the dichotomy of holding this view and abiding to the letter and phrase of a document they laid down for you? Oh, and I think a really great way to “pay for your collective sins” would be to ensure that the words of a bunch of death merchant hypocrites didn’t continue to echo in the eulogies of the innocent a couple of centuries later.