Is Bush's Lax Gun Control Policy Putting the 'Homeland' at Risk?

  • News
  • Thread starter Gza
  • Start date
In summary, under pressure from pro-gun groups, President Bush allowed a ban on assault weapons to lapse, despite his strong emphasis on "homeland security." This decision could potentially lead to more shootings, as any individual over 18 can now easily purchase weapons such as AK-47s. However, some argue that the ban was based primarily on cosmetic features and did not significantly restrict access to semi-automatic weapons. Despite concerns about potential assassinations, the Secret Service has proven to be an effective organization in preventing such attacks on presidents.
  • #1
Gza
449
0
It seems that Bush, under the pressure of pro-gun groups allowed a ban on assault weapons to lapse. This seems to be rediculous, given his militaristic determination on "homeland security." Now, how exactly will the "homeland" be safe when any loony over 18 can go out to a store and buy an AK-47? Expect to see more shootings in the news with these easily accessible weapons of mass homicide.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10764381%255E1702,00.html

Thanks a lot Bush. We'll be seein you out the door in 2004.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, the things Bush does inside the USA are not about security for the people. They're about security for the people in power.
 
  • #3
Gza said:
It seems that Bush, under the pressure of pro-gun groups allowed a ban on assault weapons to lapse.
Not to get all factual on you or anything BUT it wasn't up to Bush to stop the ban from lapsing, it was up to congress. They obviously chose not to. Furthermore, Bush also publicly stated that he would sign it and stop the bill from sunsetting if congress were to put it before him. Congress obviously did not put it before him, therefor...it was allowed to set softly upon the western horizon. :wink:
This seems to be rediculous, given his militaristic determination on "homeland security." Now, how exactly will the "homeland" be safe when any loony over 18 can go out to a store and buy an AK-47? Expect to see more shootings in the news with these easily accessible weapons of mass homicide.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10764381%255E1702,00.html

Thanks a lot Bush. We'll be seein you out the door in 2004.
It was a bad law, based mostly on cosmetics. Certified loony's as well as Felons still are not able to go out and by any weapon and if ak-47's are eligible for purchase (nobody has shown me they are, sor far) then they would still have to be limited to semi-automation. As semi-automatics on the whole were never banned, of what real relevence is that? Other then clip size, there is really no change except for allowing weapons who have cosmetic differences to be back on the market.
All of the ranters and ravers would do better to push for a more sensible law instead of crying about the loss of this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Assault weapons = ugly = threat to national security
 
  • #5
How many assassinations in the USA were committed with assault rifles? How many with single shot rifles and pistols?
 
  • #6
For Presidents:

Lincoln: Pistol
McKinley: Pistol
JFK: Single shot rifle
Ford: Pistol on both occassions
Reagan: Pistol

Frankly, I would be more worried about pistol-grip, short-barreled shotguns.
 
  • #7
It was a bad law, based mostly on cosmetics. Certified loony's as well as Felons still are not able to go out and by any weapon and if ak-47's are eligible for purchase (nobody has shown me they are, sor far) then they would still have to be limited to semi-automation. As semi-automatics on the whole were never banned, of what real relevence is that? Other then clip size, there is really no change except for allowing weapons who have cosmetic differences to be back on the market.
All of the ranters and ravers would do better to push for a more sensible law instead of crying about the loss of this one.

If that's true then I guess I have some research to do, before I can talk about this any further. Thanks Kat :smile: .
 
  • #8
I've always been amazed that there are not far more political assassinations. It's very easy to put a bullet in something the size of a head from several hundred metres away, and there are a lot of frustrated people out there.
 
  • #9
I've always been amazed that there are not far more political assassinations. It's very easy to put a bullet in something the size of a head from several hundred metres away, and there are a lot of frustrated people out there.

The secret service is an amazing organization. Anywhere the president will be in public sight, they will pretty much figure out every single location concealed sniper fire can come from and secure it. It really isn't as easy as one would think. The relatively few assasinations of presidents supports this.
 
  • #10
The current world record for a 0.50 calibre is 2.4 kilometres, by a Canadian army sniper. That's a lot of area to cover.

I wonder if there are actually many attempts, which fail due to the SS, or there aren't many attempts.
 
  • #11
Adam said:
The current world record for a 0.50 calibre is 2.4 kilometres, by a Canadian army sniper. That's a lot of area to cover.

I wonder if there are actually many attempts, which fail due to the SS, or there aren't many attempts.

But in an urban environment, there aren't that many sight lines, while in an open area, the possible locations for a sniper are few and thus controllable. I think the prevention of sniper fire is difficult but doable if you have only specific sites (such as transfer to and from vehicles) to control. Modern "bulletproof" and opaque vehicles solves the other part of that problem. I would think they'd worry a lot about the possibility of shooting down aircraft, though.
 
  • #12
JohnDubYa said:
For Presidents:

Lincoln: Pistol
McKinley: Pistol
JFK: Single shot rifle
Ford: Pistol on both occassions
Reagan: Pistol

Frankly, I would be more worried about pistol-grip, short-barreled shotguns.

Dubya, you forgot about Garfield :eek:..ummm, nevermind. :rolleyes:
 

What is self-contradiction?

Self-contradiction is when someone or something says or does something that goes against their previous statements or actions. It is a form of inconsistency.

How has Bush been self-contradictory?

Bush has been accused of self-contradiction in regards to his stances on issues such as foreign policy, the economy, and social issues. Some examples include his changing stance on the Iraq War and his support for government surveillance programs.

Why is self-contradiction problematic?

Self-contradiction can be problematic because it can undermine a person's credibility and trustworthiness. It can also lead to confusion and inconsistencies in decision-making and actions.

Is self-contradiction a common occurrence in politics?

Yes, self-contradiction is a common occurrence in politics. Politicians may change their stances on issues to appeal to different audiences or to adapt to changing circumstances. However, it can also be seen as a lack of integrity and consistency.

How can self-contradiction be avoided?

To avoid self-contradiction, it is important to have a clear and consistent set of beliefs and principles. It is also important to think carefully before making statements or taking actions, and to be transparent and honest when changes in stance occur.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top