RATATATATATATA. KA-BOOM! You're (truly) dead.

Hi,

As American military forces are trying to disarm Iraqi citizens, the chimp administration, along with the US congress, has decided it’s high time to arm American citizens.

As of midnight tonight, September 13, 2004, the 10-year moratorium on assualt weapons – which the chimp (aka Dumya) promised to extend during the 2000 presidential election campaign – will lapse. :open_mouth:

Shucks, these republicans sure love those high-powered, cop-killing machines. And I thought it was AIPAC that had the US congress by the balls. Three cheers for the NRA – Hip Hip Hooray (x3)!

~PeterD

P.S. I dedicate this post to Kopio :slight_smile:

Thanks for that informative smattering of opinion :smiley:

Keep your head low, Benissimus :wink:

You Americans are crazy. Imagine jeff with a gat. :confused:

panem et circenses et arma.

~D

Translation help :blush:

E pluribus unum GAT

Translation help > :blush: >

bread and games and weapons

You know, as in what do the Roman people need… bread and games… and the Americans need bread, games and weapons.

Thank you, Emma.

Yes, bread and games…

I like olive oil sprinkled with oregano on my bread for breakfast; enjoy very much football (soccer); guns? :unamused:

~PeterD

Eh… Peter?

You seem to be very well up on the anti-Bush campaign, so I was wondering whether you could help me on this:

The other day my dad was zapping through the TV channels cause he was bored and there was nothing on (i.e. CNN was interviewing a country singer, Sky News was busy reporting on a hurricane and Euro News was reporting on the off-road truck championships in the Czech Republic). Then he found Aljazeera which was showing a programme on George W. Bush and we watched that instead. Some bits were in Arabic, but the rest was in English (Americans speaking about George W. Bush and his family) with Arabic subtitles. Most of the stuff they said there wasn’t new to me, but what was was that apparently the Bushs had been bankrolling the Nazis/Hitler (they just showed some old photos and some American guy made the allegation). Just wondering what you know about this.

Hi Emma,

Does anyone ever wonder what the ‘W’ stands for in George W. Bush’s name?

Wanker?

Not really.

Wimp?

Sound’s right; it rhymes with chimp. But no, it’s not that, either.

It stands for ‘Walker.’

George Herbert Walker – the chimp’s maternal great-grandfather – was the notorious Wall Street financier who staunchly supported Hitler.

In the 1930s, “Mr.” Walker arranged for his new son-in-law – Prescott Bush, the chimp’s grandfather – to become a senior official in an investment company that eventually was to launder money for the Nazi killing machine. The ever industrious Prescott also joined the Board of Directors of Union Banking Corp. which, under the auspices of “Mr.” Walker and Prescott, helped finance the fledgling Nazi party. Both of these ‘outstanding’ American citizens profited handsomely from those dealings.

In 1942 the US government, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, seized the Nazi party’s US assets, and took control of Union Banking Corp. Unfortunately, money and friends in high places talks. Both “Mr.” Walker and Prescott got a simple slap on the wrist.

There you have the gist of it Emma. It’s old news to the rest of the world, but unfortunately news travels very slowly in the US (or Americans don’t care?). The Bush clan is basically buzzed. Here’s a lovely quote from the chimp’s mother – the battleaxe Barbara Bush – from an interview earlier this year on ABC’s Good Morning America program when she was asked about the escalating death toll of American boys in Iraq (pronounced ‘eyerak’ by the chimp):

“Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many? It’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”

Way to go bitch! Easy to say when they are not your kids being shot at and killed everyday!

Need I say more about the Bush clan from Kennebunkport, MAINE?

~PeterD

He said a naughty word! Shoot ihn!

Calm down Peter it’s not worth it. Just be glad that you live in Canada. Seriously though, what can you do? :confused:

Just be glad that you live in Canada

True, true…


pronounced ‘eyerak’ by the chimp

In fact, MANY people pronounce it that way, including news anchors. Each to their own, I say.

I myself am not happy that the ban is expiring either..

It’s very cool that you can get Al-Jazeera, Emma.. I wish I could have more news sources when Larry King’s interviewing a country singer. I want to see what the hype is about. :stuck_out_tongue:

I saw a programme called ‘Conspiracy Theory’ on Sky one, about Bush planning September 11th. It all indeed adds up, and the evidence in that programme was overwhelming. I can say whether poisonous TV or not, it’s clearly true! This does beg the question how does there manage not to be an uproar there.

Pete & Pete if you are angry try and do as many press ups as you can. Take a breather for 5 mins. Then do as many press ups as you can. Take a breather for 5 mins. Do as many press ups as you can.

You are now too wrecked to be angry. It does work.

i was wondering if Mr D. remembers the snipers that kept the d.c. area under cover not too long back. their weapon of choice was the bushmaster (some model or another i am not up on my assault rifles) which is visualy almost indistinguisable from the AR-15 an ausult rifle on the banned list. both are very powerful, they shoot out the same caliber round as an M-16 the weapon american troops use, they are both semi-automatic which means they can shoot as fast as a chimp could pul the trigger. the assualt weapons ban was ceremonial and did not keep those who wanted to kill with impunity. i dont think it is fair to spread vitriolic empty rhetoric. it is a tactic that those form both ends of the political spectrum use and it is deceiving and misleading. i do not own an assualt weapon and i dont think anyone else needs to either, but to make the implication that this ban was any more than a semblance of protection is mendacious. i am writing this off the top of my head without searching for many differant facts and figures. feel free to look for all the facts and figures that prove the asertation that violence is falling becaus of this panoply of a ban. then i wil search for my facts and figures and together we can prove that one could find facts and figures to prove just about anything.

i dont think it is fair to spread vitriolic empty rhetoric.

I know, but it’s very funny sometimes. :stuck_out_tongue:
I mean, I get a kick out of reading Maureen Dowd, even though she’s many more times a liberal tham I am. .. the more fiery, the funnier.
By the same token, there is a reason that Rush Limbaugh is so popular among conservatives.

but to make the implication that this ban was any more than a semblance of protection is mendacious

Precisely why the ban ought to be fortified..

But then of course, there’s the pesky 2nd amendment. :wink:

I and the rest of the world.

Indeed, that weapon in question was illegal and must have been bought (stolen?) before the moratorium on assault weapons came in effect.

the assualt weapons ban was ceremonial and did not keep those who wanted to kill with impunity.

The ban left a lot to be desired, but it was start. Why do you want to make it easier for nutcases to purchase guns?

i dont think it is fair to spread vitriolic empty rhetoric. it is a tactic that those form both ends of the political spectrum use and it is deceiving and misleading. i do not own an assualt weapon and i dont think anyone else needs to either, but to make the implication that this ban was any more than a semblance of protection is mendacious.

Like I said above, the moratorium was a start; it was surely better than NO law. There are at least twice as many guns (of all kinds) in the US than there are people; something had to be done.

i am writing this off the top of my head without searching for many differant facts and figures. feel free to look for all the facts and figures that prove the asertation that violence is falling becaus of this panoply of a ban. then i wil search for my facts and figures and together we can prove that one could find facts and figures to prove just about anything.

The figures? Take Canada. In Canada it is extremely difficult to legally purchase any sort of gun, even slingshots are hard to find. The Canadian mortality rates due to gun violence are infinitesimally minute compared to those of the US, even accounting for the disparity in populations. So, please, save that argument.

There are tens of thousands of Americans who die from gun shot wounds each and every year. If you check the stats you will be shocked. The ban on assualt weapons was not, of course, THE solution to gun violence; no one said it was. It was inacted – watered down as it was – to make it a little bit more difficult for killers and would-be killers to get their hands on them. Now, you got nothing.

Good luck, and don’t forget to duck!

~PeterD

p.s. The more guns a man has the smaller his manhood – Canadian proverb

I was not going to reply on this topic but I could not resist.

The right to keep and bare arms is one of the conerstones that the United States was founded on. As most of you know, that right was granted in the 2nd Amendment.

With that said, let me get to my point. Banning guns, of any type, is one of the stupidest (is that a word, should I say most stupid) ideas I have ever heard. Were people not killed by bad people before guns were invented? Was the world a more civil and safe place before the “evil” guns were invented? The answer is obvious. When bad people want to do bad things, they will use whatever tools are available. How many remember what the Islamic terorists used to hijack the airplanes on 9/11. They used box cutters. Guns are simply a tool in the hands of the person using it. A gun cannot kill a person unless someone intentionally or accidentally points it at someone and pulls the trigger. This is so basic that I can’t understand how so many people do not get this point.

In the US, we have more than enough gun laws on the books. The problem is that they are not properly enforced. This is wrong but you cannot fix the problem by putting more regulations or restrictions of law abiding citizens. The criminals are not going to follow the laws no matter how many there are. It is my position that it should be mandatory for every citizen over 18 to own a gun and that we should be able to carry them anywhere anytime. How much crime do you think there would be if the criminals knew that everyone or anyone may be armed? I am not advocating a return to the “old west” and I believe there should be very strong laws governing the use of guns in the defense of ones family, home, and possesions.

For the record, I own several guns, and by some of the definitions I have heard suggested (over the years), every one could be considered an “assault weapon”. Only one could be considered an assault weapon in my opinion. I believe in resposible gun ownership and proper training of the use of guns. My guns are never loaded in my home and the first thing I do every time I pick one up is to make sure that it is not loaded. I have a wife and two small children. I have taught my wife how to use her gun (I bought her a Smith & Wesson 9mm many years ago) in case she ever needs to and I have a strict no touching policy with my kids. When they (both are girls) get old enough, I will teach them proper respect for guns as well as the proper way to use them.

Hope I was not unclear.

Rhuiden

Hi Rhuiden,

Resistance is futile. Glad you joined in. :slight_smile:

Hope I was not unclear.

Though you and I are politically on different galaxies, you speak your mind freely and clearly. I like that.

~PeterD

p.s. I was kidding on that manhood proverb (or was I? :stuck_out_tongue: )

The figures? Take Canada. In Canada it is extremely difficult to legally purchase any sort of gun, even slingshots are hard to find. The Canadian mortality rates due to gun violence are infinitesimally minute compared to those of the US, even accounting for the disparity in populations. So, please, save that argument.

There are tens of thousands of Americans who die from gun shot wounds each and every year. If you check the stats you will be shocked. The ban on assualt weapons was not, of course, THE solution to gun violence; no one said it was. It was inacted – watered down as it was – to make it a little bit more difficult for killers and would-be killers to get their hands on them. Now, you got nothing.

PeterD: You must have been posting at the same time I was or I would have responded to your last post in my previous post.

It is true that many, many Americans die from gunshot wounds each year but most (a vast majority I would think) are in urban areas and are gang related or drug related. If you factor those out, the number drops dramatically (I did not look up any stats to quote because it is late and I have to work tomorrow). I am not saying to discount those people but you can’t include them with the general population when making your argument.

Also, when the ban was passed, it had nothing to do with stopping crime. Its purpose was to pacify the liberals and get them off Bill Clinton’s back. I will be very disappointed with Bush if this comes up again and he was to support it.

Rhuiden