Assault Weapons Ban REVISITED In Congress!

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=143
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=114
This massive gun ban has been EXPANDED AND REINTRODUCED into congress recently by Carolyn Mcarthy(D).

Here are some informative fact sheets and articles about the infamous Clinton Gun Ban: 

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=163

It was a GOOD THING that Congress decided to let Clinton's 'Assault Weapons Ban' expire in 2004. 
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=158

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=131
http://www.clintongunban.com/
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=122

And of course: 
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=201
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/assault_weapons.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-114754-1427r.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200409130630.asp

Less obvious bias plz

>>2
Yes, I'm pro-2A.  This does not invalidate my positions or findings.

Most people are biased in some way or other.  Bias does not equate to incorrect information and or findings.  >>3 is right. 

>>3
So am I. I am talking about the websites. NRA and gunowners.org fact sheets are horribly biased.

>>5
The fact that they are biased does not mean that they are wrong.

>>6
No, but it means they are more likely to be wrong, usually from lies by omission.

lol >>4 ,are you replying to yourself??

>>8
fukkin LAWL. Best ID own yet.

You guys are idiots. You think guns make you tough, yet you still only have the guts to bitch about this anonymously on an internet forum.

And for the gun control people, why the hell are you coming here to argue with them. It's a waste of time, like arguing with a brick wall, especially for the idiot who replied to his own post as someone else. If the NRA nuts haven't read the entire 2nd amendment by now, what makes you think it'll happen anytime in the near future.

>>10
You do not know whether we only argue this issue here or not. If that's your only argument for gun control you fail hard.

>>11

Whatever you say, internet tough guy.

>>11

Everybody says guns are a penis substitute, but to also be an e-penis substitute?

>>10

It doesn't take much guts to talk about gun control in any venue. Just the other day this loli was walking down the sidewalk towards me and gave me this look like she was all gun control and shit. So I stepped in her path and began shouting, "Get back to Russia you fucking communist whore."

She began "crying" and went for a knife in her pretty pink dress. I kicked it out of her hand, knocked her down, and made her a woman.

There was nothing difficult about that at all.

Next time bost a neutral source.

Bias source!

>>12
>>13
I never swore, therefore I cannot be an internet tough guy. Also it's obvious this is another avoidance tactic. Just admit you are wrong!

>>7
\"No, but it means they are more likely to be wrong, usually from lies by omission.\"

They aren\'t.  If you disagree, feel free to disprove it.  Again, I put forth some studies and fact sheets.  If they are wrong, and you can prove it, go ahead.  If not, you are pretty much just saying that any collection of -facts- you recieve from a source that could be biased is unusable - which is bullshit.  This is a politics forum.  On politics forums, stuff like this gets discussed.  If you don\'t have anything to bring to the table other than \"your argument isn\'t valid (even though i have yet to proove that they are incorrect) because your fact sheets come from a source that i don\'t like,\" I am not going to take you seriously, nor should anyone else. 

>>17

I have to agree.  If you can disprove the arguments made by the OP, do so.  If not, stfu.

>>14
She would have been able to defend herself if she had a gun.