Gun laws in US
 

I have to write a letter to a politician debating a topic so naturally I picked guns (Gun violence specifically, the wouldn't let me do Gun Control anymore), could some of the knowledgable users who know these well list them on here to help me out. I'm writting to Joe Biden BTW. He'll never read it but it'll make my demonic teacher happy that I get it done. :rolleyes:

What exactly are you asking for?

Bans, limitations, laws passed, laws now expired. I'm not very picky.

I assume you also mean on the federal level? Because if you want to get into state and local laws, then you're looking at thousands.

There really isn't much I could tell you that the NRA-ILA site and GunCite don't do better, so just check these out:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=63

http://nraila.org/GunLaws/

http://guncite.com/

Thanks, these will do just fine. What pisses me off is no one lets you use wikipedia because anonymous users can add wrong info but it is so much easier and usually fine. Being someone who works on a wiki sponsered site, I almost find this insulting.

I can use government sites so these are good.

Have you got about twenty hours?:rolleyes:

Well, NRA-ILA and Guncite don't qualify as "government"...

Anyway, Wikipedia does have issues. When I used to edit articles on the IRA and the Troubles (the subject of my Honors Thesis), I had to constantly deal with dumbfuck IRA sympathizers who would delete or change anything that they thought portrayed their Gaelic Gods in anything less than flattering language. So you will have people who can't be trusted to be objective and will edit/delete anything they disagree with. But at least you can look at References.

I agree 100% with wikipedia not being an acceptable source in schools, because its not an acceptable source in the professional world either. Too much bias. I made it through high school and university without using it, and my understanding of the subject matter was enhanced by finding multiple sources with different perspectives. I've got a pretty low view of the whole new media phenomenon, actually. It's great in theory, but people only pay attention to their own pet issues and then there's no hope of getting on objective assessment.

Eh, I dunno about that. You do have to recognize the flaws (which not everyone is capable of doing, sadly), but once you do, "new media" can expose you to stuff that you never would have known before.

One of my pet peeves about our media (and your country's media) and our unversities is how they continually take a liberal apologist perspective of stuff like the savagery of the militant Islamists. Most of what I know about Islam, I learned through "new media", because the bullshit they tried to shove down my throat in college was just obviously not true. Even when I was doing my thesis, my faculty adviser used to tell me I was taking "too negative" a view of the IRA in Northern Ireland by not understanding the circumstances in which they emerged, which apparently somehow justifies their terrorism. So as far as I am concerned, "new media" is the antidote to the leftist bullshit.

Wikipedia shouldn't be cited unless its for amusement.

Wikipedia has been overrun by liberally biased MODS who routinely have negative or uncomplimentary pages on things they don't like and have glowing or 100% positive pages for things they DO LIKE.

An example of their disgusting BIAS...

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Yes, IMDB is a little like Wikipedia, except we're not a bunch of left wing loons (apologies to the GOOD members/editors of Wikipedia whose reputations are being tarred by the actions of a good number of their editors....)

You mean IMFDB? And that stuff about the mods is ridiculous, no admin. has the right to remove legitamite info (especially sourced!) simply because they don't like the user's addition. Like you said MPM, I'm sure there are good administrators on the site, but the biased ones are unexceptable. Hopefully none of us admins. would do stuff like that.

No apologies needed. :)

I just made some edits to the AWB article on Wikipedia. For some reason, the H&K G36E (which didn't even exist when the AWB was passed, in either military or civvie form) was mentioned amongst the guns banned by name, while the picture of a TEC-DC9 that's in the article was listed as an AB-10.

Ah, Wikipedia...the shining light of truth and neutrality in a dark and biased world. :rolleyes:

Actually, the addition of the G36 sounds more to me like the kind of thing some dumb 11-year old kid would add to the article to make it sound "cooler", without understanding the political implications. I can't imagine there are too many anti-gunners who even know what a G36 is. Some of them don't even know the difference between a "magazine" and a "stock" (Chuck Schumer, anyone?)

But I do agree with the basic premise that Wikipedia has serious neutrality issues.

Speaking of Wikipedia, someone on there altered the HK416 article to say that it was originally called the HK M5000...