H. R. 1022

[The Holy Roller]

I will go to the soccer game with you.

 

 

It's a date.

[Kid Cid]

Wouldn't that make it easier for the cops to find be the bad guys?

 

fixed

Edited March 2, 2007 by Kid Cid

[yo mama]

fixed

 

That was the correct retort. Glad somebody around here was bright enough to point it out.

[TimC]

Yep, one day the Gubment will ban something you do care about.

 

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

 

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

 

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

 

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out

[Jimmy Neutron]

2nd amendment protects a "well-regulated" miltia. This law would merely regulate said militia. What's the problem?

 

 

Wrong - it would regulate it out of effective existence.

[yo mama]

Wrong - it would regulate it out of effective existence.

 

Huh?

[Jimmy Neutron]

M-1 and a Mini-14??????????????????????????????

 

Ridiculous.

 

If I actually owned any guns, this would make me mad but it doesn't affect me.

 

But it does seem very, very wrong and unrealistic.

 

 

Yup - I hunt with a mini-14 and it would be banned under this crap legislation.

 

hate to say it, but yes, since there are too many people who abuse guns, they should be banned.

 

In my opinion, two of our biggest social concerns are drugs and guns.

 

 

You just answered your own question. Illicit drugs are illegal and still as common as flies - you know, like handguns in cities where they are banned.

 

No.

 

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

 

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

 

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

 

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

 

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

 

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

 

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

 

As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

 

• Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes more sense to simply build a new gun.

 

• Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes committed with shotguns.

 

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

 

 

Good info - there is a ton more like it. There is also contrasting evidence from countries like Japan, but I think the data from the UK and Austrailia reflects a more likely scenario in the US due to the more similar economic and social similarities.

 

I'm not a gun-control guy, but there's no need for citizens to own assault weapons.

 

 

What's an assault weapon? It's just a term made up to scare the public - a term whose definition is bent to suit the desired purpose. I have many guns that would be classified as "assault weapons" under this proposed bill, most are just plinking guns I shoot at the range or compete with.

 

I think all adults, once they reach the age of 25, should be required to wear sidearms. Bad guys are gonna think twice when soccer mom starts poppin' caps in they asses.

 

 

I'm all for it and I'm not kidding - with a few reservations, of course. The few states with open carry and no CCW requirements have the lowest violent crime rates in the country. Seeing lots of people armed around you tends to bring our the best manners in folks.

 

Huh?

 

 

Well, banning the most effective "assault" weapons also bans the most effective defense weapons. Personal rights aside, a "well-regulated" militia without ARs, M1s and AKs is like trying to defend the Alamo from Santa Ana with a troop of girl scouts. Any force said militia might try to defend itself from (including our government) would be armed with full auto weapons. Repelling a force with full auto weapons with mostly semi-autos is a pretty tall order. Doing it with an assortment of bolt-action, lever and pump guns is just silly.

 

No, I don't "need" a trick AR with 30 round mags to defend my home - but I do reserve the right to

[Jimmy Neutron]

BTW - it's pretty clever (if on purpose - it's got to be) that the bill is HR 1022. The Ruger 10/22 is the most popular semi-auto rifle in the country. Although just a .22, many of them would be banned under this legislation.

[yo mama]

Well, banning the most effective "assault" weapons also bans the most effective defense weapons.

 

I don't think that matters. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you access to the most lethal weapons available. It says your right to bear arms - in general - shall not be infringed so that you may participate in a well-regulated militia... not an unregulated militia.

 

I agree that gun ownership could become so regulated as to effectively negate our right to bear arms. No qualms with you there; that's a scenario I'd stand side by side with you to fight against. But the term "well-regulated militia" obviously contemplates some sensible regulation consistenct with the overarching purposes of the 2nd amendment: that being the security of a free state.

[Ursa Majoris]

Its not that much of a problem. They should just leave it alone.

Furd nails it. There's a saying about having the wisdom to leave alone that which cannot be changed. The bill sponsors should heed that advice.

 

BTW, the NRA is indeed a bunch of paranoid nutjobs.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I don't think that matters. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you access to the most lethal weapons available. It says your right to bear arms - in general - shall not be infringed so that you may participate in a well-regulated militia... not an unregulated militia.

 

I agree that gun ownership could become so regulated as to effectively negate our right to bear arms. No qualms with you there; that's a scenario I'd stand side by side with you to fight against. But the term "well-regulated militia" obviously contemplates some sensible regulation consistenct with the overarching purposes of the 2nd amendment: that being the security of a free state.

 

I understand your point, but think the term "well regulated" is often misinterpreted. IMO, well regulated was not used to secure or decribe the governments role in controlling arms. Well regulated may be interpreted to mean "well organized and well armed being necessary to the security of a free State."

 

Consider the language of the other Bill of Rights amendments. They express the rights of people and what the government can not do.

 

I think it is also important to consider the context in which these amendments were written. The Preamble clearly states that it is the right and responsibility of the people to overthrow corrupt govenment. We'd just been through that with Great Britain. Was the fear that the people might become too well armed, or that government might become too powerful and corrupt? If the latter was true, does it make sense that the potentially dangerous government should have power to limit the arms of the people and thus squash any potential rebellion?

 

Too many people have come to believe common citizens don't need guns for anything more than protecting life, home and propterty. Some don't even believe guns are necessary for that. "We have the police and army to protect us." World history :coughcough: world history.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Update: This bill has 17 of the 20 supporters required to make it out of committee. No vote scheduled.

[Ursa Majoris]

The Preamble clearly states that it is the right and responsibility of the people to overthrow corrupt govenment.

 

We should all be marching on Washington right now, in that case.

[Jimmy Neutron]

We should all be marching on Washington right now, in that case.

 

 

I agree. I wonder how bad it will get before citizens really revolt. Maybe it'll take a Starbucks tax.

[Pope Flick]

The 2nd Amendment was basically created so that any standing army would not be able to overpower an armed poulace.

 

==================

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

 

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

 

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (56)

[spain]

I find it odd that liberals can find rights in the "emanating" from the constitution that clearly arent anywhere within the 4 corners of the document itself. But then deny the existence of an individuals right to keep and bear arms, which is clearly stated. its mind boggling...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I find it odd that liberals can find rights in the "emanating" from the constitution that clearly arent anywhere within the 4 corners of the document itself. But then deny the existence of an individuals right to keep and bear arms, which is clearly stated. its mind boggling...

 

 

Limiting what type of arms the people may keep and bear is not the same thing as taking away the right to bear any arms. The public welfare needs to be taken into consideration as well:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Pope Flick]

Limiting what type of arms the people may keep and bear is not the same thing as taking away the right to bear any arms. The public welfare needs to be taken into consideration as well:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

 

 

But the philosophy behind the 2nd Amenment is to ensure the populace can overcome a tyrannical govt.

 

I'd like to see a lawyer argue I have a right to own a Blackhawk helicoptor since the underlying implication of the Federalist papers and the 2nd Amenment is that the army cannot have better weapons than the population.

 

That was easy in the time of flintlocks and cannon.....

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree. I wonder how bad it will get before citizens really revolt.

 

Never. Not a prayer. There will be a police state here long before that happens. Nanny will persuade the fear-ridden and ignorant that it's for their own good and the frightened sheep will just accept it, indeed they'll welcome it.

 

It's coming now.

[The Holy Roller]

Every year when I get through teaching the U.S. Constitution and covering the Bill of Rights I pose this question on their test, "Which of the first 10 amendments do you feel is the most important? There is no wrong answer. Explain your choice."

 

The 1st always gets the most votes but the most eloquent (for a 7th grader) choice for the 2nd amendement I've read was , "...without the 2nd amendment there wouldn't be any other amendments...".

 

From the mouth of babes.

[Furd]

The 1st always gets the most votes but the most eloquent (for a 7th grader) choice for the 2nd amendement I've read was , "...without the 2nd amendment there wouldn't be any other amendments...".

 

 

 

Why is that?

[The Holy Roller]

Why is that?

 

 

 

 

I think the young lady was implying that someone (the government?) would take away our rights if there was no physical way to insure their defense.

 

Or maybe she meant that it would be illogical to have Amendments 3, 4, 5... with there being a 2.

[Jimmy Neutron]

But the philosophy behind the 2nd Amenment is to ensure the populace can overcome a tyrannical govt.

 

I'd like to see a lawyer argue I have a right to own a Blackhawk helicoptor since the underlying implication of the Federalist papers and the 2nd Amenment is that the army cannot have better weapons than the population.

 

That was easy in the time of flintlocks and cannon.....

 

 

Good info here.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Limiting what type of arms the people may keep and bear is not the same thing as taking away the right to bear any arms. The public welfare needs to be taken into consideration as well:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

 

That's a total cop out. I could say the same thing about hate speech, but it would be equally wrong.

 

Do you find it acceptable that the only place some demonstrations may take place is in free speech zones, miles from where the targeted officials will be?

 

Anyone care to argue that alcohol is not damaging to some people in our fair country? People die from domestic abuse and car accidents involving alcohol every day. The number of people this affects is exponentially greater than the harm caused by guns in total, let alone "assault" weapons. No one (well, almost no one) is begging to bring back prohibition.

 

Please read Big John's sig from time to time - it is exceptionally accurate in today's political climate whether we're talking about guns, abortion or the Patriot Act.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Pretty reasonable article on the matter from a Tennessee rep.

 

This guys calls BS on the term "assault weapon."