PDA

View Full Version : HR 1022 "Assault Weapons Ban".


CrossOfFire
20th Mar 07, 12:28 PM
So, I've been off for awhile (almost two months to be exact). I look at this forum and realize what I was in months ago, and that's a vastly pre-deliberated unwilling to "flex" close minded peer group.

Now I'm not going to bash this forum, had quite a few good memories here, and there are some good people here.

That being said, I'm going to speak about legislation currently being pushed to pass and my views on it, and I'll ask that all of you at least give me a moment before you take your pre-positioned points to argue anything resembling something different from your fixated Point of View.

So, there's a new Weapons ban proposed in the United States, to ban all "Assault Weapons." Here's my .02 worth, I'm not going to argue with emotion or anything, but present facts. By the way, before this begins, thanks for the time and the read.

There's been a common mis conception among voters and citizens of many nations across the globe, that banning fire arms will solve a problem, that problem is crime, there is no evidence what so ever of this fact and expecting criminals to follow laws is elementarily stupid. They can smuggle in 20 million people? What makes you think they can't smuggle in guns? These laws only have one effect, disarming the people who obey the laws, the law abiding citizens who took the initiative to arm themselves, or for sporting purposes do otherwise.

The Guns aren't the problem either to begin with, a gun never picked it's self up and shot two or three people or killed it's owner. It's always been people that have killed people, I think our judicial system is the problem in that effect, in that, Our Judicial system is a laughing-stock, these days you can murder people, or rather, Rape and bury 6 year old girls alive and be declared retarded and let off. The insanity plea is a joke as well, but what isn't a joke is the fact that it works.

I think we need to make much more severe punishments for firearm violations and for violent crimes. As it stands now the majority of the criminals are repeat offenders, up to 60 to 70% are, any crime committed with a gun carries a felony sentence, which costs you your right to vote and your right to bear arms, for the rest of your life.

How is it that we have multiple violent crime acts with criminals with guns? Because you expect criminals to follow the law.

I think it's also unreasonable and ignorant to hold 250+ Million people accountable for less than a half of a percent of the populace. Do you realize one instance, two career criminals, men who had previous felony convictions (noticing a pattern?) shot up North Hollywood, and 50 million people lost their natural born rights, where they appreciated it or not.

Also notice how some of the worst crimes involving guns in the past 20 years have been in gun free zones? Such as Columbine, DC Sniper, etc. Again expecting criminals to follow laws... But at the same time making law-abiding citizens be held accountable for these criminals, and yet we don't even hold those criminals accountable anymore. (See mention of 6 yr old raped girl buried alive and man being declared retarded)

The United Kingdom is a prime example of things to come, if this path continues, they banned firearms after a truly horrific shooting, understandably so they thought the best thing to do would be to ban guns. Yet, there is more gun violence and more violence in the UK now than ever. Notice how they banned firearms? Last summer there was a ban that went through on certain domestic knives, ask some of the residence of the UK that post on this forum, but yet they have the same violence today they did last summer? Guns aren't the problem now guns weren't the problem then.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban has sunsetted as of September of 2004 and yet we've had no real remarkable spurts in crime, in fact this is the lowest murder rate we've had since 1991, and yet they're still savagely trying to ban firearms.

Let's take a step into the criminal's way of thinking, why would they ever go after armed citizens when they could just as easily assault or pursue unarmed citizens? That has been testified to by many criminals, they don't go after armed citizens they go after unarmed citizens who are weak, etc. Concealed Carry Permits are terrifying to criminals because they can't harm those people, or those people have the means to defend themselves.

They go after women and children, but yet we still get rid of our means of protection, your natural rights, whether you appreciate it or not.

I figured for humor reasons I'd post this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2312508445846864220

That's Penn and Teller's view on guns, a lot of good points, great video.

What else is funny is notice in the areas with the most guns, there is actually the least amount of crime, what shoot outs happen at gun shows? What killing happen at gun ranges? But yet look at down town New York City one of the most Anti-Gun Pro-Rights places in America and ask yourself how much crime is there?

Bottom line, Politicians should propose harder legislation against violent criminals not law-abiding citizens, makes sense no? Why not up the anti and make it 5 to 10 years mandatory on top of every sentencing involving firearms, or 10 to 15? How many criminals would you see then? Make that plus give the citizens the right to carry weapons? How much crime do you think there'd be if you're Option A: Going to Prison for basically ever if Option B: You don't get shot in the process of trying to rob/rape/kill someone?

Anyway I'm going to get flamed for this, and hounded, but I doubt anyone will have any facts to bring to the argument.

Just sit for a moment and think, I realize Hollywood has had a deep rooted effect on many of you, and you'll realize the facts shortly, but really approach it with a fresh mind, think about it.

Anyway, that's all I've got.

Fannin
20th Mar 07, 12:33 PM
It'd be foolhardy to claim that banning guns wouldn't lower the rates of violent gun crime. The real question is whether or not it would do so effectively enough to be worth considering.

Or, a bigger real question: Is abridging a civil liberty guaranteed in the Constitution in order to make us safer something we should even consider?

CrossOfFire
20th Mar 07, 12:36 PM
Bring facts, not opinions, banning guns has not lowered crime period. My post is laced with instances where yours is just "Well it should work." It doesn't.

Artinam
20th Mar 07, 12:39 PM
Altough I might be able to agree about the sport aspect of a gun, an assault rifle is meant to assault thing hence its name. It might certainly be cool to have one but your basicly having a real weapon meant to kill people(with the exception of assault rifles which are locked in single shot which are legal in The Netherlands), unlike a sporting rifle which doesn't need an automatic function.

But lets put it this way, what about the Belgium kid who shot a child and its "babysitter" (hired foreign woman) a few years ago, with a gun he bought a few hours ago legally. Later people found out that this person followed extreme right thoughts. That alone caused a lot of problems in Belgium, and they either have banned weapon allowance or restricted it severly. Unfortunatly I haven't been able to locate a non-Dutch language source to show you.

Although I agree that these are the violent exceptions and that most of the people are not intending to kill people with it, BUT it is much easier for a person who has gone mad to pick up an assault rifle and assault people with it then picking up a knife, which is not ranged and fully automatic(And still forbidden in The Netherlands).
Solution for those sporting people wanting an assault rifle, buy a locked one and use that you have the looks an you can use it for sports.

Fannin
20th Mar 07, 12:44 PM
your basicly having a real weapon meant to kill people

Yep. That sounds about what any kind of gun is to me. In fact, its use as a weapon to kill other human beings is precisely why owning one is a Constitutionally-protected right.

The Second Ammendment wasn't put in to appease the hunters in the Committee ;)

TheLoneKnight
20th Mar 07, 12:44 PM
I always thought that that garaunteed civil liberty was directed toward members in a militia, not every citizen in the US.

CrossOfFire
20th Mar 07, 12:47 PM
Assault Rifle? Funny you say that, do you know who created the Term Assault Rifle?

The First Gun Ban, not military, not Law Enforcement, but Legislation, and it means whatever they want it to, one of the hardest problems to over come in this legislation was how to classify the "Assault Weapons".

And the 1986 Weapons Ban, banned all distribution of newly manufactured Automatic Weapons to all Civilians. Now they're under the National Firearms Act of 1934, as "Transferrable" Weapons, meaning if they weren't made before 1986 they aren't legal to possess by civilians.

What're we're talking about now is semi-automatic rifles, and semi-automatic even shotguns, right there are a few instances of radicals like that, and there always will be, but overall, crime is at record lows, but yet we have some of the loosest firearm laws in the past 15 years? How can that be?

Also, with your perspective we should ban many types of chemicals as well, and other materials because they can be formed into explosives. I addressed that issue with the Domestic Knives Legislation of the UK, it's kind of not really relevant, banning guns isn't going to stop criminals, you're affecting law abiding citizens.

What if that boy knew he would get the electrical chair for what he did? Would he do it then? Or Life in Prison, how about then?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, you're wrong, it clearly states "The Right of the People(Not Miltia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We're people.

EDIT: Also, a Miltia is a group of civilians formed in a military bearing so, kind of doesn't make much sense, both of those are civilians, it was meant to police the Govt. and protect the people's rights.

hybris
20th Mar 07, 12:48 PM
I'd trust the Michael Moore movie "Bowling for Columbine" more than a Pen & Teller episode anytime.
Even though Moore is biased towards the other end, it holds much more credible facts than the Pen&Teller poptarts.

CrossOfFire
20th Mar 07, 12:49 PM
Actually, there is a documentary done by two Canadians, who are Michael Moore Fans who actually said he falsified documentation and made up statistics, I don't have it with me but can find it for you.

ceejayoz
20th Mar 07, 12:52 PM
Bring facts, not opinions, banning guns has not lowered crime period. Oh? Haven't seen many sources cited in your big long post.

How about not starting your post with "I'm gonna get flamed" and insinuations that we've been brainwashed by Hollywood (huh?). If you continue to preemptively treat everyone like morons for disagreeing with you, this thread will be short lived.

Both sides: back your shit up with reputable (i.e. not edutainment videos) sources, or don't post... and treat the other side with respect.

CommodoreKitty
20th Mar 07, 12:52 PM
Haven't assault weapons already been banned? Anyway, banning them will solve nothing. The people who use them for crime will have no difficulty getting the weapons if they want them. Even if you could ban all guns, and it was impossible to get them, there would be more stabbings, beatings, and other crimes. I do not know how you could solve the crime problem, but this wont help.

Fannin
20th Mar 07, 12:54 PM
Neither Michael Moore nor Pen and Teller ought to be accepted as factual sources.

How about using plain reason? Less access to weapons inherently means less people will be killed with them. For the same reason, handing out condoms at schools is going to increase the number of kids who have sex. If you make something easier or more palatable to do, more people are going to do it. It's just a question of how much.

It's the civil liberties aspect of this that I'm most interested in, though. I do have a sneaking suspicion, however, that this thread probably won't end up going there. I'm going to go hide behind a lead shield before it heats up in here ;)

Artinam
20th Mar 07, 12:54 PM
Ok, what is the use of a gun besides shooting things.
What is the use of these chemicals. Often fertiliser, yes can be used to make explosives
What is the use of most common knives. Making a sandwich in my case, besides it is still illigal to carry one of these across the street.

Unfortunatly it is nearly impossible for a European (Dutch to be precise) like me to understand this Gun law in the constitution. You need a big license here to even own a gun(with complete background checked out by the police). Dutch(maybe European) mentality about fire arms is much more different then the American view, therefore I can pretty much assume we can agree that we will never agree.

I at the moment lack data of our crime statistics to support or contradict my claim that without guns as a civil right might lead to smaller crime levels.

CrossOfFire
20th Mar 07, 12:55 PM
You want Sources?

Okay, Check the UK's Legislation and Violent Crime Rate.

Check our Violent Crime Rate, and the Sources are the '86 Weapons ban(Banned legal ownership of newly manufactured MG's), '94 AWB (Banned all Semi-Automatic "Assault Weapons"), and '68 Weapons Ban (Banned Importation of MGs) and the NFA of '34 (National Firearms Act, created an unpayable tax then of $200 on every single NFA item)

I posted facts, they are facts, I mean I challenge someone to prove me wrong on those facts.

ceejayoz
20th Mar 07, 12:56 PM
I challenge you to provide a link to the stats you're using so we can all examine the same set of data. Then we can talk about the implications.

CrossOfFire
20th Mar 07, 1:01 PM
Neither Michael Moore nor Pen and Teller ought to be accepted as factual sources.

How about using plain reason? Less access to weapons inherently means less people will be killed with them. For the same reason, handing out condoms at schools is going to increase the number of kids who have sex. If you make something easier or more palatable to do, more people are going to do it. It's just a question of how much.

It's the civil liberties aspect of this that I'm most interested in, though. I do have a sneaking suspicion, however, that this thread probably won't end up going there. I'm going to go hide behind a lead shield before it heats up in here

Actually, less access to weapons doesn't make PEOPLE any less dangerous, as been proven in other statements, and also, Why would you expect criminals to follow laws, you're just affecting Law-Abiding (People who follow laws) Citizens.

Ok, what is the use of a gun besides shooting things.
What is the use of these chemicals. Often fertiliser, yes can be used to make explosives
What is the use of most common knives. Making a sandwich in my case, besides it is still illigal to carry one of these across the street.

Unfortunatly it is nearly impossible for a European (Dutch to be precise) like me to understand this Gun law in the constitution. You need a big license here to even own a gun(with complete background checked out by the police). Dutch(maybe European) mentality about fire arms is much more different then the American view, therefore I can pretty much assume we can agree that we will never agree.

I at the moment lack data of our crime statistics to support or contradict my claim that without guns as a civil right might lead to smaller crime levels.

Doesn't matter if there's a need or not for them, it matters that you did nothing wrong to have them taken away, You're being punished for other's actions. The King of England wanted to ban firearms in the U.S. because it would give them more control.

Also, even Gandhi was recorded as saying "The Greatest Crime the UK ever committed against India was taking it's guns away." You know why, because they couldn't rise up and rebel, if that's what it took, We're not supposed to submit to the Govt, and I'm not being a radical here, I don't hate govt, I support Law Enforcement, the Senate and the Military, but the Govt. is here to serve and aid it's people not the other way around.

And No, You can own Semi-Automatic Weapons, unless this ban passes, such as AR-15's and AK-47's but they're not automatic, you need to go through the ATF, FBI and a Sheriff or Chief of Law Enforcement to obtain one that was made before the 1986 Weapons ban, but let me put it to you this way, FBI Back ground check, FBI approval, and the approval of a Sheriff or Chief of Law Enforcement, then a $200 tax, and the price of inflation, an M16 from colt brand new costs like $1,500, but on the Class III market runs for around $18,000, because they're limited quantities and can't be renewed.

ceejayoz
20th Mar 07, 1:03 PM
Thread locked until you PM me expressing your willingness to start citing sources.

If/when this gets unlocked, the same goes for everyone else.

ceejayoz
20th Mar 07, 4:47 PM
We're gonna do a do-over this evening. Prepare yourselves!