Assult Rifle Ban Reintroduced

[pyzik 597]

[THE_HUNTER 2]

This really sucks!Hope that rabid politician doesn't get her way....

[Juggernaut 11,054]

I want a ban on shovels! less than 3% of all firearms crimes involve assault rifles.

Do yo know how many people are killed with shovels?

an assault rifle is a tool the same as a shovel.

Either tool can be deadly in the wrong hands.

 

Is the shovel responsible for the crime or is the person holding it?

[scoutjoe 276]

I want a ban on shovels! less than 3% of all firearms crimes involve assault rifles.

Do yo know how many people are killed with shovels?

an assault rifle is a tool the same as a shovel.

Either tool can be deadly in the wrong hands.

 

Is the shovel responsible for the crime or is the person holding it?

 

Preachin to the choir.....

 

although the law is crap

[THE_HUNTER 2]

Amen!

[kresk 10,063]

Knee jerk response by an uninformed politician to further their own career.

[rwsackett 0]

If they can ban rifles for looking scary, you know the end game is all rifles. If they could get away with a ban on shotguns-like used in Utah-I'm sure that would be on the agenda as well. Shotguns and .22's will probably be the last things that the public will let get banned. Hopefully, none of this is imminent, but in two years it may be more likely with the presidential election.

[Combat Medic 5]

What are the chances of this passing? in know there are alot of anti gun republicans in congress as well....

[whatmanual 44]

Just wrote my congress rep on that one...

 

 

 

H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes

 

This is being introduced by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). I must say I am annoyed. All too often people KNEE JERK react to do such things like this. Often its the other things involved that get overlooked.

 

For example, let's take that kid who shot up the mall in Salt Lake. Here we had an off duty police officer who had a concealed weapon. To me, I see this as NO (let me be clear) different than a law abiding citizen protecting others and stopping the threat. Because of all the laws concerning CCW, it is impossible to carry in such locations (most, if not all are prohibited).

 

People that introduce bans ALWAYS seem to forget that part. That it was an ARMED CIVILIAN (off duty the same thing in my book) that made the difference. After all, although I might not get the same training they get for riot control, arrest proceedure, or how to drive like they do, I at least get a SERIOUS course of some sort during CCW training. (Aside from a Marine background as well -which is irrelevant for now).

 

Every time a person carries, they have to ALWAYS consider on what is "worth" risking losing their 2nd amendment rights or not. Just about every CCW person I know is VERY careful on what is legal and not. Why? Because any mess up -at all, usually means a felony in some degree. In which case you will NEVER own a gun again.

 

But again, in this SPECIFIC case and circumstance, it was a GOOD THING that "someone" was there at the time who could stop the threat.

The difference people forget is this: They will praise that "off duty" officer....but would prosecute me.

 

To me that is far more important than what she is proposing. If anything, she should be introducing legislation that people can carry in more places if they take more advanced courses (like being POST certified but not a sworn officer).

 

<my name>

Ohio

Edited February 15, 2007 by whatmanual

[pyzik 597]

IRC I beleive the so far there were No Cosponsors

 

Who would be the person to contact in this issue?? Anyone to write with our views? Obviously emailing her with our views isn't going to do any good.

 

EDITED: I just read the above post...

Edited February 15, 2007 by Pyzik

[whatmanual 44]

After clicking on Miss Fancypants link and then looking to contact....it eventually leads to here:

 

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

 

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

 

 

 

 

Just find your rep *(favorite place that) and go to your reps page and blast off a message.

Side note: the "formatting" for paragraphs will not work...it will be like one long paragraph. So be SURE you use periods or something.

 

 

 

~S

[trukreltrog 8]

They did'nt forget about the armed citizen. For some reason the media does'nt want to report it. You rarely hear about anyone with a carry permit stopping a crime. I can already see magazine stockpiles. Some manufacturers are gonna make some money if this goes thru.

Edit: Just wrote my rep. also

Edited February 15, 2007 by trukreltrog

[IndyArms 10,186]

Heres what I wrote to Walsh... not that it will do any good...

 

I am writing in regards to H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

 

I cannot stress enough the absurdity of such legislation!

 

Not only is it a DIRECT VIOLATION of the CONSTITUTION of the United States, and the 2nd amendment, it will do absolutely nothing to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of those intent on commiting crimes with those weapons.

Legal firearm owners are the only ones that such a bill will affect if passed.

Allow me to remind you of something one of our founding fatehers and former presidents of the United States had to say about banning firearms:

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

~ Thomas Jefferson

 

I urge you, to vote AGAINST this "knee jerk" reaction, as well as ALL future firearm restriction bills. This type of legislation is NO DIFFERENT than stating that we need to BAN all AUTOMOBILES to stop the DWI related deaths that happen each year. Those figures I am sure, far exceed the number of fatalities to firearms related incidents annually.

 

As a member of this United States Government it is your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and its amendments. Your constituents have entrusted that you will do what is right. Please do not allow yourself to violate that trust, and violate the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, by voting in favor of another unconstitutional, and UN-AMERICAN bill!

 

Thank you,

 

Sincerely,

Mike Indelicato

 

 

Here's to hoping....

 

[macbeau 902]

Just wrote my congress rep on that one...

 

H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes

 

This is being introduced by Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). I must say I am annoyed.

 

Fuck that - I am offended - and in the kinda way that a MLK marcher is offended by a KKK rally...

 

Just wrote my congress rep on that one...

 

For example, let's take that kid who shot up the mall in Salt Lake. Here we had an off duty police officer who had a concealed weapon. To me, I see this as NO (let me be clear) different than a law abiding citizen protecting others and stopping the threat. Because of all the laws concerning CCW, it is impossible to carry in such locations (most, if not all are prohibited).

 

QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE NON-LAW-ABIDING - We are a group of law abiding citizens and WE ARE NOT the targets congress is seeking...

 

People that introduce bans ALWAYS seem to forget that part. That it was an ARMED CIVILIAN (off duty the same thing in my book) that made the difference. After all, although I might not get the same training they get for riot control, arrest proceedure, or how to drive like they do, I at least get a SERIOUS course of some sort during CCW training. (Aside from a Marine background as well -which is irrelevant for now).

Show me where "ligitmitate sporting purpose" fits into the U.S. Constitution and I might copitulate.... In therory...

 

Every time a person carries, they have to ALWAYS consider on what is "worth" risking losing their 2nd amendment rights or not. Just about every CCW person I know is VERY careful on what is legal and not. Why? Because any mess up -at all, usually means a felony in some degree. In which case you will NEVER own a gun again.

A well-read electorate, being necessary to a viable repersentative body...

the right of the people to keep and read books SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

 

See any fundimental differences?

 

 

But again, in this SPECIFIC case and circumstance, it was a GOOD THING that "someone" was there at the time who could stop the threat.

The difference people forget is this: They will praise that "off duty" officer....but would prosecute me.

What the hell are you taliking about????

 

To me that is far more important than what she is proposing. If anything, she should be introducing legislation that people can carry in more places if they take more advanced courses (like being POST certified but not a sworn officer).

An advanced course of what?

 

What part of:

A Well-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE...

(This clause being a simple rationalization of the second - mind you)

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

I fail to see any grey area on the FREEDOM of AMERICAN people to keep and hold firearms... as far as just the little 'ole U.S. Constitution is concerned...

 

Why don't people get it?????

 

It is right up there with there 1st amendment "freedoms"... I guess we don't care enough anymore...

 

I say - ABOLISH THE 3rd AMENDMENT as being useless!

(*sigh*)

 

Macbeau sends...

[JWarren 0]

[jgillaspy 24]

[PolarBearBait 3]

E-Mail Sent!!!

 

 

 

David

[G O B 3,516]

The same bullshit is happening in Maryland, except the bill defines any semi-auto ANYTHING as an "assault weapon".

The ban will most likely never make it out of comity however there is a stealth TAX bill that will TAX all semi-auto weapons YEARLY. That one is scarry because no politican (Maryland is ALL demorats) can turn down a tax dollar!!

[whatmanual 44]

Macbeau:

 

Without quoting the entire itemized -yet narrowly focused rant and wasting forum space, I'll just say that I know more about constitutional and criminal law than you apparently realize.

If you wish to attack my views, and widely recognized interpretations on what the 2nd Amendment means, at least have a coherent understanding of the English language, and legal foundations to refute my rights.

 

 

Yes, the 2nd Amendment does state:

'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

 

 

At NO point in the Amendment does it state that I must be in a militia.

At NO point in the Amendment does it state that I must belong to any group.

At NO point in the Amendment does it indicate or imply the possibility of restricted interpretation.

At NO point in the Amendment does it define the security of a free State. Am I only to defend governing entities? Or citizens too? Security from "what"? Crime or invasion?

At NO point in the Amendment does it state that the right of people to keep and bear arms is conditional. If so, name 1.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As for my specific example... Its apparent your rant blinded you to the main situation I presented. That being the kid shooting up the mall -being stopped by an off duty police officer.

If that is still too much for you, please read the "entire" sentence and then find what it relates to in my narrative.

Let's review. My complete sentence was:

But again, in this SPECIFIC case and circumstance, it was a GOOD THING that "someone" was there at the time who could stop the threat

 

I think if we took a poll, it would overwhelmingly support that I was talking about the mall shooting in Salt Lake. It's apparent to me that in your desire to retort at any and all of my previous statements, you either misread or chose to ignore the concept of my message.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As for making excuses for the Non-law abiding. Hardly. Not worth a major response for that.

Suffice to say, I feel that ignorance on facts and background of those who you accuse is worse.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As for the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED section.

Sorry, although I do love the constitution, I am a firm believer that some individuals can indeed lose their rights protected.

-Such as the most dangerous of felons like murderers on parole and bank robbers etc.

I do NOT believe that "accidental felons" should lose those 2nd Amendment rights -such as having the gun in the glove box and not knowing that is technically a felony in some (most?) states without a CCW, or having too many non US parts on a gun because you bought....take the gun (thats penalty enough) not the rights for life!

 

Past that, I am well versed in the discussion between Schulman and Copperud concerning the rewriting of the Amendment and its interpretations. No worries, I acknowledge your copied example.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As for showing you "legitimate sporting purpose" fitting into the U.S. Constitution and you might capitulate:

If I understand you correctly thus far, it would seem to me that you already have capitulated. You don't need me for that.

Besides, I'm not here to try to convince you of anything.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I will tell you that I am well educated, a Marine veteran, and care when people would use events (such as the one in Salt Lake), that are unrelated to MY actions, to infringe upon my Constitutional rights.

"I" am entitled to those rights. If someone messes up "their" rights (murderers etc), then throw the book at them without prejudice. I don't think rights should be taken away from the accidental/ignorant/non-assaulting felons.

I do not have to join any militia or regulated gang to keep and bear my arms. Period. Dot.

 

I believe in background checks. I also believe that they should also ask a sub-question after "Are you a fugitive of justice"?

I think they should add: If you answered yes, what is your current bounty?

That way the dealer would know if its worth their time to draw, or to simply kick them out of the store. (dealers should find that funny).

 

I pride myself on my integrity. I am patriotic and law abiding. If you want to insult my convictions then do so. I love the reminders that I helped protect that right.

Aside from that, I'm a person most want to have on their side. I'm not a person to sit on a porch waiting to pepper some trespasser with salt rock, or a vigilante by any stretch of the imagination. Past that there's nothing much more I would care to share with you at all.

 

If YOU want to make this into an issue of my personal philosophy or defining our Constitutional Amendments, then so be it. I see no need for that here though.

Don't take this the wrong way, I understood quite clearly your paucity of understanding concerning this topic. As such, I resign from future debates.

 

 

~S

 

By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

 

John F. Kennedy, April 1960

Edited February 15, 2007 by whatmanual

[KySoldier 2]

Thanks for the heads up, I wrote my congressman

[whatmanual 44]

Here's to hoping....

 

 

 

Nice letter Mike.

[avatar 4]

"I have again introduced legislation to permanently ban assault weapons. These weapons have no practical use. They are not used by hunters for sport or by individuals for self-defense. They are intended to kill as many individuals as possible in a short amount of time and have no place on our streets. The unfortunate situation in Philadelphia could have been avoided if Congress stood up to the gun lobby in 2004."

 

This crap just goes on and on. If the majority of our populace is so uneducated by our schools (which cost us a hell of a lot of money), and agrees with the above statement then the filth that is sent to Washington will do the will of the people. The Evil Assault Weapon is an endangered species and the American People are slaves.

Freedom has a high price. Give Liberty or Give Me Death is not a line out of the latest pop culture theatre experience. Some have really experienced the "DEATH" part. Any law current or new, Federal, State or Local, which violates the Constitution is illegal in our Republic. And those who enforce are criminals. Criminals with overwhelming fire power, isn't it wonderful.

 

What will You do ? when there is a new "BAN."

 

 

Welcome to America, formerly land of the free, and home of the brave -- What's it now, land of the Playstation and home of the condom?

 

 

Hell I guess it ain't all bad. At least we have the right to choose (I'm still trying to find this one but they tell me it's in there).

 

 

Edited February 15, 2007 by avatar

[Deamon 0]

I have contacted my rep. Thank god, I'm going to the Fun Show in a month and I'm buying everything I can while I still can.

[Reverendfranz 160]

[lunadam 0]

After reading the news story about the Muzzie that killed all those people, he was using a shotgun and a pistol(they didnt name what type). I guess she just threw that story in the mix to cause sensationalism. Sometimes I really hate politicians.

[DaGroaner 2]

After reading the news story about the Muzzie that killed all those people, he was using a shotgun and a pistol(they didnt name what type). I guess she just threw that story in the mix to cause sensationalism. Sometimes I really hate politicians.

 

 

Indeed here we are at war with radical Islam and have the muthafuckers shooting up our malls and running people over and these fucking dhimmicrats(call them what they are) want to disarm law-abiding Americans. They are tearing this country apart.

[marvin42 2]

"I have again introduced legislation to permanently ban assault weapons. These weapons have no practical use. They are not used by hunters for sport or by individuals for self-defense. They are intended to kill as many individuals as possible in a short amount of time and have no place on our streets. The unfortunate situation in Philadelphia could have been avoided if Congress stood up to the gun lobby in 2004."

 

This crap just goes on and on. If the majority of our populace is so uneducated by our schools (which cost us a hell of a lot of money), and agrees with the above statement then the filth that is sent to Washington will do the will of the people. The Evil Assault Weapon is an endangered species and the American People are slaves.

Freedom has a high price. Give Liberty or Give Me Death is not a line out of the latest pop culture theatre experience. Some have really experienced the "DEATH" part. Any law current or new, Federal, State or Local, which violates the Constitution is illegal in our Republic. And those who enforce are criminals. Criminals with overwhelming fire power, isn't it wonderful.

 

What will You do ? when there is a new "BAN."

 

 

Welcome to America, formerly land of the free, and home of the brave -- What's it now, land of the Playstation and home of the condom?

 

 

Hell I guess it ain't all bad. At least we have the right to choose (I'm still trying to find this one but they tell me it's in there).

 

 

 

 

Sounds like the Redcoats have come back & this time the fear striken & paranoid masses are ready to willingly hand over all freedoms for a sorry-assed hollow promise of protection & security. <--- not even worthy of being sheep; maybe sloths or wax worms.

 

Do you have any idea of how dangerous a criminal with a gun and one bullet is in the UK?

[Bvamp 604]

I guess I should have taken pictures of the half dozen deer that were shot this winter with an sar1 and a saiga12 and sent them to the woman. not too sure what they mean but not used for hunting.

 

just because they dont add new shooting events to the olympics does not mean that there is not a sporting use for them either.

 

lets see what they do and say when some terrorists or other halfwits go shoot up a town and are shot dead by people like me and you with (most likely) one of these very types of guns.

 

most people are fucked in my book, and the same number are total halfwits. fix that problem before you penalise the rest of us for a few people's actions. making people fear the weapon itself will only make them stupider and fail to address the real issues that cause these incidents. take away the gun, they will use something else, and it still wont be a level playing field.

 

I like how the beltway sniper was never referred to as having an assault weapon. he used an AR15 type of weapon, and only fired one shot at a time.

 

I guess its a matter of convenience to those that would use the issues for thier own self-gain.

[headshot 52]

Everyone is missing the obvious absurdity in the instance of those who don't exercise a particular right deeming it as unnecessary and subject to infringement or repeal by popular vote. All by a simple group of representatives speaking for millions who they can't possibly represent to the degree necessary to invalidate or infringe upon a right.

 

While the constitution may be amended, there is no legal method to amend the Bill of Rights as it is not simply a group of amendments to the constitution, but its own separate legal document. It's very existence was a necessary and REQUIRED measure to address the concerns of the states who were holding out on ratifying the US Constitution. Ironically, hindsight has validated their concerns entirely.

 

Amending the Bill of Rights invalidates those states ratification of the US constitution. I believe that succession is legal in such a case because it seems that the US Constitution and Bill of rights are an implied contract due to the circumstances of the existence of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

 

Thoughts?

[avatar 4]

Everyone is missing the obvious absurdity in the instance of those who don't exercise a particular right deeming it as unnecessary and subject to infringement or repeal by popular vote. All by a simple group of representatives speaking for millions who they can't possibly represent to the degree necessary to invalidate or infringe upon a right.

 

While the constitution may be amended, there is no legal method to amend the Bill of Rights as it is not simply a group of amendments to the constitution, but its own separate legal document. It's very existence was a necessary and REQUIRED measure to address the concerns of the states who were holding out on ratifying the US Constitution. Ironically, hindsight has validated their concerns entirely.

 

Amending the Bill of Rights invalidates those states ratification of the US constitution. I believe that succession is legal in such a case because it seems that the US Constitution and Bill of rights are an implied contract due to the circumstances of the existence of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I do however remember what happened the last time anyone tried to exercise their right to leave the Union.