Banned on firearms?

[ruah_23]

"ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN -- (Senate - March 02, 2005)

[Page: S1928] GPO's PDF

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein as a cosponsor of her legislation to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. I voted for the original 1994 assault weapons ban and for the amendment to reauthorize the ban in the 108th Congress.

When the 1994 assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004, criminals and terrorists gained potential easy access to 19 of the highest powered and most lethal firearms produced. In addition to banning 19 specific weapons , the assault weapons ban also prohibited the sale of semiautomatic weapons that incorporated a detachable magazine and two or more specific military features. These features included folding/telescoping stocks, protruding pistol grips, bayonet mounts, threaded muzzles or flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, or grenade launchers. Common sense tells us that there is no reason for civilians to have easy access to guns with these military style features.

During the 108th Congress, I joined with the majority of my Senate colleagues in adopting an amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for another 10 years. However, the bill to which it was attached was later derailed. Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, bipartisan support in the Senate, and the pleas of Americans who have already lost loved ones to assault weapons tragedies, the ban was allowed to expire, as the President and the Republican Congressional leadership were unwilling to act.

Despite the National Rifle Association's assertions that the ban is ineffective, unnecessary, and that guns labeled as assault weapons are rarely used in violent crimes, the need for the assault weapons ban is clear. Just last week, AK-47 assault rifles, like the ones included in the original assault weapons ban, were reportedly used in two separate shootings in Texas and California that left four people dead and four others seriously injured, three of whom were police officers. In Tyler, TX, a gunman armed with an AK-47, wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest, opened fire outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and wounding his son. In the ensuing shootout with police, the gunman was reportedly able to fire as many as 50 rounds at police and innocent bystanders before fleeing in his truck. He was finally shot in another gun battle with police a few miles away. The same day in Los Angeles, a man reportedly armed with an AK-47 walked into his workplace and shot two of his coworkers to death following a dispute. He later turned himself in at a Los Angeles police station.

Unfortunately, assault weapons such as the ones reportedly used in these two shootings as well as many other similar assault weapons are once again being legally produced and sold as a result of the expiration of the assault weapons ban. I again urge my colleagues to act to help prevent tragedies like these by enacting a common sense ban on assault weapon.


Do u think the bill will passed??

[Jaimecbr900]

Yes, it will probably pass because politicians have people thinking BANS are the answer to every problem.

Bans will only affect people that follow the law, i.e. good people. Criminals can get anything they want when they want it. A law is not going to stop that. Telling companies they can't sell "assault weapons" aint the answer either....How about the 50 million already in circulation? Duh!

Besides, part of the stigma is that EVERY freaking gun is suddenly being "reported" as either an "AUTOMATIC" or an "ASSAULT WEAPON" even when they are NOT. Everything is an "AK47" to them. Everything is a freaking assault gun. That's a crock. Half of these guys, including people that are supposed to know what they are talking about like police spokes people, wouldn't know an AK47 from a .22 yet they label everything (for ratings usually and being sensational in their news reporting) as something it's not. I've seen where on an innocent show like "Police videos" they narrator, a former long time police officer and sherriff, always refers to every pea shooter as an "automatic pistol" or "assault weapon". Innocent? Maybe. The problem is that slowly but surely the Joe Q. Public will start believing that. Then the politicians do the same, and suddenly you have people AND politicians rallying around something they REALLY know nothing about. Kinda like ole' high school rumor mills. 1oz of truth turns into a mountain of crap.

It really is simple: Guns DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE kill people. A gun will lay there until it's a ball of rust in the year 5050 without ever doing a damn thing until someone comes and pulls the trigger. Deterrents (sp?) are the only answer to the problem. Get caught with a gun and you shouldn't have one? Go to jail and lose your driver's license. Rob somebody with a gun? Go to jail for a long time. Kill somebody with a gun? Get the death penalty. Do it enough times consistently and it will work a lot better than any ban every will.

Only in America do you tell people to protect themselves with a spoon and a fork.

[efman]

dam liberals :2up:

[FrnkPwrs]

Complicated subject. Like said before, take guns away form regular citizens, cirminals will be the only ones with it. But is it neccessary for someone to own some of the publically available street sweepers out there? Probally not. I cant think of a reason why someone would want to keep a AR15 under the bed, because the practicallity of it as a line of self defense. WHat self defense situation does the average person person get themself in when they need to grab a PreBan Mac10? When someone breaks into your house? YOu think you are going to get car jacked? Go hunting? Naw, not practical. But the fact that it is manufactured and other people have them in the street is enough for me to say there should be no ban. People are crazy nowadays. When I lived in lilburn with my girl, always had my pistol under the pillow. One in the pot for the fake tree I had next to the door. Another on top of the cabinets in the kitchen. The way ATL Is notorious for home invasions, you never know what is bound to happen, what gun is the only one someone could find to try to rob you, etc. So yea, I think gun laws are rediculous, responsibility is what should be enforced

[Jaimecbr900]

Complicated subject. Like said before, take guns away form regular citizens, cirminals will be the only ones with it. But is it neccessary for someone to own some of the publically available street sweepers out there? Probally not. I cant think of a reason why someone would want to keep a AR15 under the bed, because the practicallity of it as a line of self defense. WHat self defense situation does the average person person get themself in when they need to grab a PreBan Mac10? When someone breaks into your house? YOu think you are going to get car jacked? Go hunting? Naw, not practical. But the fact that it is manufactured and other people have them in the street is enough for me to say there should be no ban. People are crazy nowadays. When I lived in lilburn with my girl, always had my pistol under the pillow. One in the pot for the fake tree I had next to the door. Another on top of the cabinets in the kitchen. The way ATL Is notorious for home invasions, you never know what is bound to happen, what gun is the only one someone could find to try to rob you, etc. So yea, I think gun laws are rediculous, responsibility is what should be enforced

Very very true.

You have to also remember that some people like guns just because. An AR15 may not be practical for self-defense, but it's fun to shoot at the range. Just like a Desert Eagle .50 AE. For the price it costs for ammo, it better be good for something. It's not practical either 99% of the time.

I think the whole gun ban bandwagon is more about politics and PERCEIVED safety than crime rates. It's been shown directly how allowing civilized people to carry firearms actually reduces crime rate, yet you only hear about the small child that hurts themself or the criminals killing people on the news.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If gun bans go into effect, that will only leave criminals with them. Hell, it will even turn normal people into criminals, cause they aint getting mine.

The ironic thing is that the whole gun movement was started by Mrs. Brady after her husband was shot back in the 80's during the Reagan assasination attempt. The irony is that the gun used in that attack was a simple REVOLVER. It had NOTHING to do with assault weapons or rocket launchers or anything else. It has morphed into that now, but it started from a simple "saturday night special".

Criminals have said a bizillion times in jails from all over the world that the #1 thing they fear when committing crimes is getting shot. Yet politicians want to take away the #1 deterrent out there? Makes total sense to me...... :rolleyes:

[green91]

im against all gun control laws. plain and simple

[FrnkPwrs]

Thats the strongest point though. If your average citizen is prohibited from owning a firearm, that only leaves them in the hands of law enforcement and cirminals. And the local PD doesnt have its own bedroom in my house, and more than likely wont show up at my funeral. A MAC10 is fun to shoot, no doubt, but there is also the crazy ass who thinks its the ultimate gun for a liquor store hold up, so if im a liquor store owner, I wouldnt mind being able to have more than a Glock26 at my disposal. Its a fact that criminals are going to own guns. And usually they are the ones more willing ot use them! Why fault those that follow the law?

[Jaimecbr900]

Thats the strongest point though.

Why fault those that follow the law?

That's exactly the problem. Politicians have personal guards and state patrol at their disposal, so it's not a priority to them. So their main concern is votes. If the hot button today is gun control, well then it's their "big" concern all of a sudden. When it goes away, so do they. All the while the criminals don't listen to them or the laws, so they get have access to a gun anytime anywhere. What do they care? They don't care about laws by definition. So why would they care? They only care that after a stupid law like that is passed that they have one less thing to worry about now when they steal from someone......not getting shot. Brilliant.

Again, time and time again it has been reported by a ton of different researchers that specialize in this subject that the unanimous #1 thing that criminals fear is getting SHOT. Why would you take away the #1 deterrent? Doesn't make sense. Taking away the Uzi or Mac 10 may not be the big thing to you or me, but it is the definite start to taking away a Glock or a S&W later. This is why the gun lobbyist fight so hard to not let ANY gun bans happen. They understand that if they take away 1, then they will come back and take away 2, 3, 50 until they are all banned. That's their target. It's no secret.

So, some people may think, "oh, what's the big deal about taking Mac10's off the street?". Well, two things mainly: 1. you won't take them "off the street". You will only take them off LAW-ABIDING people's hands. Criminals will always find them and get them. 2. It will serve as a stepping stone to eventually take away the "evil" "automatics" that ARE in fact usefull for self-defense and sporting.

[mogallo]

I dont think it will pass. Not with Bush as President and a Republican Majority....

Now if those damn Democrats were running it... yeah, it would pass, then the NRA would have a huge riot and start shooting things up....



Jamie, im with you on the whole thing. When i was in AP government, we had a huge ass debate on this whole thing. Your statistics are right on. The crime rate will probably dramatically increase if the government prevents law abiding citizens from having the right to bear arms.

[Z33_kid]

dang would suk if it gets band stupid laws tey make these days

[luvleexcivic]

i cant see why poeple carry guns anyways ... must be scerd or something ... scared to get a beat down thats all ... they should BAN all hand guns ... i think rifiles are coo tho ...

[SPL_Jetta]

Bush would Veto the bill anyways, so hoorah

[Jaimecbr900]

i cant see why poeple carry guns anyways ... must be scerd or something ... scared to get a beat down thats all ... they should BAN all hand guns ... i think rifiles are coo tho ...

There are a bizillion individual reasons to carry, but here are some:

1. Because it's your constitutional right.
2. Because you want to be able to defend yourself against someone WITH a gun.
3. As a deterrent (sp?).
4. To hunt.
5. For sporting competitions.
6. As part of your job.
7. To defend someone without a gun.

I could go on all day like that.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is your view. How can you say to ban ALL handguns, but yet rifles be OK? A rifle can kill people just as dead as a handgun. Also, it is obvious that "banning" is only going to keep law abiding citizens from getting guns it will do absolutely zero towards criminals who are not allowed ALREADY to have them YET have them anyway. How then using your logic and common sense will "banning" ever work?

[Z33_kid]

true Jaimecbr900

[buddha@TeamFX]

I'm as well against All Gun Control Laws...But honestly until they start effecting pistols and rifles im ok...

[Jaimecbr900]

I'm as well against All Gun Control Laws...But honestly until they start effecting pistols and rifles im ok...

That's just the problem, they won't just stop at "assault" weapons though. That's just the starting point.

See, it's easy for politicians to sell "gun control" to people that barely know what a gun is. Why? Because every single day people blindly believe what they hear on TV without ever knowing if it's right or wrong.

Example: Suzie homemaker is sitting at home cooking dinner for her family. She is listening/watching the news. The news reports that there's been yet another person shot/killed/shot at/etc. with a(n) "automatic" or "assault weapon", or "semi-automatic", or any other generic sensational sounding name they can attach to ANY weapon. They may have been shot with a Saturday night special just as likely as they could've been shot with a $25 crack gun.....doesn't matter. A $25 barely good for a door stop gun will NOT sell the story as well as saying it's an "automatic" or "large caliber" gun that perpetrated this terrible crime. So now suddenly in Suzie homemaker's mind it was an "assault weapon" or "semi-automatic" that's the big bad wolf. All the while that could be the furthest thing from the truth or simply just twisted. So, when election time rolls around Politicians jump on the Gun Ban bandwagon and the Suzie homemakers of the world THINK that by voting to "ban" handguns they are doing something to protect themselves or their family. When actually they are making themselves MORE vulnerable because only law abiders abide, criminals don't give a rat's ass what the laws are by definition.

We all know that it's been shown in several different and unbiased studies that the #1 thing that criminals are scared of over getting beat up or biten by a dog or even JAIL is getting SHOT. PERIOD. So why in the world would any politician who has armed guards 24-7 at his disposal take away the #1 deterrent to crime??? V-O-T-E-S. Simple. It's a trigger point for the uninformed. So it's easy to manipulate.

To this day, noone has ever shown me any single good reason why a prudent law abiding citizen should NOT choose to own and carry a gun for their own protection. Police can't be everywhere even by their own admission. So, when your alarm at your house goes off at 3 a.m. what would you rather have? A phone and lock yourself in the bathroom hoping noone will come and SHOOT you? or a phone AND a gun to defend yourself until the police get there????

[buddha@TeamFX]

Yea i know thats the bad part...but im gonna let yall know they come trying to take my guns away from me...they are gonna be screwing with the wrong redneck...But I dont think Bush would let that happen

[Spyder]

I know that it isnt related but i still feel it kinda is. some of you may have seen me having a fit over the tint law but it is the same basic idea, the tint is to keep the criminals from being able to get to these weapons before the cops get to the car. yet the people that i have known in my life that are likely to (or have) shot at cops are the same people that dont give a shit about the window tint law.

here is a quote from Jamie with ONE word changed and it still fits the same. the problem isnt the guns or the tint it is the people that are using it in a bad way.

Jamie said:
Bans will only affect people that follow the law, i.e. good people. Criminals can get anything they want when they want it. A law is not going to stop that. Telling companies they can't sell "WINDOW TINT" aint the answer either....How about the 50 million already in circulation? Duh!

its all the same shit. people laugh when i tell them its the man trying to keep us down, when in reality it is. its the man trying to keep their public image good when the real problem is they dont know what to do to make people act properly so they throw out some law and hope it gives them enough time to find a real solution.

[bridow]

because there is already 50M in "tint" that means we shouldnt ban it? that makes no sense. thats like saying, well damn since there is AIDS already in the US...lets not tell people about it. people need to think long term.

and saying they wont stop at just assult weapons is absurd too. they make us wear seat belts. rednecks went a bitchin' about this too. im sure they were saying...first seat belts, then we'll have to wear helmets! then little orange flags on our cars. you guys must smoke a lot of weed, man. that shit makes you paranoid :)

[Jaimecbr900]

people need to think long term.


You're contradicting yourself. You say we need to think "long term", yet when I talk about what the banning bandwagon wants to do in the FUTURE you say I'm wrong there too. Which way is it?


and saying they wont stop at just assult weapons is absurd too. they make us wear seat belts. rednecks went a bitchin' about this too. im sure they were saying...first seat belts, then we'll have to wear helmets! then little orange flags on our cars. you guys must smoke a lot of weed, man. that shit makes you paranoid :)

You need to read up on the people you are defending.

The gun ban lobbyist up in Washington right this second have never hidden their agenda one little tiny bit. Things like the Brady bill directly try to ban HANDGUNS, not just assault type weapons, HANDGUNS. Remember Jim Brady was shot by a HANDGUN. A POS revolver I might add.

Point? You for some reason are inferring that they ARE gonna stop at just assault weapons. I'm telling you to read and learn that since day 1 they have been trying to ban ALL weapons to law abiding citizens only. It was never "just" about assault weapons. The actual beginnings of the gun control lobby was around handguns. In the last few years because of the media's free labeling everything as an "assault" weapon, politicians and the gun control people have used it as a trigger point to get their agenda thru. It had a hard time going thru as simply a "handgun only" ban, so since the news sensationalize and misrepresent then they use that popularity to get their foot in the door. Follow that?

True assault weapons have been around as long as any other gun. Since Thompson invented the Tommy gun and prohibition gangsters used them against police, there have been assault weapons on the street. Why suddenly now is it in the limelight and everything is assault this and automatic that? Because it sells. People are blind to the fact that more people die each year from smoking, than from gunfire. People are blind to the fact that more people die in car accidents and drunk driving than from guns. People are blind to the fact that the deadliest round in the world is the .22 rimfire, yet there are no real "assault" weapons that use that round.

Why not propose a ban on selling cigarettes or alcohol? Gee, let's think about that one for a minute.......VOTES. Tobacco companies and Alcohol companies are gigantic compared to gun makers. Look at what happened during Prohibition era. Gov't "banned" booze, so it went underground where only who could benefit and control it???? The MOB, i.e. criminals. It made them rich and powerful, while it just made Joe Bob drinker thirsty. Solution? The Gov't changed it's mind and now benefits in billions of dollars via taxation. Ironic how Alcohol kills more people yearly than do guns, yet they won't try to ban it again......

So, if you use common sense and history you will come full circle to see that what I'm saying is in fact true. History has shown it to be true. Economics have shown it to be true. Common sense says it's true. If you ban guns, only people that abide by LAWS will suffer. Criminals will benefit and Joe Schmo Public will be at higher risk because the criminals know they have one less thing to fear.

Any more questions???? :rolleyes:

[simplyblurredmrT]

Unfortunately this is a BLACK & WHITE subject there is no GREY area. It is not gun control it's people control. The sad part is we cannot control the people who get guns completely, of course we have backgroung checks but that does not prove that the person has not committed a crime only if convicted. We cannot tell if the person will use the prchased gun for unjust reasons. Using other methods to determind who is eligble will border Civil Rights (i.e. rufusing the sale of a gun to some one that lives in a "ghetto" or "redneck trailor park" or just a high crime area would be a infringement on those rights). I sell guns to people all the time whom you would not think are getting a gun for the right reasons (particularly do to a "Thuggish" or "Criminal" exterior), but if they have a clean background and I cannot within their rights refuse them unless I thought the gun was being "Straw Purchased" (buying a gun handgun or longun, intended for someone whom cannot due to age or background).

This is a very tough subject.

[luvleexcivic]

There are a bizillion individual reasons to carry, but here are some:

1. Because it's your constitutional right.
2. Because you want to be able to defend yourself against someone WITH a gun.
3. As a deterrent (sp?).
4. To hunt.
5. For sporting competitions.
6. As part of your job.
7. To defend someone without a gun.

I could go on all day like that.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is your view. How can you say to ban ALL handguns, but yet rifles be OK? A rifle can kill people just as dead as a handgun. Also, it is obvious that "banning" is only going to keep law abiding citizens from getting guns it will do absolutely zero towards criminals who are not allowed ALREADY to have them YET have them anyway. How then using your logic and common sense will "banning" ever work?
thats because to me a handgun is way more dangerous because the fact that you can keep it anywhere and a rifile is much better because its big and before someone will pull it out you'll be gone by then ..not unless your just a dumb motherfucker ..

[Jaimecbr900]

thats because to me a handgun is way more dangerous because the fact that you can keep it anywhere and a rifile is much better because its big and before someone will pull it out you'll be gone by then ..not unless your just a dumb motherfucker ..

Spoken like someone who's never even handled a gun.

It's really a black and white issue to me. It is a constitutional right to bear arms. In order to have that any where near changed, you have to go thru a series of things....not least of which is a VOTE. Right now, the minority wants to overrule AND just do away with a RIGHT AND they're using false propaganda to do it. That is not only wrong and illegal, but it's awful close to sounding like a communist state IMO.

Bottomline is that not a single person that is on the gun ban bandwagon can refute several points. Until they do, they will never win me over.

1. It is a RIGHT for someone to bear arms. Not a privilage, a RIGHT. There is a huge difference.
2. There are a gazillion studies done and tons of data collected by unbiased and recognized entities that show that the #1 thing CRIMINALS FEAR is an armed confrontation. Therefore, it makes no common sense at all to take away the #1 deterrent. CRIMINALS are the only ones that will benefit.
3. Laws are for Law ABIDERS, not CRIMINALS. CRIMINALS by defintion are criminals BECAUSE they BREAK, i.e. don't follow, don't listen, don't care, LAWS. What does a LAW do to criminals? Absolutely ZERO. It only restricts perfectly good citizens. WHY would anyone be FOR that? WHY????? :rolleyes:

A gun is an inanimate object. Cigarretes and booze and cars kill more people than guns do each year. Why aren't we banning those things IF you are really interested in "saving lives"????? It's about trying to point the finger at something else that can easily be manipulated instead of finding real solutions to a problem. :jerkit:

[efman]

i cant see why poeple carry guns anyways ... must be scerd or something ... scared to get a beat down thats all ... they should BAN all hand guns ... i think rifiles are coo tho ...
so you think its the govs place to tell us what we can and can not have ?
ya thats how america was founded :rolleyes:

[ahmonrah]

banning guns is like banning the use of cars.....why ban it if the fix to the problem is to TEACH!!?? i grew up in a military/LEO household for most of my life. i was exposed to guns and taught early the responsibilities of having a gun around in addition to being told and seeing the consequenses of improperly using a gun. after being taught those things when it came time to buy my first one i had to do a mental check.
#1) do i have the type of thinking to where if i am upset in any way that i will act blindly out of anger?
#2) if an altercation can't be avoided and i do have my gun on me , will i pull it first, or use it as a last resort?
#3) in the event of some altercation, will i be calm enough to determine if the altercation will end in a life vs. death situation, thereby granting me the right to use my weapon?

over the years of gun ownership i've constantly went over questions like that and more in my head and through writing. and i know with my temperment(mellow) allowing a situation to evolve to violence isnt what i'm into. i also know that if it can't be avoided, hands first always. i'd rather knock someone out than to blow their face on the ground. the noise is loud, plus you will ruin your outfit. well in addidtion to the gunpowder smell i'm not too fond of that smell.