What do you all think of this?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

I hope they take the guy out of congress that wants this.

Edit: Moved topic from General Chat to the more appropriate forum. ~ Animal

I would of thought this would be generally welcomed. But as I am from the UK I, like many people here, have a problem understanding the American obsession with the right to carry guns. Saying that, recent polls show that the UK is actully more violent than the US.

It appears that the bill is not aimed at the normal handgun, rifle, or shotgun, but the more lethal semi-automatic kind, especially those with grenade launchers, bayonet slots, etc.. And it restores, unless I am mistaken, a prior act that had lapsed.
I think we should wait until the Supreme Court makes a decision about the "right to bear arms" clause before getting upset about an attempt to remove some of the more deadly kinds of firearms from general use.
Cheers,
John

Yeah well what about semi AUTO handguns and such? Thats a lot of guns....

Have you read the document? Where does it say ban "semi AUTO handguns and such?" And what is 'such'?

I see it saying ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’.

I'll be very ignorant here.
KingOfIdiocy.

One of the reasons why the USA is not part of the UK today is because of our firearms.

The reason why the UK didn't fall to Hitler's regime is because of USA firearms and even more support that we provided.

Your very existence today is because of my Father, his Brothers, and many like him that took journey.

Shooting sports here as well as simple hunting are a large part of many's everyday lives.
I fire a weapon of one kind or another every day - almost. I no longer hunt anything other than "Turkeys".

I agree there's no need for most here to have access to full military type weapons - unless they can show a license and have a real need otherwise.

Simplistic view I know. But I'm licensed and carry a firearm 24/7/365 almost. That has save me an a few others some problems.

Your point about the right to carry weapons and the war is irrelevant. You seem to be saying that if US citizens didn't have this right your army would be impotent.

I am sure all we Brits are grateful that you rushed to our defence after the Nazis declared war on you(though the Royal Navy would have held off an invasion for awhile).

Think what would have happened had America not been entered in the war. Germany would have developed nuclear weapons. Germany were at the time more advanced than the US in long range missile technology. In Mein Kampf it's clear that at some time Hitler wanted to challenge America.

Invasion of the US, as now, would be impossible, but with the rockets and nuclear warheads it would have only been a matter of time befor the two were combined and then, well, you do the math.

I've had a CC permit for over 20 years, never had to shoot anyone yet. Here, the Founding Fathers thought it was important enough that it was only second to the Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment)

Interesting post about the difference between a Citizen and a Subject
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/ci...subject_14.html

For how long , a month maybe two ? Try to remember where alot of the RN's supplys and munitions were comming from and the large number of US Merchant and Navy Sailors who gave there lives to do so.

Yep, criminals prefer unarmed victims

I've seen severel documentaries stating that the German Scientist were in no hury to develop nuclear weapons for the nazis, despite what ever they told hitler and himler and may have been less than dilegent in there work knowing what the out come would be, as not all scientist were nazi's , But thats all rather academic now. And don't forget about all the really P.O'd Russians looking to wipe Germany off the map. so you may want to look at the math again.

This is to no one in particular

I already knew the British were being supplied by the Americans, and of course, of the sacrafice if the merchant sailors, the biggest heroes of the war on all sides.

This action would only have staved off the inevatibility of our defeat however.

While the US would have indeed developed the bomb sometime before the Nazis, as Germany and America would not have been at war, this would not have mattered.

As for the Russians, with no aid or supplies from America after the Brits go under, and the Nazis able to focus wholly on them, I think even they would eventually have been subdued.

I think a re-calculation is in order.


As for the violence thing, murders are still alot higher in the US.



BTW, isn't this going some way of the original topic?

Use common sense? who-da thunk it

to the "KingOfIdiocy"

I disagree, and thats all I have to say about that.

and yet after your gun ban of '97 your violent crime rates went up something like 30% and The per capita rates are 2-3 times that of ours, interesting. and if you kill your victim it's harder to re-victimize them again I'd suspect.

yes

To no one

Your mind is simply closed.


Also, polls carried out by UK(especially by BMA) are rarely trustworthy.


jgweed is right, the bill probably won't be passed anyway.

I don't know how it works in America, but in the UK some watered down version of the original bill would probably be passed, as a 'compromise', making it such that it wasn't worth it in the first place.

Looks like this bird ain't gonna fly.

I understand the motivation behind the bill...the reduction of high-powered weapons...I just don't think any real change comes of it.

However, I get tired of both sides claiming that they understand what the Framers were thinking when the Constitution was written. Interpretation of the intentions of the Framers has nearly digressed to the point of becoming a religion.

What gun could you have if you didn't have a semi-automatic weapon? There's not much besides hunting guns.

On the other side, it would be a lot safer. Police still get semi-autos, right?

I'm glad to see a movement towards less-than-lethal weaponry (and crazy skilled ninja cats).

I dont see why....Guns are a way of protection. Go ahead and let the government start saying what we can and cant own and you will have a dictatorship type government. Dont ever give your right to guns up.

"‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon."

Would this not mean ANY semi auto gun?

I note that in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled that the Second Amendment does in fact allow citizens to own firearms for their own protection, as well as rifles for hunting.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxY6_SQ...DOnnbAD91I1CRG0

I have to say what you said there is very narrow minded. In the end Germany would of fallen to the Russian and joint armys. To say we owe our lives to your country only is.........well I cant say it........we owe our lives to every soldier from every country that fought for freedom!

Who were the other 4 who said otherwise in that ruling and what are they doing in the House,Senate or wherever?

Justice Scalia's majority opinion was signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, which was signed by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion.

I am sure that Congress will take the ruling, CGM, into consideration before passing new legislation, and further cases will be brought before Federal courts to define precisely what kinds of weapons are permitted and what are not, and what if any, restrictions on ownership are allowed.
Cheers,
John

Or, they will drag their feet until they can replace one of the Judges and have a majority to over-rule this decision.

The original post was about a bill to increase restrictions on weapons. Since then things seem to have gone the other way. The NRA are set to mount several challanges(or so I read on bbc interactive), and so, havn't things rather backfired?(pun intended)

What is the problem with some gun control laws? Do you really want people able to purchase AK-47's and such? even semi-auto, sub-machine guns? Remember, the guns that exist today, were unthinkable at the time of the creating of our country? Do you really think Benjamin Franklin and everyone else would write the 2nd amendment the way it is today, if they could see the guns we have today?

I don't see why everyone who loves there guns, is oh-so-afraid of some gun control laws. I believe everyone person has the right to own a gun, as for what type of gun is another question.

I am proud of the ruling of the court. But I do have to say I agree with Obama about "there should be some common sense gun laws."

Do you know what a semi-auto weapon is? Do you know what a sub machine gun is? You do realize that with a semi-auto weapon you do have to pull the trigger to fire each round right? Single Action revolvers can be shot quicker than semi-auto pistol because they don't have the limitations of the action. Yes, I have seen it done and I know many people that can do it. Sub machine guns are illegal for most to own. You have to have a special federal permit to possess one.

No, I don't believe that the constitution would be written the same way today if the people that wrote it were doing it in the here and now. I believe that they would have been even more adamant about the the right to bear arms and they would have been more explicit about the government NOT infringing upon those rights in any way. The men that wrote that document had just come out of a war that had earned them the freedom to say what they think, to worship as they wanted and that had freed them from a very oppressive government. They wanted to make sure that if the goverment here tried to take over the people as it had in the country they came from that the people would have some type of recourse and could take their freedoms back. Those guys would be horrified if they saw what is going on in this country now.

1. A gun ban has to "make sense." It has to be designed to optimize a balance between rights of citizens and reduction of access for criminals. It's not an easy balance to find, but you are correct, many people have misconceptions about weapons. It seems that for many people it is as if learning about firearms somehow supports wider access to them.

Is there ultimately a difference between a hunting rifle and an AK-47 that is restricted from automatic fire, short of the fact that the AK-47 has a larger clip? Does the larger capacity make that much difference? A bullet fired from a competent gunman will kill just the same. And don't most criminals use pistols anyway, as they are cheap and easy to find?

I'm no expert on the subject, but here are a few of my thoughts: instead of banning weapons perhaps education will make changes in the types of weapons that are purchased. For example, how much good does a pistol do in terms of home defense? If your house is broken into in the middle of the night, you've just woken up, you have to find the gun, perhaps take it out of a safe, remove the safety, load it, then try and fire it in the dark. What are the odds you're going to hit the intruder, especially if you are not well-trained? What about the chances of your bullets going into a home next door? Now compare it with a shotgun. The shotgun has the advantage of wider area of fire but also reduced range and thus reduced chances for accidental injury. A shotgun can fire less-than-lethal ammo, such as rock salt; this would take the fight out of anybody. Also, simply hearing the familiar clicking of a shotgun being prepared to fire is a deterrent in and of itself.

In other words, if self defense is really the reason to have a weapon, perhaps a pistol is not the answer (few people hunt with pistols, as far as I know). Falling demand for pistols would result in reduced production; this would make them increasingly rare and thus more expensive and hard come by. This would be a much more effective and equitable method for reducing the number of pistols available on the street than regulation.