Idiots In Congress Trying To Control Our Guns

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....

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.

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

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).

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.

recent polls show that the UK is actully more violent than the US.

Yep, criminals prefer unarmed victims

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 before the two were combined and then, well, you do the math.

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?

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.

Use common sense? who-da thunk it

to the "KingOfIdiocy"

I think a re-calculation is in order.

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

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

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.

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

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'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