Gun Ban Legislation Introduced

[wolf]

Dearie me, no, haven't any of those things ...

Frikkin' stupid.

It's only an "assault weapon" if you bash someone over the head with it.

[Ruminator]

wolf, does it count if you just kinda give them a "love tap"? ....

It counts if you can love them to death with a double tap.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

wolf, does it count if you just kinda give them a "love tap"? ....

That would be a love gun.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Ruminator

Jim, this could be...

... but it won't include any gun defined as an assault rifle if this passes.

You know they will keep after this until they get it. They have to... assault weapons just have no place in the Utopia they are planning for all of us, like it or not.
Pass me a roll of caps for my cap pistol please, I'm almost out.

Who is they? The republicans sponsoring the bill?

[Radar]

First off this legislation would be tossed out by the supreme court. Second, it's nothing new. There have been plenty attempts to ban guns.

Private gun ownership is in no danger. There is no such thing as an "assault rifle", and while the USSC does acknowledge the fact that gun ownership is an individual right, they also believe the government has the authority to regulate gun ownership and place limits on gun ownership.

This is absurd because a right is something we don't require permission to do. Our rights don't come from government, so government has no authority to regulate, curtail, or limit them.

[Bullitt]

I thought it was that there was no such thing as an "assault weapon", rather that "assault rifle" is the correct terminology, but also that the weapons banned aren't even assault rifles in that they don't have the selective fire capability the the military rifles do. I've just barely dipped my toes into the world of firearms, so feel free to correct me when I'm wrong.

Also if you wouldn't mind explaining, what specifically makes this bill so different from the original one that passed so as to spur the supreme court to throw it out? Obviously some bolt action rifles are now included, which seems ludicrous.. are they worried about somebody sniping Obama or something? Sheesh...

[xoxoxoBruce]

The list shows the people writing/sponsoring this bill don't have a clue.

Or they added a shitload of extras to back down on and just keep the ones they were really after, while claiming they compromised.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

I thought it was that there was no such thing as an "assault weapon", rather that "assault rifle" is the correct terminology, but also that the weapons banned aren't even assault rifles in that they don't have the selective fire capability the the military rifles do. I've just barely dipped my toes into the world of firearms, so feel free to correct me when I'm wrong.

Also if you wouldn't mind explaining, what specifically makes this bill so different from the original one that passed so as to spur the supreme court to throw it out? Obviously some bolt action rifles are now included, which seems ludicrous.. are they worried about somebody sniping Obama or something? Sheesh...

Assault weapon and assault rifle are both incorrect. It's like saying this is a "stabbing knife". Any knife can be used for stabbing. Any gun can be used to assault or to defend. The terms "semi-automatic rifle" or "fully-automatic rifle" are correct.

I haven't read both bills so I can't speak to what is different, but I can say that the Supreme Court is different. During the Clinton administration, the USSC wouldn't even hear a case about whether gun ownership was an individual right. The current Supreme Court very recently ruled that it was indeed an individual right.

If this law is signed into law by the next Congress and president, it will be shot down by the USSC.

[glatt]

Decent sized article in the Wash Post today about the state of the Federal Courts today. They are either evenly mixed or majority Republican, with only one federal court in the country controlled by Democratic appointees. Overall, the courts today are conservative.

[morethanpretty]

Sets forth exceptions to such ban, including: (1) firearms or devices lawfully possessed under federal law on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) certain firearms, replicas, or duplicates listed in an appendix as they were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (3) any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action and that has been rendered permanently inoperable or that is an antique firearm; (4) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; (5) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and (6) firearms manufactured for, transferred to, or possessed by a federal, state, or local government agency or for law enforcement.

From:http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills...0_HR_6257.html

Those are exceptions. Some people seem to be thinking they're included in the ban. Maybe I'm wrong, and getting messed up with the unfamiliar terminology, and they're talkin 'bout somethin else.

Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

From: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

Mr. KIRK=Republican
Mr. Castle=Republican
Mr. Ferguson=Republican
Mr. Shays=Republican

Just think its interesting, that this is a Republican sponsored bill. I thought they were against gun bans/regulation. Guess not, or they lied. Isn't it refreshing to know both sides of the aisle are evil?

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

If this law is signed into law by the next Congress and president, it will be shot down by the USSC.

Not if they can't get a gun to shoot it with ...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

Assault weapon and assault rifle are both incorrect. It's like saying this is a "stabbing knife". Any knife can be used for stabbing. Any gun can be used to assault or to defend. The terms "semi-automatic rifle" or "fully-automatic rifle" are correct.

Bullit is right and you're not quite, Radar; you stumbled right at the edge. You should have written that there is an assault rifle, but no assault weapon. The latter is rejected by the pro-gun people of liberty because of its facility to be defined down all the way to a screwdriver or a stone axe, or a big wet rock for that matter. So, it's popular among the people who try and scare the electorate into submission, that their hoplophobia may be the better accommodated. That hoplophobia makes crime, civil rights abuses, and genocide all very much easier is well proven, however much this be ignored by those who bitch at freedom people like me. Or, in another corner, Radar.

The defining feature of an assault rifle is its selective fire capacity -- you can throw the switch to go full-auto. Its middle-power range of smallish rifle cartridges is to permit the rifle to be controllable when hand-held. Carbine cartridges, as it were. The Germans invented the rifle and its name. Sturmgewehr means "assault rifle." In WW2, the Germans did a sort of systems analysis of what a military rifle did. They concluded that the cartridges of the day were too powerful for what a soldier could actually do with them -- that the long range they gave was almost useless because you couldn't even see your target at ranges of 1000-1200 meters out. You really only needed three to four hundred meters tops for range you could use, and a submachinegun-like ability to fire full-auto bursts was also a fight-winner. The German cartridge devised for this has its descendant in the AK's 7.62mm x 39 cartridge. Another engineering solution to the full-auto controllability problem was to shoot smaller bullets, as invented twice by the Americans: a prototype of the M14 chambered in .243 Winchester (a shortened, light, carbine version of the .25-06) and the successful 5.56mm NATO cartridge of the M16, a/k/a .223 Winchester. The AK later adopted this style of cartridge also.

The arm has always been called an assault rifle. Changing rifle to weapon is what the fakers are doing, the better to deceive and frighten any in the electorate who don't know their guns, or the proper relationship of a republic to its government. The fakers never comprehend that their desire impairs checks-and-balances, erodes civil rights by making abuses more possible -- less danger to the abusers -- and is a necessary precondition to a genocide. They love all these bad things without even knowing it consciously. They should all get a punt in the crotch with a Godwin club -- Nazi Germany couldn't have done what it did if non-Party people could have kept a Kar-98 and two hundred rounds of ready ammunition. And that is a bolt-action rifle, very suitable for deer hunting!

Unhappily from the checks-&-balances and antigenocide points of view (the one favored by libertarians, the other by human-rights people), US law only allows civilians to own semiauto-only versions of assault rifles, making these rifles simply rifles with automatic transmissions as it were. Saves some money on ammo, but a nation really committed to a classically liberal democratic government and suppression of genocide would promulgate a selective fire assault rifle over every mantle in America. Hey, it works for Switzerland, and they have a murder rate a bit lower than South Dakota's. Or England's.

If this law is signed into law by the next Congress and president, it will be shot down by the USSC.

From your mouth to God's ears, Radar. And to your Congresscritters', both House and Senate. Lobby against the resumption of pointless excess power.