H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban & Law Enforcement Protect

bubba · Post by **bubba** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:31 am

what most people tend to forget is that if a bad guy wants a weapon he'll get one. The need to step up and stop the traffic and sale of illegal arms. Hell look at drugs, they have been unanimously banned/illegal for years and its still a huge problem.

Guns don't kill, people do. I have guns in my home for as long as I can remember. I learned to hunt and shoot at 6, I have never had to shoot anyone, but I like knowing that if someone did decide to come in my home with me, my wife, and my kids; that I'm perfectly able to discourage that persons presence in my home, if need neutralize the issue.

but if they start to ban all guns, where does it stop, BB guns, paint ball guns, airsoft, super soaker's ..

Shadco said it best, look at DC, can't have guns there and they have the highest crime rate in the country. Missouri passed the conceal carry bill, and crime rate dropped. There will always be crime, thats a given. Bad people will always get what they want, thats a given. Don't take my ability to protect my self.

vicaphit · Post by **vicaphit** » Sat May 05, 2007 1:29 pm

I think citizens should still be able to own guns, but not ARs and SMGs... nobody really needs those types of guns anyway.

Pistols and small calibur rifles are ok to own in my opinion, but not AKs.

I live out in the country, and our neighbors got robbed once, so my dad now owns a small 22 calibur pistol, while my mom has a 38 special.

Skippman · Post by **Skippman** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:07 pm

I don't recall and part of the constitution saying "you may only own .22LR, .380cal, and 4/10 gauge".

And assualt rifle is not automatically a fully automatic weapon. I hope to god this doesn't pass. It's bad enough our border patrol agents go to jail when they defend themselves from an illegial invader (it happened, and it's wrong) but now we're depriving our private citizens from defending themselves.

I got an idea. Lets ban all cars that go faster than 75mph. No highway in the country lets you go faster than that so no car should be able to go faster than 75 miles per hour, right?

vicaphit · Post by **vicaphit** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:30 pm

wait, what makes it ok for a civillian to shoot illegal aliens who cross the border? That is still murder.

Since humans like to kill each other so much, why dont we atleast restrict everyone to small guns to prevent collateral damage.

Havent you ever heard about drivebys that involve SMGs? what if a kid happened to be walking down the street and that SMG got away from the shooter? dead kid.

shootouts would be less dangerous if everyone had to reload after 6 shots.

Alathald · Post by **Alathald** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:43 pm

Skippman wrote:I don't recall and part of the constitution saying "you may only own .22LR, .380cal, and 4/10 gauge".

And assualt rifle is not automatically a fully automatic weapon. I hope to god this doesn't pass. It's bad enough our border patrol agents go to jail when they defend themselves from an illegial invader (it happened, and it's wrong) but now we're depriving our private citizens from defending themselves.

I got an idea. Lets ban all cars that go faster than 75mph. No highway in the country lets you go faster than that so no car should be able to go faster than 75 miles per hour, right?

Some cars (eg certain Nissan Skyline's) are already banned in America...I agree there are some guns that should not be carried but I don't think ANY guns should be illegal to own or shoot (under proper conditions of course)

Skippman · Post by **Skippman** » Sat May 05, 2007 2:50 pm

vicaphit wrote:wait, what makes it ok for a civillian to shoot illegal aliens who cross the border? That is still murder.

Since humans like to kill each other so much, why dont we atleast restrict everyone to small guns to prevent collateral damage.

Havent you ever heard about drivebys that involve SMGs? what if a kid happened to be walking down the street and that SMG got away from the shooter? dead kid.

shootouts would be less dangerous if everyone had to reload after 6 shots.

I'm sorry sir but you demonstrate your ignorance of the issue. The incidents I'm refering to are when armed men cross our border illegally and accosted our border patrol agents. When those agents returned fired and wounded that man they were sent to jail and have been there for over a year. That's the reward for serving our country.

As for firearms themselves, guns do not kill people no matter how many times to the contrary that issue has been attempted to be proven. People kill people. Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to "theortecially" decrease the crime rate is criminal in and of itself. We've already lost to many of our constitutional rights. We need not give up the only one left which guarnetees the others.

In your annolgy what part of the drive by shooting was legal sir? I'm afraid your logic is flawed.

Some cars (eg certain Nissan Skyline's) are already banned in America...I agree there are some guns that should not be carried but I don't think ANY guns should be illegal to own or shoot (under proper conditions of course)

The Nissian Skyline is not banned in America. It simply fails to pass American collision impact standards and emission stands on a production model car. You can import one all you want. As a matter of fact theres a company who does nothing but import Skylines and make them American street legal for smog and impact safety.

vicaphit · Post by **vicaphit** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:06 pm

My logic is not flawed, if the sale of SMGs and ARs are restricted then lowlifes who buy guns to shoot people will have a harder time getting them.

Imagine a world where there were no Nukes. No need to be afraid of nuclear war when there are no nukes.

that applies here: no need to be fearful of automatic rifle fire between 2 gangs if they cant get ahold of the guns.

Everyone who militantly support the right to bear arms forgets the fact that that law was written a long time ago. Laws have to adapt to the changes in time. You have the right to defend yourself, but do you really need an assault rifle to do so? no, especially if the person breaking into your house is only using a pistol.

My point is, why would anyone need an AR or SMG if nobody else had them?

As for the border patrol civilians... they are risking there life for their country, but why don't they do it the correct way and join the military instead of going out on their own? They accept the risk of life and limb when they load that gun and stroll out into their land waiting for people to shoot.

Alathald · Post by **Alathald** » Sat May 05, 2007 3:09 pm

Skippman wrote:In your annolgy what part of the drive by shooting was legal sir? I'm afraid your logic is flawed.

Well that depends on if the driver had a license...

outta curiousity Skippman, do you think the average american should be allowed to carry a fully automatic weapon (say an M-16 or uzi) around as long as he has a permit? I agree small cali handguns are fine to carry on your person but why carry anything bigger? I understand the want/need of owning a larger calibur but it's not something you need to carry from day to day.

vicaphit, the problem with your logic is that these guns are already out there, there is no way to take them all back

bubba · Post by **bubba** » Sat May 05, 2007 6:38 pm

This will be the last I post on this, as its on the fast tracked to being locked any how.

Carrying a full auto and owning one are two different issues, to even own a full auto is illegal unless you have a federal fire arms license. It is not hard to make an semi auto weapon full auto if you know what your doing.

vicaphit wrote:shootouts would be less dangerous if everyone had to reload after 6 shots

Attend an IDPA shooting match, you will be astonished how fast a person with practice can accurately empty and reload a revolver.

vicaphit · Post by **vicaphit** » Sat May 05, 2007 9:23 pm

Oh, Ive seen the videos of speed loaders... Though none of them have ever been a gang member.

full auto is extremely inaccurate, the army doesnt even fire their guns full auto, so why does anyone need it?

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Sun May 06, 2007 5:47 am

Even here in Dublin, where guns are banned, we have a high rate of gun crime. The number of murders has risen dramatically. Some months we have ~3-5 gang related murders

(Population is only ~1.5Million in Dublin, other cities like Cork and Limerick have problems too)
Some of the gangs here are armed with AK's

They also contract out ex IRA heads to make bombs to be placed under other gangsters, journalists and police cars.............Even now as I type this, I can hear a police siren out my window.

My point is, you don't need to have "crazy gun laws" to have a problems with shootings.

Skippman · Post by **Skippman** » Sun May 06, 2007 6:04 am

vicaphit wrote:Imagine a world where there were no Nukes. No need to be afraid of nuclear war when there are no nukes.

Oh, you mean one where instead of ending WWII's Pacific Campaign quickly we drew it out into a city to city battle for years? Or are you refering to the world where without nuclear power and medicine (both byproducts of the Manhatten Project) we'd have a much worse understanding of medicine, have no way to combat cancer, and have a much bigger problem with global warming?

I agree that nuclear weapons are terrifying and should never be used but even you yourself have to see the absurdity of comparing something like that to a rifle.

vicaphit wrote:As for the border patrol civilians... they are risking there life for their country, but why don't they do it the correct way and join the military instead of going out on their own? They accept the risk of life and limb when they load that gun and stroll out into their land waiting for people to shoot.

Again, you confess your ignorance of the topic. Perhaps you should do some more research in order to base your opinions on facts. The U.S. Border Patrol is a Federal Agency.

A quick Google search brings up this article on the incident I refered to. There's been much more information released after this article was published dealing with the officers alledged lack of reporting the incident (this was found to be false) but it's to early in the day for me to look.

Xanlamin · Post by **Xanlamin** » Wed May 09, 2007 2:54 pm

Allow for a database that has the names of people who are on types medication for mental problems...even problems liek ADHD and the like, raise the min age limit to purchase a gun to age 30 (who below that age really needs to buy a handgun (or any other firearm for that matter)), put a limit on ammo purchase (a buyer of the ammo must show proof that they own that type of weapon the ammo is for and would only be allowed to purchase so much of it) if they want more ammo after they have used there stock they must bring in the used shells (an legit person would make the necessary adjustments to be able to save there used ammunition.

One of the biggest problems with guns now a days is the people that are useing them, not the guns themselves, there are people out there that are not mentaly capable of the proper use of a firearm and they reach a breaking point then use it where they should not (like the most recent case at that collage campus). If they would just allow the release of medical information to be entered into a database and when you go to purchase the firearm that information would be able to be obtained via this database, and if a person should be in it and is not the doctor that is seeing/prescribed/treated the patient did not enter in the information they should also be held liable for the patients actions just as much as the person who commited the crime. My daughter for excample (who is 8 years old) should never in her life be allowed to own a firearm, she has been diagnosed ADHD and even on medication has a tendancy to show high anger, therefore she should not be allowed to EVER own a firearm, cause one day even on her medication she can snap and shoot the person she is pissed at.

There are many steps they can take but are unwilling to, they think that just making the gun itself illegal will stop ppl from getting them...it dont, even what I suggested won't stop people from getting them illegaly but it will still help somewhat to stop some of it...banning guns stops nothing, it only makes those who sell them illegaly richer. Anyone can by a gun...it should be the ammo that is harder to get, and the current way things are setup...anyone can go and buy the ammo from any store shelf in mass quanities cause there is currently no restrictions.

I agree that something must be done but I believe congress is going about it the wrong way.

vicaphit · Post by **vicaphit** » Wed May 09, 2007 3:27 pm

Ill go with chris rock, lets make the guns readily availible for anyone who wants one, but make each bullet cost about $10,000. no chance of stray bullets because people cant afford to blast away at will.

Xanlamin · Post by **Xanlamin** » Wed May 09, 2007 3:42 pm

vicaphit wrote:full auto is extremely inaccurate, the army doesnt even fire their guns full auto, so why does anyone need it?

Thats why the military don't use full auto, they only use it if the need arises for a flush out, to do a mass spray into an area where they enemy can not be seen.

Other people use full auto cause they think it's cool, if I was a gang member and someone needed to be taken out...I would not do a drive by...I would sit somewhere approx 1000 yards off and pluck them off of there front porch and be back home eating dinner before the cops even got to there house and have an aliby. No need for full auto or even semi auto...1 shot-1 kill...GO ARMY RANGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stopthekilling77 · Post by **stopthekilling77** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:23 pm

Skippman wrote:I don't recall and part of the constitution saying "you may only own .22LR, .380cal, and 4/10 gauge".

And assualt rifle is not automatically a fully automatic weapon. I hope to god this doesn't pass. It's bad enough our border patrol agents go to jail when they defend themselves from an illegial invader (it happened, and it's wrong) but now we're depriving our private citizens from defending themselves.

I got an idea. Lets ban all cars that go faster than 75mph. No highway in the country lets you go faster than that so no car should be able to go faster than 75 miles per hour, right?

not flaming just sayin thats a little rash to say. honestly as citizens of america, we're supposed to adapt. i think if someone wants an assalt rifle then they should go through the neccessary doors, clearances, classes and have it known that they own something like that. just because we CAN doesnt mean we SHOULD have those weapons.

i hit the gun range once in a while and i love it. shotguns, pistols, rifles, the more the merrier, but are you really gonna sit there and talk big about how congress is going to try to screw you out of a right to carry when what they SHOULD be doing is making sure those guns just dont make it to the wrong people?

sorry if that came off rude, long day and this thread has me thinking, on another note i completely agree with you on this point:

As for firearms themselves, guns do not kill people no matter how many times to the contrary that issue has been attempted to be proven. People kill people. Infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens to "theortecially" decrease the crime rate is criminal in and of itself. We've already lost to many of our constitutional rights. We need not give up the only one left which guarnetees the others.

also, what was the company that makes skylines street legal?

vicaphit · Post by **vicaphit** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:26 pm

Talk about add placement... at the bottom of the page when I just viewed it there was a huge ad for airsoft guns, and a picture of a guy with a real gun (no orange barrel) pointed at the viewer...

anyway, according to the constitution, we have the right to bear muskets, because they didnt even have ARs at that time...

Post by **Apoptosis** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:27 pm

Just found a video clip of the lady that proposed this bill:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/v ... gislation/

Xanlamin · Post by **Xanlamin** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:33 pm

Thats just it, instead of working on the excact problem, or even trying to find the excact problem they just say BAN THEM ALL when that wont do a thing.

They don't seem to want to take steps to rectify the situation, implementation of the proper steps (proper databases, keeping these databases up to date, limitations on the things that deal with firearms (ammo and the like), higher age restrictions, longer buying waiting periods, inforced and longer classes) would make it harder to obtain a firearm and it's ammunition on the legal side which in turn does help keep more off of the streets. Did you know that if you own a store and you want to sell firearms and it's ammunition and accessories you have to go through less than you do to currently purchase? Make it harder for stores to even sell them, higher restrictions need to be in place on those who sell them as those who buy them. Alot of the guns that make it to the street for illegal sale come from shop owners who "SAY" they have been robbed when they actually allowed themselves to be cause they also made money from it.

Sporg · Post by **Sporg** » Wed May 09, 2007 4:36 pm

I wonder why Ryder trucks aren't banned...

That's a great link Apop, I saw it the other day. Gotta love it.