Printable View
I have no problem with firearms regulations that actually make sense, such as prohibiting felons from owning firearms and mandatory sentences for someone convicted of using a firearm in a crime. However, the AWB does no such thing. It bans firearms based on appearance and not function. It is a nonsensical law that needs to go away.
Ted Kennedy's Car has killed more people than my guns.
Look at the Congress, who's job it was to reintroduce the legislation, I bet they have killed more people than Senator Kennedy's car.Quote:
Originally posted by Lady's Human
Ted Kennedy's Car has killed more people than my guns.
An editorial from today's LA Times says it all pretty well.
Blood on the NRA's Hands
Perhaps you remember Evan Foster. The 7-year-old was murdered in an Inglewood park in December 1997, just after he picked up his soccer trophy. Three of the 75 rounds fired from a gang member's assault rifle drilled into his head. The federal assault weapons ban was already in effect, and if you asked the National Rifle Assn. and its acolytes in Congress about Evan's murder, they would eagerly tell you that this law, which lawmakers have shamefully let expire today, would not have saved the child.
They would be right — and utterly deceitful.
Evan, his mother and his 10-month-old brother, Alec, had gotten back into their parked car when Rhonda Foster saw she was sandwiched between a vehicle full of gang members, their rifles pointed, and another car in which the shooters mistakenly thought they saw a rival. Evan was hit as his mother frantically tried to back out of the way. He died instantly. Fragments from some of the dozen rounds that strafed their car hit Alec, leaving the vision in his left eye limited.
NRA leaders, who have been gunning for the assault weapons ban since it took effect in 1994, would quickly point out that the MAC-90 that killed Evan wasn't among the handful of models covered by the federal law. That's true. The ban's author, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), never believed that law alone would end assault gun crime. That's why she pushed Congress over the years to limit the sale of high-volume bullet magazines, for tougher oversight of gun dealers and to expand the ban to guns with certain generic features, like flash suppressors. Guess which group blocked her every effort?
Even if the MAC-90 had been included in the federal ban, the NRA would argue, the law obviously failed to stop illegal traffic in assault guns. True again. Yet by that logic, legislators should drop laws against driving drunk because some people are so irresponsible they will drink and drive regardless.
A large majority of Americans — and most gun owners — have steadfastly supported the assault gun ban. So why did Congress let it die, allowing dealers to once more peddle these weapons of mass destruction?
Look to President Bush, who once said he supported the ban. His deliberate silence as the law's time ran out justified congressional leaders in arguing that if the president wasn't behind the prohibition, there was no point in voting to renew it. So today the expired ban is a trophy Bush can lay at the NRA's feet as the group readies its presidential endorsement.
Rhonda and Ruett Foster still have Evan's soccer trophy. Rhonda talks freely about her son, about a poem he wrote, the sports he liked. But last week, telling the story of his horrific murder yet again, there was anger in her voice.
"For our president to follow the NRA instead of the majority of America," she said quietly, "shows that he doesn't care about the lives of our children. Letting this ban expire means more of these weapons will be available. It's outrageous."
Given that the perp in question was a gang member,it is highly unlikely that the weapon in question was legally acquired. If someone would please explain to me how restricting the activities of law abiding citizens is going to bring people who are already felons into line I would appreciate it. The problem with gun control legislation is that it has no impact whatsoever on the ability of criminals to acquire weapons, it just makes it tough for law abiding citizens to protect themselves. The gun control laws we already have in place are not enforced. The Bartley-Fox law in Massachusetts is supposed to mandate a minimum one year sentence for illegal posession of a firearm, but read the court pages of the Mass papers. NEVER have I seen someone sentenced under that law, with the sole exception being a conneticut businessman who stopped by a police station to turn in his weapon after he realized he had crossed the state line with it. He was convicted of violating the law and got a year in jail. The 16 gang members in Framingham who robbed a gun store and stole 17 firearms got suspended sentences of 6 months probation. Enforce the laws we already have, they're restrictive enough.
That may or may not be true, I just can't understand why it's so important for Americans to feel the need for "military style automatic assault weapons" though. Are they essential for hunting? Personally I've never felt the need to hunt and shoot innocent animals, though culling to control populations I can accept. I wouldn't feel at all proud of having crept up on some animal and shooting it. The only "shooting" of wild animals I like is with a camera. The need to kill them I just do not comprehend. Some sort of macho power trip perhaps? It's beyond me.Quote:
Originally posted by Lady's Human
I have no problem with firearms regulations that actually make sense, such as prohibiting felons from owning firearms and mandatory sentences for someone convicted of using a firearm in a crime. However, the AWB does no such thing. It bans firearms based on appearance and not function. It is a nonsensical law that needs to go away.
On the other hand, if the reason for owning guns is fear and the need for self defense, then their must surely be some problem in a civilized society. I remember when we were on holiday in The Dominican Republic we met a very pleasant couple from Texas. We got to talking about guns, and Gini said that it was absolutely essential for her to have a gun in her bedside drawer, or she would not feel safe, would not be able to sleep. That's a bit of an admission of failure and a bit sad isn't it? Not the kind of society I would like to live in if that is the reasoning behind the need for guns.
Apparently this bill was set to expire exactly 10 years later if it wasn't renewed in Congress, and President George W. Bush never pushed Congressional leaders to move the renewal legislation.
So it seems that President Bush is going against the direction of quite a few other Presidents here. Apart from Clinton, I believe that former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan wrote to all members of the House to encourage them to pass the ban at the time.
Perhaps the answer is here:
"While manufacturers look for a boom in business as people buy up previously banned weapons like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s, police chiefs warn of an upsurge in crime".
Another example of the President's big business buddies only being interested in their own profit, against the advice of police chiefs, who presumably know what they're talking about perhaps?
Number of Deaths Caused By Guns Each Year:
Japan = 39
Australia = 65
UK - 68
Canada = 165
France = 255
Germany = 281
USA = 11,127
In the year 2000, there were 28,663 injuries caused by firearms in the US.
Nuf Sed.
It's a macho gun ownership thing..Quote:
Originally posted by buckner
Richard, I worship and adore you 100% more because that statement. You are great, man.
You can adore me, But I don't do well being worshipped- I adore you too!
:D
I have a M-1 tanker, 44 mag, a beautiful S&W 38, an old bolt action Eddie Bauer shotgun, a really nice and old Aussie single shot rifle, 30.06 hunting rifle, and a .30 cal Krag-Jorgenson......which happens to be a Norwegian military rifle. ;)
I do have a Louisville slugger 35" 24 oz Fungo I keep loaded by my bedside. I just have to learn to keep my head down and step into the intruder.
-----------------------------------------
The US Congress has had 10 years to extend the the gun ban.
So once it expires we blame Bush, instead of blaming the inept congressmen that didn't reintroduce the bill.
Responsibility..... such a fleeting concept!!
Percentage based on the population of the countries posted.Quote:
Originally posted by heinz57_79
Number of Deaths Caused By Guns Each Year:
Japan = 39
Australia = 65
UK - 68
Canada = 165
France = 255
Germany = 281
USA = 11,127
In the year 2000, there were 28,663 injuries caused by firearms in the US.
Nuf Sed.
Can .000005187
FRA .000004223
US .00000385
Aust. .000003308
UK .000001137
Ger. .00000343
Japan .000000305
---------------------------------------
2000 GSWs by US pop...
.00009942
Amen, Lady's Human! I don't see a need to own an automatic rifle myself. However, I'll be :o if someone is going to take away my right to own any gun at all. Like I said before, it's not the law abiding citizens causing the gun problems in the first place. Why take away our rights because the criminals are bad? They're going to acquire weapons no matter what.
Its just politics people. This ban was conveniently designed to expire during an election year (I know I'm repeating myself here but hey, I'm getting old.;) ).
I'm no fan of Bush, but I do have to agree that he can't be held accountable just because the congress didn't get around to it (why? - because its an election year).
Another way to look at it is that timing is everything. No one could have predicted 10 years ago how things would be today. I think that a very different attitude about weapons exist now.
We now focus on the World Trade Center, terrorists lurking who knows where, orange alerts, and Al-Queda.
I think that all the Democrat politicians who are advocating a return of the ban are missing the big picture here. (and they aren't winning my vote in the process) We feel unsafe and insecure (why else do we continue to drive big SUV's?) and we need to feel stronger and less afraid and yes, an AR-15 or a Berretta 9mm does help alliviate that fear. (if only I can remember how to turn off the safety)
ok - I'm done for now.
Who said you had a RIGHT to an automatic assault rifle? You have the right to bear arms, not ANY arms at ANY cost. I don't understand why you'd feel not only the need for this type of weapon, but that you had some sort of God given right to it. Consequences be damned.
No, gang members don't usually line up and register their guns, but they get them from someone.
And crime HAS gone down since this has been enacted. How could you argue otherwise?
P.S. Thanks Karen! ;)
Gang members get their weapons from many sources, mosty from theft and smuggling. Crime has NOT been impacted by this ban, as the weapons banned were never used in any large percentage of crime to begin with. Less than 1% of weapons used in crime were of the types banned by this flawed legislation, and this percentage did not go down in any appreciable manner during the ban period. The concept of altering the behavior of the law abiding populace to affect criminal behavior has got to end. It is nonsensical to think that restricting the activities of law abiding citizens will have any effect on criminals, as by definition they already ignore the law.
I was referring to my right to own what we call a regular firearm, such as a 9mm, not an AK47 or whatever.
Man made fence out of bomb shells
Russian military officials have issued a warning after a man made a garden fence out of 28 unexploded bomb shells.
They are warning locals near an army training site in Morozovo, in the Novosibirsk region, to stop using unexploded shells as building material.
Police officers on a routine patrol who spotted the fence called in bomb disposal experts who destroyed the shells, local media reported.
A spokesman for local authorities was quoted as saying: "This is not the first case of missiles being used by local residents for domestic needs."
In the past shells have turned up used in building houses, items of furniture and in one case as part of an outdoor toilet.
-------------------------
And we are worried about gang members???
:eek:
I guess that's why the police have supported continuing the ban. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Lady's Human
Crime has NOT been impacted by this ban, as the weapons banned were never used in any large percentage of crime to begin with. Less than 1% of weapons used in crime were of the types banned by this flawed legislation, and this percentage did not go down in any appreciable manner during the ban period.
I think I'll stick to the experts and not the gun hording nutjobs who insist it's their God given right to have access to any weapon they want.
When are people going to stop believing the propoganda that the NRA puts out there and start thinking about the welfare of the country rather than their selfish needs.