H.R. 45 - 2009 Antigun legislation

[The Renegade]

Look, tensions arises concerning these issues not because the people for or against want to steer us in the wrong course, but because we live in a complex and contradictory world. Since Sept. 11, we have played it fast and loose with constitutional principles (remember the patriot act?). But the most intelligent President or must careful Congress would have a hard time to balance the critical demands of our shared security against our equally compelling need to uphold civil liberties. No matter what we decide, half the country will not be happy and try to disobey or over-rule the law be cause they feel or believe the majority of the country is on their side; that’s the problem with having a “democracy”!

 

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

I see your point, however, your argument is much to broad for the issue at hand.
This is not an issue of security vs civil liberties because
a) it can be argued that there will be NO positive impact on shared security
and
b) one can also argue that it will only NEGATIVELY impact individual security.

there is no good that can come from this bill.

 

[C420sailor]

And you would need tank armor piercing weapons and ammo for what reason?

For no reason. I don't NEED a gas operated semi-automatic rifle either. Maybe we should ban them too?

This is the shitty argument that lawmakers are using to ban .50BMG rifles. According to them I don't NEED it. They claim that they can be used to snipe at extreme ranges, shoot oil terminals, penetrate armored police vehicles, etc. Has anyone thought about what 99.999% of them are used for: extreme range sport shooting that would be otherwise impossible with a smaller caliber firearm?

I'm all about sticking it to the man. If they ban large caliber "firearms" I'll be the first to construct an artillery piece powered by compressed air.

 

[statesman]

:sleep_125 Usually I am the first one to jump into a gun debate but this topic has been discussed ad nauseum.

There was a thread a month ago title "Maybe we should all just follow..." or something to that effect. Talking about HR 45 and HR 1022 from last session. MODs could we maybe merge these two threads.

@ Renegade,

You're so worried about gun ownership because guns have been used to kill people? Well so have garage door openers, cell phones, and pagers. Should we outlaw them? Cell phones are reportedly being 'linked' to cancer, some say that cell phone use at gas pumps can lead to explosions, drivers using cell phones are supposedly just as impaired as drunk drivers.

Kids drown in swimming pools (guarded and unguarded) every year. Ban swimming pools? Hold lifeguards criminally responsible for the death of a child?

Electricity is just as dangerous if not more so than a gun if its not handled properly, but we haven't outlawed power plants. We teach our kids to stay away from power sockets and do our best to respect the power that electricity posses.

Only a few people in this country could provide a reason that they NEED an F-450 SupperDuty, or a Ferrari. But we havent put restrictions on these purchases simply because the population cant provide a legitimate need. Why so with guns? Yes our gun crime rate may be higher than some coutries, but relatively speaking the number of gun murders/deaths in this country, (I think somewhere around 15000 annually? maybe wrong) is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other ways people die. 300,000,000 people live in this country, very few die from guns, even fewer from gun accidents.

The above came from a post that I posted in another thread. Arguments are still just as valid.

 

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

adding to that maybe I can dig up the statistic that showed that accidental deaths caused by doctors was actually much higher than accidental gun deaths.


mind you these are "accidental deaths" not gun crime, but the argument is valid for all those "mandatory safeties" advocates.

 

[The Renegade]

We can all agree that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t restrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local government can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

There is a common-sense approach to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that are used in crimes to dishonest gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets for a quick buck.

I grew up in Philly, A.K.A Killadelphia. I’ve had guns pointed to my face and I’ve been shot at… as a kid! THAT’S WHERE I’M COMING FROM… that’s what I’m trying to say needs to be stop. This bill is not perfect, not by a long shot, but just saying “No” to any kind of gun laws and not supporting an alternative that does justice for those that live in rural Americans as well as the urban areas is doing a disservice to many, many Americans.

 

[statesman]

I grew up in Philly, A.K.A Killadelphia. I’ve had guns pointed to my face and I’ve been shot at… as a kid! THAT’S WHERE I’M COMING FROM…

Im sorry to hear that, but it still doesn't make me sympathize with your cause to disarm the public. You may say that your intent is not to disarm the public, but make no mistake that is what you are advocating.

You should become familiar with John R. Lott and his argument in support of broader firearm proliferation among law abiding citizens. You might be surprised to find that in communities with higher gun ownership by law abiding citizens crime rates go down.

 

[Rocketman]

We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands.

No you can't. It is already illegal for a felon or a mentally deranged person or a person under a restraining order to be in possession of a firearm. Straw purchases are already illegal.

 

[The Renegade]

People with illegal guns are not going to tell some pollster that “yeah, I have a gun” if they are not supposed to have one, or stole it. Those who purchased their guns legally are more inclined to disclose their gun possessions, so you can take that study with a grain of salt.

But, yeah… just agree to disagree. This is getting boring… moving on .

 

[The Chief]

No you can't. ....

Agree. Gun control laws are aimed at the law abiding citizen, not the rapist, burglar, drug runner etc. etc. Our legislators may as well include that statement in their attempts to control the law abiding amongst us. The criminals do not care, are seldom punished for any gun control violations nor does the control slow them down - at all.

 

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

I have to say that I'm on the opposite side of the coin here in South Dakota. We probably have some of the laxest gun laws in the US yet there very rarely is a shooting/murder/rape, yet the majority of people here own guns.

How does that work, and how does that play into the pro-gun control argument?


Just so you know with my personal experience.

In the time that I lived in rapid I only heard of one shooting death (there may have been others but thats what I heard about). I lived in Rapid City for 6 years.

Purchasing a Gun in SD is the process of simply filling out a form, doing the usual background check and walking out the store with it in 5 minutes or so.
Purchasing a handgun is the typical 72 hour wait (unless you buy at scheels outfitters which is gay (7 days:icon_rage)..)
NO background check or wait period if you possess a valid concealed carry permit.. all they do is make a copy of it. (how I purchased my 1911)

here's the kicker. A concealed carry permit consists of filling out a one page application, paying 10 dollars, comming back the next day to pick up your temp, then getting mailed the official one bout 2 weeks later. NO FINGERPRINTS.

SD is also a NO RECORD state, meaning that it is against state law for a government agency to keep a record of your purchase (i.e serial numbers). This would be a huge concern if the new legislation gets put into effect.

All in all I loooove SD

 

[PropStop]

Purchasing a Gun in SD is the process of simply filling out a form, doing the usual background check and walking out the store with it in 5 minutes or so.
Purchasing a handgun is the typical 72 hour wait (unless you buy at scheels outfitters which is gay (7 days:icon_rage)..)
NO background check or wait period if you possess a valid concealed carry permit.. all they do is make a copy of it. (how I purchased my 1911)

here's the kicker. A concealed carry permit consists of filling out a one page application, paying 10 dollars, comming back the next day to pick up your temp, then getting mailed the official one bout 2 weeks later. NO FINGERPRINTS.

SD is also a NO RECORD state, meaning that it is against state law for a government agency to keep a record of your purchase (i.e serial numbers). This would be a huge concern if the new legislation gets put into effect.

All in all I loooove SD

Normally I'm not into one-upsmanship, but I thought I'd speak to my state's laws

Alaska's requirement for CC - if you are legally allowed to own a firearm, you can conceal it. No special permit (though there are provisions for a permit to allow for reciprocity with other states) required. Go buy a pistol, stick it in your pocket, and you're good to go.

If you're legally allowed to own a firearm, why do you have to go through extra screening to get permission to carry it concealed? I've never understood this. If you're the kind of person who's law abiding, you'll get the CCL, but if your a bad guy, you'll just conceal your weapon anyways. Laws targeting law abiding citizens are laws targeting the WRONG PEOPLE.

 

[RyanF]

God forbid that someone would require people to have a license to own a gun or require people to take a competency test to ensure they have the mental capacity to use and operate said gun, or have the wherewithal to keep their guns out of the hands of criminals or youths!

Except the supreme court ruled, in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 1943, that "a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."....and....."a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=319&page=105

 

[GO_AV8_DevilDog]

Normally I'm not into one-upsmanship, but I thought I'd speak to my state's laws

Alaska's requirement for CC - if you are legally allowed to own a firearm, you can conceal it. No special permit (though there are provisions for a permit to allow for reciprocity with other states) required. Go buy a pistol, stick it in your pocket, and you're good to go.

If you're legally allowed to own a firearm, why do you have to go through extra screening to get permission to carry it concealed? I've never understood this. If you're the kind of person who's law abiding, you'll get the CCL, but if your a bad guy, you'll just conceal your weapon anyways. Laws targeting law abiding citizens are laws targeting the WRONG PEOPLE.

I actually don't consider this one-upmanship. I think that is awsome. I too lived in Alaska (a long time ago) and I believe that there is no reason to have cc laws be any different. The only thing is how many state have reciprocal cc with AK.

mind you it's only about half for SD but I would only assume (yeah yeah i know) that it would be less for AK.




final summation? I have a CC and damn it I cary my colt 1911 everywhere allowed and hopefully soon on campus too (we've been trying to pass legislation to allow CC on college campuses)


but i have to say too you, I wish I was in Alaska!

 

[PropStop]

but i have to say too you, I wish I was in Alaska!

You and me both man! Unfortunately I live in a country where firearms are very difficult to own... only 18more months...