|
|
Member
Posts: 2567
Location: Manitowoc, WI | THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")
. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."
. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")
. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!
You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | I did my part I wrote my congressman and forwarded a copy of this letter out to everyone on my email list. Dont be shy this afects us all in the long run weather you own a gun or not. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | Besides writing your legislators... You can sign this petition...
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172448514 |
|
| |
|
| Where does it ban your ability to hunt or defend yourself? You just have to modify your habits for the good of society. You all squawk about insiting the government has the right to throw our civil liberties out the window, all in the name of the war on terror, but don't you dare take even one bullet away. A little hypocritical. The only way this proposal would be better is if it included a handgun ban or increase the penalties for gun-realated crimes at least ten fold. Life in prison for commision of a felony with any firearm.  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 279
Location: Rockford MN | Not far enough - 2/27/2007 4:36 PM
Where does it ban your ability to hunt or defend yourself? You just have to modify your habits for the good of society. You all squawk about insiting the government has the right to throw our civil liberties out the window, all in the name of the war on terror, but don't you dare take even one bullet away. A little hypocritical. The only way this proposal would be better is if it included a handgun ban or increase the penalties for gun-realated crimes at least ten fold. Life in prison for commision of a felony with any firearm. :-O
The problem with crime is not the guns, but rather the people that use them! You think life in prison is gonna stop people from shooting people? You think taking away guns from everyone (have you bought one in the last 10 years?) is gonna stop crime? You see the good folks that buy guns and have them reg... are the only ones that any of these bills will effect!
They don't grow "coke" in this country, but since there is a market they find ways to get it in! You think guns would be any different? If a person chooses this path in life, you think some bill and a threat of life behind bars is gonna stop any of that? Hell no it won't, they have the choice now and it does'nt affect a thing. This is simple "grand standing" by another person in power looking to make a name!
I don't even use my guns anymore, but have a few on this list. They are'nt gonna get them from me this easy! They should be using all this time figuring out how to get the youth back from the gangs in this country, instead of figuring out how to get something that won't fix any of the problem! |
|
| |
|
| <The problem with crime is not the guns, but rather the people that use them!>
Where did I hear that? Oh, yeah, the NRA slogan. Yes, the problem is guns. Taking them away from criminals will make a HUGE difference. It's not going to stop crime in general. The party store is still going to get robbed, there lies the people problem, BUT the clerk isn't going to get shot and their family probably isn't going to lose a loved one. There lies the gun problem. Why is the ZERO compromise with gun owners, NRA, and the other lobbies? I mean ZERO. It's basically let everyone buy and use any weapon they want unabated or your not happy. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | I am a former Law Enforcement Officer so I have some "expertise" and experience in this "field"....
There is "zero compromise", because it does not work the way you hope it would. Chicago and Washington DC have some of the tightest gun control laws in the nation... but it has not stopped gun violence. "Violence" is a people thing... So removing guns from the homes of law abiding citizens only makes them vulnerable. If the gun lobby had anything other than emotional slogans don't yiou think they would put forth statistical arguments supporting their position.
The previous version of the "Assault Weapons Ban" (a joke label anyway since assault weapons are illegal, all machine guns are..) did nothing to abate crime... nothing at all... In fact, the weapons sought to be banned are used so infrequently as to be miniscule. Your kids tricycle is much more likel;y to cause death or great bodily harm than my Ruger Mini 14 or Remington Shotgun. Give me some valid arguments and I will consider a compromise. But, don't expect me to compromise and accept PC or "feel good" legislation that has no valid basis or has no possible positive result.
Now, tell me something.... how is this legislation going to take guns away from criminals... By definition a "criminal" is not abiding by the law... Telling him that HR1022 makes it illegal for him to possess a certain gun is going to deter him while the statute that prescribes his possible death sentence for killing the store clerk does not deter him from killing... Isn't that just a bit of a stretch.
Banning the sale of guns won't keep them out of the hands of criminals... they will seek out the secondary market and traffic in those...
Edited by hgmeyer 2/27/2007 5:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 279
Location: Rockford MN | Not far enough - 2/27/2007 5:13 PM
Where did I hear that? Oh, yeah, the NRA slogan. Yes, the problem is guns. Taking them away from criminals will make a HUGE difference. It's not going to stop crime in general. The party store is still going to get robbed, there lies the people problem, BUT the clerk isn't going to get shot and their family probably isn't going to lose a loved one. There lies the gun problem. Why is the ZERO compromise with gun owners, NRA, and the other lobbies? I mean ZERO. It's basically let everyone buy and use any weapon they want unabated or your not happy.
Again MANY things are against the law in this country, yet they come from other countries! People that want to do these sort of things are NOT the people buying these guns at the local sporting good stores! They are people buying guns modified or that are not reg... to anyone! It's called the "black market" maybe you have heard of it??? Since the Government can't seem to stop the flow of drugs how are they gonna stop weapons? Truth is the can't and won't! This is about dis-arming citizens NOT criminals!
So taking away someones auto shotgun is NOT going to eleminate crime in this country! When was the last time you heard of a person with a Colt AR-15 killing a person at a store for the cash in the register?
I'm not Pro NRA, I'm just a realist and know that people are at the center of all evil. People kill people the tools to do so may change but from the beginning of time that is how things have gone. Someone killing someone for what they don't have or pure anger, the choice of weapons may change but people DON'T! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | Not far enough it is so obvious that your knowledge on gun control is very missled because the day that you take guns away the only people who will have guns will be outlaws. Ask australia how well it worked to take away there guns> I seen interviews with criminals in australia that said it made no difrence on there ability to get a gun come on people wake up and smell the roses. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 201
Location: Jackson, Wisconsin 53037 | Not far enough. Apparently you don't understand what gun control does. It only hurts the law abiding citizens. If that bill passes it will only take the guns away from the honest people.
There is no criminal out there that is going to go buy a firearm from a cabela's, bass pro, etc. They get their guns on the street, blackmarket, and will continue to do so no matter what.
The government could confiscate all the guns in the U.S., the criminals will still have theirs. Why? because we all have to register our firearms when we purchase them and the government would come knocking on our doors for the guns.
As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | hgmeyer - 2/27/2007 4:51 PM
Besides writing your legislators... You can sign this petition...
Hgmeyer.
I went and signed the petition. But I am suspicious and wasn't real excited about the sponsors of the petition being the ACLU and Humane Society. With both having questionable records on both guns and peoples hunting/fishing rights in general.
Edited by walleye express 2/28/2007 7:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 794
Location: Elgin, Illinois | The Petiton site is sponsored by them.... The petitions are created by individuals... I had an icky feeling too until I delved into it a bit... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 744
| "Taking them away from criminals will make a HUGE difference."
I love that statement. That just shows how naive gun control folks really are.
Dave S |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I own several guns, and a ton of ammo. I like to shoot. I also like to hunt. I'm not going to rob anyone, nor am I going to shoot anyone. My guns are registered.
The guy who is going to rob someone, commit a crime with a firearm, etc is not the target of this bill. I am. Bad legislation, plain and simple. |
|
| |
|
| I could just as easy injure someone with my Beckman net. Just ask anyone who has been in the boat with me when we get a Walleye on.
Enforce and stiffed the drunken driving laws in WI and you will save far more lives than taking away my Ruger Mini 14.
guest |
|
| |
|
| I still think we need to toughen up the penalties for criminals....substantially. They all know they have it better off in prison if they get caught. We pay twice. Once for the crime, and then to keep them clothed and fed in prison. Sweet deal. Let's try: You kill, you die. You steal, count your fingers, you rape, well, you get my drift. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 201
Location: Jackson, Wisconsin 53037 | Guest too, you can thank liberal america for that. The criminals have more rights then the victims. Most of the criminals live better in jail then they do out of jail. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 141
Location: Oshkosh, WI | This discussion reminds me of the old timer who was reported to the game warden for throwing dynamite in the water and then scooping up the stunned fish. The warden decided he needed to catch him red handed so he went out in the boat with him. After the old feller lit and threw a stick of dynamite into the water the warden said, "sorry old friend, I'm gonna have to arrest you."
to that the old timer lit another stick of dynamite, handed it to the warden and said, "are you going to fish or sit there talking about work?"
I am not sure what that story has to do with gun control, but I am not sure what gun control has to do with walleye fishing... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I guess we'd have to consult Mr. Webster on his exact meaning and explanation of the word GENERAL, and just what the owners of this site specifically intended or meant in their referenced meaning of GENERAL DISCUSSION.
Edited by walleye express 3/1/2007 6:02 AM
|
|
| |
THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS