HR 1022Follow

Submachinegun is a classification that has nothing to do with range, but with the ammunition it uses. SMG's use pistol ammo, (9mm, .45, etc) and are MACHINE GUNS!!! Already banned. You know, one person wrote that you can't own a tank. That's good. But you can buy Hummers, the H1 being the same as the Hummers used in Iraq, sans up-armoring. Yet the Governator has one, and there are private companies that do civilian up-armoring. My point is that this piece of legislation bans only cosmetic differences in firearms. Machine guns are already illegal. I agree that we don't need grenade launchers, RPG's, and other heavy artillery in the hands of civilians, but we're talking about small arms here. I understand peoples fear of guns that look like military guns, but they are not. Full auto, or selective fire guns cannot be purchased legally. And someone wrote, 'What about the people who buy their weapons illegally?' Then this legislation will have NO effect on them. Laws are for the law abiding. I believe Timothy McViegh still holds the record as the biggest mass murderer in our history. He used plant food and diesel fuel. Maybe if someone had been armed with a 9mm at Colombine, he/she could have put those little snots out of our misery before more people got killed. Man is a cunning and ruthless killer, and I for one believe that I should have the right to protect myself from the predators out there. I have no problem with safety classes, background checks, etc. But a trigger lock requirement negates my right to self defense. And registration is only a precursor to confiscation. You think I see black helicopters? Study some history. The ****'s required registration, and guess what followed?
Criminals will always find a way to circumvent the law, thats what makes them criminals. This legislation will only make criminals out of law abiding citizens, and that is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

Elvaanelder wrote:

Submachinegun is a classification that has nothing to do with range, but with the ammunition it uses. SMG's use pistol ammo, (9mm, .45, etc) and are MACHINE GUNS!!! Already banned.

well sure... but the whole point of a SMG is to provide a high rate of fire at close and medium quarters.. NOT for long range.. for that you got LMGs, and HMGs.

Gbaji wrote:

An assault rifle in the context of the gun control movement is defined as any of a list of weapons that the anti-gun folks have put on a list because they sound scary and have attachements on them that make them look like military weapons. There are no performance related definitions involved. It has nothing to do with how fast the weapon can fire. It has nothing to do with how "deadly" the weapon is. It has nothing to do with any relevant statistic involving firearms at all in fact. It has everything to do with scaring the public into supporting anti-gun legistlation.

Well, even though I do not want my babies taken away, I'll still argue with you.

Even though YES it is true that these "definitions" are simply attributes that apply fear and worry to certain people... NONE THE LESS these attributes actually DO increase the performance....
Having a semi-automatic rifle that fires 15 rounds is a LOT less effective than a semi-automatic rifle that fires 30 rounds and has a folding stock.

anyway, that's why I said "Assault Weapon" rather than assault Rifle. Traditinally an Assault Rifle is simple a Rifle that can fire as far as a long Rifle and also has selective fire capabilities, and uses more managable ammunition.. See the Sturmgewehr 44.. traditianlly the first Assault Rifle and the precursor to the AK-47.
but then, like you said,... these guys are just tacking **** on to that definition left and right... My beloeved M1-Carbine... made as a hunting rifle is part of the list just because it can fit a 30 round magazine...

Which would be valid if say all semi-automatic weapons with the capability to hold a 30 round magizine were what was written into any of these sorts of bills. But that's not how they are written. The writers are very selective, creating a list of "banned assault weapons" that has nothing to do with capability and everything to do with the appearance of the weapons themselves.

Nothing in this bill prevents me from attaching a 20 or 30 round magazine to my ruger 9mm pistol and using it to massacre a bunch of people. Heck. Nothing in this bill prevents me from owning a replica Thompson machine gun, complete with 50 round drum (although they do tend to jam a lot, so I recommend the 30 round stick instead). Nothing in the bill prevents the manufacturers of the weapons on the list from making minor cosmetic changes to the weapons in question, renaming them and then selling them again.


It's pointless legistlation designed purely to generate the appearance of making it harder for someone to kill you with a firearm. While I'm ok with that from a 2nd ammendment point of view, it really is a waste of taxpayer money when we spend time on these things.

You that afraid of 3 paragraphs? Hmmm... Might want to seek therapy.


Seriously though, your "list" of weapons, for all your statements that they are unneeded (which arguement can be used equally for all firearms and thus is void), are separated from those weapons not banned purely based on their apperance.

Hence the problem with bills of this nature.

No more or less then any of a dozen other types of firearms that are *not* on the banned list though. Besides, the constitution does not place a restriction on gun ownership based on the "need" of the owner.

You wouldn't argue that someone's right to free speach should be infringed because in your opinion "he doesn't need to say that...". In fact, I'm reasonably certain that you would rigorously defend someone's rights in that case. Am I wrong? If I'm not, then why support a right in one case, but oppose it in another?



You're free to dislike guns. You're free to dislike people who like guns. But, unless and until the 2nd ammendment is repealed, can we accept that those people have the right to own a mock military weapon? Even if they have no "need" for it, and even if you don't agree with the reasons for him wanting it?


The second we start abridging other people's freedoms because we don't agree with what they do with them, is the second we open our own freedoms to question.

Read the 2nd amendment, you dumb ****. It is not difficult to understand.

what do we think the odds are on a lot of redneck bloodshed?

A lot? Close to nil. One or two whack jobs getting killed over it, maybe.

The reality is that most people who guns are giant quivering pussies who blindly do what they're told.



Edited, Apr 10th 2007 8:29pm by Smasharoo

Wow. Yoss just won the thread.

Um... The ammendment at no point says that a person must be a part of a "well regulated militia" to have the right to keep and bear arms.

As quoted, no. It says that's the reason people can keep and bear arms.

All people have that right.

Um...The amendment at no point says that all people have that right.



Whether the aforementioned militia exists or not.

Um...The amendment at no point says that people don't need to be part of a militia to keep and bear arms.


In exactly the same way that you have a right to free speach even if you aren't a member of the press, and even if for some reason there was no "press" at all.

No, it's completely different, actually as freedom of speech is a specifically enumerated right without conditions in Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 intentionally includes the phrase 'well regulated militia'.

But the freedom is necessary for that reason, not the other way around.



Um. Yes it does:



The People. Not "some of the people". Not "those who are part of the aforementioned militias". It says "the people". That means all the people. Not just some.



It does not say they do. Which is more important. There is no conditional placed on that right. None at all.




But it does not restrict who has that right. The first portion is *not* a condition on the second, but a reason why the second must exist. Private citizens must have the right to own their own weapons in order to have the ability to form militias on their own. By assumption, the Bill of Rights is rights that the people have, not powers that the government possesses. If "the people" don't have the right to own their own weapons *first*, then the only entity with the power to create militias and therefore allow the people to be armed would be the government. That is contrary to the very purpose of the bill of rights.


The need for a well regulated militia is the reason for the right to keep and bear arms. But those who have that right need not ever actually be a part of any militia. They simply must have the right so that they *can* form such militias if they need to. Your interpretation results in the 2nd amendment being an enumeration of the powers of government to form militias and hand out weapons in that context. That is clearly not the intent of that amendment.


Of course, your's is a very commmon misinterpretation of the amendment. It's still wrong though.

Fixed.

Let's compare:

Amendment One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and

Amendment Two: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They knew how to write unequivocally, and they chose not to.

The reason is clear: to bear arms to fight off the government.

Does anyone want citizens to privately own weapons on par with the US military?

Any takers?

AND great murder rampage weapons. AND great drive by shooting weapons.

Not to mention how they would hold up in the hands of people NOT properly trained who steal them from the people who ARE properly trained.