Can We Dems STOP The Gun Law Insantity

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=9928289&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6

This is just ridiculous! No wonder it has gone nowhere. And Dems controlled Congress up until 1994. Nobody did anything.
Trad

we need to drop the gun control business. Job one is to start making jobs - that will solve a lot more problems than gun control ever did or ever will.

I see nothing wrong with this .....

I know you claim to be 'progressive' and 'liberal', but frankly, you promote a VERY right wing view of gun issues .... as I promote a 'liberal' view ....

-snip-

"It is simply a common sense extension of existing gun safety regulations. It would protect our citizens and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them."

Current federal laws do not consider replica or antique guns to be firearms, and therefore, they aren’t regulated under gun laws. But under Hoeffel’s proposal, purchasers of antique and replica guns would be subject to background checks and the guns would be subject to tracing, reporting and record-keeping requirements.

Criminals, minors and the mentally ill also would be prohibited from purchasing such firearms under the legislation.

Hoeffel’s proposal would allow antique and replica guns to remain exempt from the National Firearms Act, which requires costly transfer taxes when certain firearms change ownership.

Hoeffel said the legislation is not a proposal to radically change the Second Amendment but is designed to close a loophole.

-snip-

Seems reasonable to me .......

Then again: ... I am not fixated on Second Amendment issues .....

is that these guns are used in such a miniscule amount of crime that it is senseless to spend time enacting a law against them. We're talking about antique guns here. I would speculate that devices used to inflict blunt force trauma are FAR more deadly than ancient guns. Which are used in crime more often? (I'll give you a hint, it's not the guns)

How would you like to pay a $200 tax every time you bought your child a baseball bat or whenever you bought yourself a new tire iron, or a wrench that is over 12" in length? Of course, the tax is the easy part. You'd also have to wait 3-6 months for the BATFE to do a background check and run your fingerprints.

I guess it's easy to take freedom away from others if you don't like to use that freedom yourself...

"I would speculate that devices used to inflict blunt force trauma are FAR more deadly than ancient guns. Which are used in crime more often?"

According to the U.S. Crime Index for the year 2001, America's weapons of choice in the commission of violent crimes were (percentage-wise) included:

Personal weapons: Hands, Fists, & Feet - used in 31.1% of violent crime

Golf clubs, Hammers and baseball bats: 27.8%

Firearms: 26.2%

Knives/cutting instruments: 14.9%


Also, we know that baseball bats, rolling pins and other blunt objects are used to commit homicide far more frequently than "assault weapons."

The Homicide stats are quite different though...

Knives/Cutting Instruments 13.1%
Personal weapons (hands, feet etc) 6.7%
Unknown or other 16.8%
Firearms 63.4%

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

A 1996 San Francisco review of hospital experience:

http://www.tf.org/tf/injuries/hom.html

Due to the lethality of firearms, they were the mechanism of injury in only 18% of all assault hospitalizations, compared to 66% of all homicide deaths.

... Fireams accounted for a smaller proportion of non-fatal assaults than for deaths. "Struck by objects or persons" accounted for a substanial number of assault hospitalizations, as did "cutting/piercing instruments." Clearly, these weapons are less lethal than firearms.

One might also reasonably suspect that a higher proportion of injuries from assault by firearm result in hospitalization than of injuries from assault by something else. So while 18% of assault hospitalizations involved firearms, a lower proportion of all assault injuries would involve firearms.

The homicide figures, them we can be pretty sure are accurate. Easier to count dead bodies than to count bruised, battered or bleeding live bodies. Two thirds of homicides were by firearm.

Do people who intend to kill choose firearms? Are people who intend to kill more likely to succeed if they use firearms? Are people who do not intend to kill more likely to kill if they use firearms? How about all of the above?

.

how anyone can claim to be "liberal" and be for such stringent laws that take away "liberties" from citizens of this supposedly free country.

Being liberal, to me, means being open to freedoms and against repression. Forcing gun control upon the masses is a form of control and repression, and any "liberal" worth his salt should be against it.


Nothin reasonable about this legislation...

that some DU participants are very selective about which inalienable rights they want to support.

Other DU participants believe that all inalienable rights are equal and should be protected.

The first group may be called "pseudo-liberals" in contrast tothe latter group which are the true "liberals". Of course that's just my opinion and also the position of the National Democratic Party.
:shrug:

have been inseperable since the 60's when the Kennedy's & MKL, Jr, and other leaders were murdered with guns. The sad thing is, the gun regs that generally everyone supports wouldn't have saved JFK or King or Medgar Evers; maybe RFK, but I doubt that - no knock on our current laws, just an observation of irony.

It's a complicated issue, don't let anyone try to black & white it for you. Also, don't let anyone label you.

This is beyond a Democratic & Republican thing. We lose elections when we have a litmus test for our candidates on any specific issue and we lose activists when we make them feel unwelcome because of a specific issue.

I'd welcome any progressive that supports gun rights.

Are you in favor of the Democratic Party getting rid of its traditional position on reproductive choice, in an effort to make all those anti-abortionists feel more welcome?

I'll repeat what I've been saying for a long time now: the pro-gun movement is overwhelmingly right-wing and Republican, and the Democrats will attract very few votes from these people by the kind of crass political pandering that is regularly advocated in this forum by you RKBA types.

Why we would want to alienate the majority that want stricter gun control to accomodate a handful of bigots and nutcases is beyond me.

If we have a strong nominee with whom I disagree on an issue or two, I will support him in November '04.

I hope that everyone would agree with this.

1) If this is a person-to-person sale, then the guns should not be subject to background checks, etc. as with any other gun.

2) If this is a dealer-to-person sale, then the gun should be subject to every other requlation that such sales with modern firearms bring.

Just because they are old/replicas, does not mean that they deserve special treatment.

nt

Yes, there are actually gun nuts who think 30,000 fatal shootings a year is jim-dandy, but any common sense attempt to cut that number is insanity...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You REALLY want to know what I thought of your "assessments?"

that's why I posted them. It's called a DISCUSSION. But, I don't think you will ever get that down.

and nothing as preposterous or silly as gun nut rhetoric....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe you can peddle more rubbish about the phony Australian "bloodbath"

Are you putting words into my mouth? I have NEVER commented on the gun laws in Australia, the UK, or elsewhere outside the US. Maybe if you PAID ATTENTION, you would know who said what. And then, if your level of comprehension allows it, you might UNDERSTAND what was said. But, I'm not holding my breath.

Let's have folks wander over to the "Or, how about one from NYC? 6 Shot During Weekend" where you're trying to peddle it..

and go ahead and try to find one single quote FROM ME about gun laws in other countries besides the US.

Can't do it, can you? That's because I haven't. So stop trying to put words in peoples' mouths and PAY ATTENTION, young man.

and people can see for themselves.

"PAY ATTENTION, young man."
I DO, Pop. That's how it is I catch gun nuts trying to peddle sheer hoeey.

2/3rds are from suicide. We are talking about stopping violent criminals here.

Mostly I see gun nuts sniveling about an attempt to keep guns out of criminal hands.

What is wrong with keeping guns out of criminals' hands? I think you're losing it.

...as truly intended to keep guns away from THEM. Or to have ATF agents at their doorstep, ready to confiscate each and every one of their "pweshus widdle" guns.

I am 100% behind any law that keeps guns out of criminals' hands, but does not, in any way, shape, or form impede upon my right to access to firearms.

Things I am against:

1) Waiting periods
2) One-gun-a-month laws
3) Mandatory registration
4) Fees-for-permits to carry
5) Cosmetic "bans", that are post-facto firearms bans

Things I am for:

1) Instant, NICS checks
2) Shall-issue permits, free of charge, to any qualifying citizen
3) Firearms instruction from accredited institutions, for a nominal fee
4) Firearms education availablity (as much as sex-ed, AIDS-ed, etc.)

Benchly's comment sounded like he was AGAINST keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Brian

I saw MrBenchley's post as an observation of the typical knee-jerk reaction that many pro-gunners have when ANY gun control measure is discussed.

"Mostly I see gun nuts sniveling about an attempt to keep guns out of criminal hands."

OK, what is wrong with gun enthusiasts "sniveling" about keeping guns out of ciminal hands? I think that Benchly's problem with gun enthusiasts goes beyond purely academic and is, in fact, some personal hatred.

3. The fear of guns

"Sanity".

Just a different perspective.......

What are you trying to say?

What some people regard as "ballistophobia", others consider a safe and sane position.

believe they are sane and prison inmates claim they are innocent.

There must be a proper psychological or psychiatric term to describe such abnormal behavior.

Are you implying that those who disagree with you are somehow mentally deficient? I prefer to think that we're just looking at things from a different perspective.

"What some people regard as "ballistophobia", others consider a safe and sane position."

I believe a fair interpretation of your statement is that those who fear guns have a "sane position" and those who don't fear guns have an "un-sane position". You didn't mean that, did you?

And the opposite position the "insane" one. As I said before, a matter of perspective.

out of control of all three branches of our government. As much as I dislike the positions taken by Diane Fiendstein on guns, she would be preferable to AWOL and his greedy band. That's why I'm a:

AND DAMM PROUD OF IT!

is that they are pretty much sorely lacking in the realm of honesty and not much enamored of sanity.

"is that they are pretty much sorely lacking in the realm of honesty and not much enamored of sanity."

Hey what do you know, still works both ways! Cha! Cha! Cha! :)

that's lacking...

as the post above shows so piquantly.

I just thought you might like to hear it again and see how well it works both ways. :)

Hey, those online dictionaries and thesaurus's are great, aren't they!:)

For us lowly pissants that needed to look it up....

pi·quant
Pronunciation: 'pE-k&nt, -"känt; 'pi-kw&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from present participle of piquer
Date: 1630
1 : agreeably stimulating to the palate; especially : SPICY
2 : engagingly provocative; also : having a lively arch charm
synonym see PUNGENT

actually have vocabularies.

to form a coherent argument.

there's not much more needed to dismiss RKBA rubbish than a snort of derision.

against the bill.

says:

QUOTE
(16) The term ''antique firearm'' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica -

(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or

(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or

(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ''antique firearm'' shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.
UNQUOTE

Hoeffel needs to focus on major problem issues like the Patriot Act, economy, and education. Did Karl Rove pay him to introduce the bill?

What BS, first the gun-grabbers want to ban all semi-automatic guns because they can fire dozens of rounds per minute and now they want to ban blackpowder guns that can fire as few as two times per minute.

The circumstantial evidence suggests the backers of the bill have a very distorted view of the world. Karl Rove will use Hoeffel's bill in soundbites all over America to scare the independent voters. :puke:

ON EDIT ADD
Hoeffel is a sponsor of the Expanded AWB H.R.2038 Title: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

We're talking about billion years old cap and ball revolvers!

Trad

If it becomes a law(which I do not think it will)?

Just the people who use such replicas for their own personal enjoyment. # 1. The people who do re-enactments of the Revolutionary War,Civil War and Rendevous. #2. The ones that do it just for the sport of shooting at targets in competitions. #3. People who use them to hunt for the specific seasons set for their use.

All law abiding citizens.

Yes I have 3 muzzleloaders which I enjoy utilizing for shooting and hunting.(rut oh) I am lucky to reload one in 2 minutes at the range.

Only problem I have is that the stores carry the black powder out in the aisles and not in a safe area. There is a disaster waiting to happen if some teen gets the notion to light a match in a open container and there are a few pounds of this stuff on the shelf.

That is a area that would serve the public better.

have TV sound bites saying, "First the Democrats banned assault weapons, then they banned handguns, now they want to ban flintlocks. When will the Democrats stop"

Why was that particular bill introduced by a Democrat at this exact time? It will not pass. All it does is give campaign material to Karl Rove.

Karl Rove would cook up some other lie.

such "weapons" are unregulated.

If it fires live ammo then it's covered by other pistol laws i.e. illegal.

If it's a replica that's really a softair gun then you need to be 17 to buy one.

However, blank-firers and replicas are currently the target of a campaign from the mayor of London + the police. They want them totally banned due to a) a number of police shootings of people waving replicas around b) the use of replicas in armed robberies (incidentally, using a replica carries the same punishment as using a real gun in the UK) and c) the fact that some replicas and de-activated weapons can be re-converted back to fire live ammo.

"Home Office officials said legislation would be brought in to ban anyone carrying a replica or air weapon in a public place without a good reason.

The age limit for acquiring and using an air weapon without adult supervision will also be increased from 14 to 17...

Low-powered air weapons would not require a licence, but new powers would allow police to confiscate them if they were being carried in a public place "without good reason"...

The Home Office is also examining a ban on the sale, manufacture and the import of what are known as tandem air cartridge systems, such as the Brocock ME38 air pistol, which can be illegally converted to fire bullets. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640221.stm

are armed in England. If that is true, then how can there be "a number of police shootings of people waving replicas around"?

"You wrote or suggested in another thread that very few police
are armed in England"

In 2000 (the last year for which figures are available) there were 6262 firearms authorised officers (FAO)in England & Wales. FAO means that they are authorised to carry firearms, but not necessarily routinely armed.

"how can there be "a number of police shootings of people waving replicas around"

In 2000 (as above) there were 10915 operations in which the issue of firearms was authorised (but not necessarily used). That's a fair few operations.
-Source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/firearmstats.html


I can from memory recall two incidents in London from the past year where individuals have been shot whilst brandishing replica or imitation firearms.

Two incidents are two too many in the eyes of the police, much of the public and the government.

...two people are expendable as long as no one tries to limit THEIR access to guns.

trying to pretend there is a daily bloodbath in Britain and Australia.

between Britain, Australia and the US on other forums, and I've never quite understood it.

Britain is so very different from the US geographically, politically, culturally and socially that they make such very poor comparison.

The other thing that's always puzzled me, is the claim that they need guns to protect them from the government. I was under the impression that elections were what did that in democracies. And who decides when enoughs enough? Do they have a commitee, or a union-style ballot? What if the majority of people like the way the government is working? Do they just get to blow up a few federal buildings and then go home?

that the people such arguments are being made to by the NRA and the like (http://www.gunowners.org/op0340.htm) are for the most part dirt-ignorant bigots.

"the claim that they need guns to protect them from the government."
It's the sort of idiocy that leads one of these darlings every once in a while to shoot the nearest postman. Scratch it a little deeper and by "the government" they mean "civil rights laws."

with civil rights laws, including the right for me to protect myself.

when you see the folks handing out white supremacist pamphlets at the gun show....

Or these guys:

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/5548/

to hand that crap out. It's also my right to just ignore it. Can't say I've seen any white surpemacist at a gunshow, as I've never been to one.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever met a white supremacist...

and they've got fertile ground for their crap at gun shows among the RKBA crowd...