New gun control bill - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > New gun control bill

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2011, 08:54 PM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CA357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,871
Liked 1175 Times on 510 Posts
Likes Given: 2978

Default

I took this off the net a little while ago. From CBS of all places:

Majority doesn't blame rhetoric for Giffords shooting
Reuters


– 2 hrs 13 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A majority of Americans reject the view that heated political rhetoric was a factor in the weekend shootings in Arizona which killed six and critically wounded a congresswoman, a CBS News said on Tuesday.

Since the Saturday incident in which Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot at point-blank range, various politicians and commentators have said a climate in which strong language and ideological polarization is common may have contributed to the attack.

Some of the analysts cited anti-government statements from the man arrested in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, as support for that view.

But CBS said its nationwide telephone poll found that, "57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did."

Rejection of a link was strongest among Republicans, 69 percent of whom felt harsh rhetoric was not related to the attack, while 19 percent thought it played a part.

Among Democrats 49 percent placed no blame on the heated political tone against 42 percent who did. Among independents the split was 56 percent to 33 percent, CBS said.

It said its poll of 673 adults had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

(Reporting by Jerry Norton; Editing by Jackie Frank)
__________________

__________________
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”Samuel Adams
CA357 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 08:59 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 178
Default

Ah yes. I was certain calls for tighter gun control regulations would come out of this. I'm sure the current laws on the books against murder and attempted murder escaped the Arizona shooter. But laws against stockpiling ammunition, that would've stopped his rampage!!!!

__________________
clip11 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 09:48 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5
Default

Look, the pope gets around fine right? Maybe if congress adopted the idea of "Senatemobiles" they would be safe. Or they could just body scan everyone within 100 feet of an official. Seems legit

__________________
JPlumFun is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2011, 10:47 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
gorknoids's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,424
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

E-mail sent. I asked that he not just work against these assaults on the constitution, but that he expose the authors of any proposed legislation.

__________________

"Guns don't kill people. Male Kennedy's kill people."

gorknoids is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 01:41 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Saint Louis,Missouri
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorknoids View Post
E-mail sent. I asked that he not just work against these assaults on the constitution, but that he expose the authors of any proposed legislation.
Okay, before I go into my spiel: I'm probably what would be called a "libertarian" politically; at least, that's what I think you call people whose political view of the world is "you go do your thing as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights" (Westboro Baptist Asswipes being one of my few exceptions to my political views).

Here is a story about a Peter King, R from New York, who wants to introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a member of congress, the president (and vp and I would assume the entire chain of who can become president), or judges.

First Read - N.Y. Republican wants to outlaw guns near officials, judges

Now, here is the thing that just makes NO FREAKING SENSE to me:

It is already illegal to:
1. Murder someone.
2. To use a weapon to murder someone (because we want to make a distinction between killing a person and killing a person with an X)
3. To assault someone with a lethal weapon.
4. To acquire a firearm for the purposes of committing a crime.

I'm running out of things here, but you can see my point.

What the guy did was already illegal.

How is introducing a law like what Peter King is proposing going to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again?

I mean, does he honestly think that, had this law existed, that this unbalanced individual wouldn't have attacked her?

Why not propose a law that makes sense, such as "if a person wants to get within X number of feet of a senator/president/member of government, they must submit themselves to a weapon/security screening"

I mean, ****, the guy could have just as easily walked up to Gifford and and stabbed her. Heck, consider what could have happened if the bastard had strapped a bomb to his chest!

I'd also like to point out: it's not liberals who are taking the "ban guns" route. It's people who don't understand how guns work, and who think that somehow banning high-capacity magazines is going to somehow prevent someone who is intent on killing another person from being able to do so.

I mean, hell, every time I go to the range in Missouri, just about everyone I see there has a "high-capacity" magazine, mostly because they're there to shoot, not to reload mags.

Part of me wonders, though, in a part of my mind that would enjoy the irony: do these people who call for bans of these magazines realize that all they do by announcing it is cause people to buy up more high-capacity magazines?
__________________

There are two types of idiocy: Believing everything one is told without question, and never listening to what others have to say.

corrinavatan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 02:25 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CourtJester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South of the thumb
Posts: 2,800
Liked 711 Times on 380 Posts
Likes Given: 48

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
Okay, before I go into my spiel: I'm probably what would be called a "libertarian" politically; at least, that's what I think you call people whose political view of the world is "you go do your thing as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights" (Westboro Baptist Asswipes being one of my few exceptions to my political views).

Here is a story about a Peter King, R from New York, who wants to introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a member of congress, the president (and vp and I would assume the entire chain of who can become president), or judges.

First Read - N.Y. Republican wants to outlaw guns near officials, judges

Now, here is the thing that just makes NO FREAKING SENSE to me:

It is already illegal to:
1. Murder someone.
2. To use a weapon to murder someone (because we want to make a distinction between killing a person and killing a person with an X)
3. To assault someone with a lethal weapon.
4. To acquire a firearm for the purposes of committing a crime.

I'm running out of things here, but you can see my point.

What the guy did was already illegal.

How is introducing a law like what Peter King is proposing going to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again?

I mean, does he honestly think that, had this law existed, that this unbalanced individual wouldn't have attacked her?

Why not propose a law that makes sense, such as "if a person wants to get within X number of feet of a senator/president/member of government, they must submit themselves to a weapon/security screening"

I mean, ****, the guy could have just as easily walked up to Gifford and and stabbed her. Heck, consider what could have happened if the bastard had strapped a bomb to his chest!

I'd also like to point out: it's not liberals who are taking the "ban guns" route. It's people who don't understand how guns work, and who think that somehow banning high-capacity magazines is going to somehow prevent someone who is intent on killing another person from being able to do so.

I mean, hell, every time I go to the range in Missouri, just about everyone I see there has a "high-capacity" magazine, mostly because they're there to shoot, not to reload mags.

Part of me wonders, though, in a part of my mind that would enjoy the irony: do these people who call for bans of these magazines realize that all they do by announcing it is cause people to buy up more high-capacity magazines?
__________________

I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
~George Washington

CourtJester is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 03:12 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,808
Liked 1109 Times on 657 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
Okay, before I go into my spiel: I'm probably what would be called a "libertarian" politically; at least, that's what I think you call people whose political view of the world is "you go do your thing as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights" (Westboro Baptist Asswipes being one of my few exceptions to my political views).

Here is a story about a Peter King, R from New York, who wants to introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a member of congress, the president (and vp and I would assume the entire chain of who can become president), or judges.

First Read - N.Y. Republican wants to outlaw guns near officials, judges

Now, here is the thing that just makes NO FREAKING SENSE to me:

It is already illegal to:
1. Murder someone.
2. To use a weapon to murder someone (because we want to make a distinction between killing a person and killing a person with an X)
3. To assault someone with a lethal weapon.
4. To acquire a firearm for the purposes of committing a crime.

I'm running out of things here, but you can see my point.

What the guy did was already illegal.

How is introducing a law like what Peter King is proposing going to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again?

I mean, does he honestly think that, had this law existed, that this unbalanced individual wouldn't have attacked her?

Why not propose a law that makes sense, such as "if a person wants to get within X number of feet of a senator/president/member of government, they must submit themselves to a weapon/security screening"

I mean, ****, the guy could have just as easily walked up to Gifford and and stabbed her. Heck, consider what could have happened if the bastard had strapped a bomb to his chest!

I'd also like to point out: it's not liberals who are taking the "ban guns" route. It's people who don't understand how guns work, and who think that somehow banning high-capacity magazines is going to somehow prevent someone who is intent on killing another person from being able to do so.

I mean, hell, every time I go to the range in Missouri, just about everyone I see there has a "high-capacity" magazine, mostly because they're there to shoot, not to reload mags.

Part of me wonders, though, in a part of my mind that would enjoy the irony: do these people who call for bans of these magazines realize that all they do by announcing it is cause people to buy up more high-capacity magazines?
Unfortunately if you look at this incident alone the hi-cap mag ban actually might have made a difference. I'm not supporting a ban on hi-cap mags but looking at ONLY THIS INCIDENT, restrictions on hi-caps bans might have actually made a difference. The guy was taken down during the reloading process, which tells me if he had to reload sooner he would have fired less bullets which would likely have meant less death and destruction. Again it's not the tool that caused this incident it's the individual and even a ban on guns would not have stopped this incident from occurring, it only would have changed the logistics. People would find a way, one of our defining characteristics is to adapt to situations, banning any type of weapon will only result in weapons being created out of benign items. We need look no further than the closest prison to see that.
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2011, 04:09 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Saint Louis,Missouri
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus View Post
Unfortunately if you look at this incident alone the hi-cap mag ban actually might have made a difference. I'm not supporting a ban on hi-cap mags but looking at ONLY THIS INCIDENT, restrictions on hi-caps bans might have actually made a difference. The guy was taken down during the reloading process, which tells me if he had to reload sooner he would have fired less bullets which would likely have meant less death and destruction. Again it's not the tool that caused this incident it's the individual and even a ban on guns would not have stopped this incident from occurring, it only would have changed the logistics. People would find a way, one of our defining characteristics is to adapt to situations, banning any type of weapon will only result in weapons being created out of benign items. We need look no further than the closest prison to see that.
Okay, you're point is valid...

IF AND ONLY IF it was IMPOSSIBLE to acquire a high-capacity magazine, and, barring that, if and only if it's impossible to MAKE a high-capacity magazine. Go to youtube, for example, and you can find plenty of videos that show you how to construct your own magazines. You and I agree on this: humans who want to commit crimes will simply adapt to the logistical problem.

And, I mean, seriously, even when it WAS difficult/illegal to buy HCMs in a store during the AWB, the fact of the matter is that there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of high capacity mags out there.

And, last time I checked, last time there was a HCM ban out there, it didn't make it illegal to have one that was purchased before the law was enacted or anything like that. So, they were still there in circulation just fine.

But let's take it to the next logical step. If we ban HCM for semi-automatic weapons, and someone STILL manages to kill a whole bunch of people with a gun, why not just make Semi-automatics illegal, and require all firearms to have their hammer manually cocked each time it's fired?

I mean, that will make it MUCH harder to go on a killing spree.

And, I mean, honestly, I know quite a few people who can reload their guns well within a single second (heck, if you eject your clip and put a new one in before firing the last round in your first clip, you don't even need to worry about priming your weapon). Come to think of it, one of my buddies prides himself on the fact that he can shoot his 1911 at a rate of two rounds a second and reload between shots.

Small magazines do force people to have to reload more often, and that puts them in a "lull" where they might be vulnerable.

But, let's think about the reason that we're supposed to have the ability to bear arms in the first place: One reason is so that if there ever is (God forbid) a war on our soil, that we could defend ourselves and our families and our nation.

Now, lets say, Kim Jong Il goes off the deep end after draining the pool and invades the USA, Red Dawn style.

I can tell you I'd be PISSED if all I had was 10 round magazines when the people firing back at me are using 30 round magazines or 50/100 round drums.

Let's go another route, and assume that we're in a situation where a US general says "**** this ****, I can run it better than anybody else, time to go Sadam on the USA!" and somehow gets a bunch of people in the military to agree with that nonsense (which, according to some idiots I know, is what's going to happen now that homosexuals can actually say "I'm a homosexual" in the US military).

Part of what the 2nd amendment allows for is that we have the weapons to be able to defend ourselves from that situation, despite how far-fetched it might sound (it doesn't help that it was a plot of a Modern Warfare video game, and on top of that was handled in a very unintelligent manner that makes it an idea of ridicule instead of a situation that could actually happen).

I dunno. I don't see banning HCMs as solving the problem that the attempted Gifford assassination reveals. The problems I see are:

1. That this guy was disturbed mentally and had a gun.
2. That his parents had no idea that their son was capable of this (parenting fail or just an outright lie).
3. That someone was able to get within arm's reach of a congresswoman with a firearm undetected, which could have just as easily been a bomb or a knife.
4. That everyone involved had to wait for this bastard to reload to take him down.

I know that this might be in bad taste to try to lay blame on the security there, but honestly, if something like this happened in Israel (assuming someone got close enough to a member of parliament with a firearm), the guy wouldn't be alive, and there wouldn't have been this "we had to wait for him to reload" business.

I haven't been able to get much reliable info on the attack: Did anybody try shooting back at him? Or was everyone unarmed, and that's why they had to wait for him to reload? It seems strange to me that if a guy could get that close to Gifford with a gun, that there weren't other people with a firearm near her (especially her security detail).
__________________

There are two types of idiocy: Believing everything one is told without question, and never listening to what others have to say.


Last edited by corrinavatan; 01-12-2011 at 04:20 AM.
corrinavatan is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:01 AM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Texgunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 71
Likes Given: 23

Default

This is no surprise really. A crisis, real or perceived, inspires people to act. As Rahm Emmanuel said, "You don't want to let a crisis go to waste."

None of these proposed laws would have prevented this tragedy but an oppurtunity has been presented to those who don't want to "waste a crisis." It's about controlling the population.

__________________
Texgunner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2011, 02:37 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,808
Liked 1109 Times on 657 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrinavatan View Post
I dunno. I don't see banning HCMs as solving the problem that the attempted Gifford assassination reveals.
I don't either. I agree with just about everything you said, I just didn't want to quote it as it was quite large (not a bad thing). However I think that a HCM ban or restriction is more likely because of this incident. I don't want it, I just think that it will be used as a very convincing tool by those who want to ban most/all guns. To the less informed, I dare say ignorant(but I don't mean it in a negative way, just referring to those who don't have/care about gun knowledge) people it will sound logical and they will support it because on the face of it it sounds like a good argument, even though as you have shown in your post it only SOUNDS like a good argument, it's really pretty much meaningless to ban HCM's.
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill wldennis Politics, Religion and Controversy 27 01-10-2011 05:09 PM
Hr 45 gun bill... quarterhorse13 Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion 4 05-21-2009 05:14 PM
I tried to pay my bill... user4 The Club House 6 02-22-2009 09:07 PM
New Bill? bkt Politics, Religion and Controversy 14 02-14-2009 02:58 AM
Obama on Gun Control, McCain on Gun Control tracker Legal and Activism 8 06-23-2008 01:00 AM