Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no doubt about it. The Democrat Party is out to abolish the 2nd Amendment and outlaw the possession of every firearm in existence except for maybe muzzle loaders. Criminalizing their lawful owners in the process. They use countries such as Great Britain, Australia and Japan as models for restrictive gun laws.
They know that they can not do it in one fell swoop. So they are attempting to do this incrementally by passing law after law, capitalizing on every mass shooting and the criminal/negligent mis-use of firearms. Remember "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is their motto.
Some of the worst recent mass shootings were enabled by firearms. They couldn't have been accomplished by bow and arrow. But they could have been accomplished by semi-auto pistols just as effectively.
What allowed some of these shootings to proceed was police inaction, ineptitude, cowardice, lack of command and control, and just plain damn poor instincts and procedures. ONE good guy with a gun...
In Uvalde, there were 300-400 cops inside that school per report. NOBODY MOVED FOR 75 MINUTES. THE ONE COP WHO TRIED TO GO IN WAS STOPPED, DISARMED, AND SENT OUTSIDE. His wife was in there. She was killed. ONE good man with a gun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker
Yet they still vote for politicians and support the political party that is working diligently to take their 2nd Amendment rights away. I just don't get it?
"Originally Posted by moneill View Post
People do argue the 1994 ban did result in an obvious drop in 'mass shootings'.
During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.
Something doesn't really add up here. According to this database, of the 20 mass shootings that occurred between 1982 and 1994 , only 4 rifles that would have been effected by the 1994 AWB ban were used. During the ban, there were another 20 mass shootings, one of which used a banned firearm. So, it really doesn't seem like the number of mass shootings changed at all.
In mass shootings, they are used quite a bit more frequently, but rifles alone were still only used in 14% of these incidents since investigators began tracking statistics in 1988. In 13% of shootings, the gunmen used both a handgun and a rifle, but in a full 56% they used only a handgun.
Clearly the handgun, not the “assault rifle” is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. As a result, it should come as no surprise that “high-capacity magazines” are not often used in mass shooting events.
“Few mass public shooters have used high-capacity magazines, and there is no evidence that the lethality of such attacks would have been affected by delays of two to four seconds to switch magazines,” a Heritage Foundation investigation found in 2018. “In fact, some of the largest mass shootings in U.S. history were carried out with low-capacity weapons.”
And one can present all the facts and numbers they want, I find it oddly interesting why the politicians are targeting the AR-15, and completely ignoring what is used quite often in inner city drive by's. The AK-47, which has a larger caliber , and is actually more powerful than the AR. I rarely, if ever hear any talk by them about the AK. This alone tells me they don't really care about deaths, but are just using mass shootings (remember, rifles are actually rarely used in them) as a way to ban this one particular rifle, for whatever reason. Or the reason is, once they ban the AR-15, and nothing changes, they will go after the firearm that really is used in the majority of times. The handgun.
I truly believe that is the end game of what our Government wants to do. Disarm all of the law abiding.
And we can see why neither side will ever be able to sit down and compromise. Some people just refuse to educate themselves, even when presented with facts, and will continue to live in their own little echo chambers.
This is so typical of the Dems. They are creating a problem by being so easy on hard criminals that use guns and their solution boggles the mind. Do they really want the criminals to run the streets? They Defund the Police and now want to take away the one thing that will literally save your life when the Thugs come to kick in your door?
If the Dems actually did their job and protected the public by locking up the violent and deranged criminals THEN and only THEN we might be willing to talk about banning guns. Securing the Border is another Big Issue they are ignoring that puts the general public in danger.
The Dems are setting America up to be an incredibly dangerous place to live and their answer is to disarm the Good people?
Yes, they want the criminals to run the streets.
They don't want the border secure. They are going to deliberately tank the country.
This will only work in blue counties. Red states and red counties aren't going to bother listening to this unconstitutional rubbish. There are over two hundred and fifty 2A sanctuary counties in the United States. None of them are going to uphold these ridiculous anti gun laws. These laws are only going to be followed in traditionally blue counties and blue cities. If democrats try to come in and change things, they'll only be kicked out. Conservatives should just flock to red counties and make them redder. They won't have to worry about treacherous democrats trying to take their guns.
Sure -- some extremists want to ban all guns but most Democrats in office and voters and independents and swing voters most definitely don't want to ban all guns.
I would love for responsible gun owners to sit down and have a real discussion about what can and can't be done.
I get it -- we all hate any restrictions to our 'freedoms' but we all have to endure some restrictions in order to live in a society.
Most Democrat politicians and those that vote for them do indeed want to ban all guns.
Quote:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."--Diane Feinstein, (D) U.S. Senator from California
In an op-ed published in the New York Times Tuesday, the 97-year-old former Supreme Court justice argues that advocates for stricter gun control legislation should take the next step and demand the removal of the Second Amendment entirely. --John Paul Stevens (D) former Supreme Court justice
"Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons," he wrote. "The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs."--Eric Swalwell (D) U.S. Representative from California
“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….”--Jan Schakowsky, (D) U.S. Representative from Illinois
“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”--Howard Metzenbaum, (D) former U.S. Senator
“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.”--Pete Stark, (D) U.S. Representative from California
” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”--William Clay, (D) U.S. Representative from Missouri
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”--Joseph Biden, (D) Vice President of the United States and current candidate for president
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”--John Chafee, (D) Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”--Major Owens, (D) U.S. Representative from New York
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”--Bobby Rush, (D) U.S. Representative from Illinois
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe. The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”--Dianne Feinstein, (D) U.S. Senator from California
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”--Charles Pashayan, (D) U.S. Representative from California
“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”--Andrew Cuomo, (D) Governor of New York
"Hell yes we're gonna' take your AR-15's" ---Beto O'Rourke (D) former U.S. Representative from Texas and Democrat candidate for president
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”-- Barack Obama (D) former President of the United States during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
"We need a new paradigm because both sides are in the corner and they could come to the middle," Schumer said. "Those of who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms... once we establish that there is a constitutional right to bear arms we should have the right admit, and maybe they'll be more willing to admit, that no amendment is absolute after all."--Chuck Schumer, (D) U.S. Senator from New York
"We can't just stand behind you and say we support our men and women in law enforcement community and then not have the laws on the books that help you do your job every day," he said. "And it's time as a city we have an assault weapon ban. And it's time as a state that we have an assault weapon ban. And it's time as a country that we have an assault weapon ban."--Rahm Emanuel, (D) former Mayor Chicago, Illinois
"We need to do something, at the very least, perhaps, about the high-capacity magazines that were used in this crime."--Richard Blumenthal, (D) U.S. Senator from Connecticut
"We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people." On Australia's gun ban "So I think that’s worth considering," Clinton said. "I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work. But certainly, the Australian example is worth considering."----Hillary Clinton (D) former U.S. Senator of New York, Secretary of State and Democrat candidate for president
With thousands of specific gun laws already on the books that address both the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms. Along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act that anyone could possibly imagine. We don't need anymore laws, PERIOD!!! Especially laws that only serve to criminalize those of us that use firearms for any lawful purpose.
Federal Form 4473 the form that Hunter Biden deliberately lied on in order to illegally purchase a handgun lists all of the conditions of which to lawfully possess firearms. A violation of any one those conditions is a crime unto itself. I don't know what else there is to discuss? Just what magic law will turn criminals and the mentally deranged into peace loving citizens that help little old ladies cross the streets?
At the danger of dragging this thread back onto topic...
Per an Op/Ed in the Washington Post by Paul Waldman:
The phrase "in common use" has been used in several Supreme Court decisions concerning 2nd Amendment rights.
Justice Anton Scalia employed it in DC v Heller, implying that weapons that are "in common use at the time" should be the standard for which weapons should be protected.
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed the sentiment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.
Quote:
One hears this argument often within the gun world. You see it during an exchange during a Judiciary Committee debate over the assault weapons ban. “Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” asked Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.). “That’s the point of the bill,” answered the chair, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). “The problem is they’re in common use.”
To gun advocates, that’s case closed: AR-15s are common, so they can’t be banned. While the Supreme Court’s conservatives have yet to apply this interpretation of the Second Amendment to AR-15s specifically, the gun industry and its allies clearly think that’s where the justices will come down.
From my view in the cheap seats, it appears that Republican Congressman Bishop tried a gotcha question with Democratic Congressman Nadler. Now the MAGAverse is altering the intent of Nadler's response by taking his answer out of context and by truncating his response.
IMO, it appears that Nadler is NOT stating that the bill in question seeks to ban all weapons that are in common use, but that the AR-15 style weapons should be banned, and just because that particular style of happens to be in common use should not necessarily remove such class of weapons from being subject to government regulation.
Some of the worst recent mass shootings were enabled by firearms. They couldn't have been accomplished by bow and arrow. But they could have been accomplished by semi-auto pistols just as effectively.
What allowed some of these shootings to proceed was police inaction, ineptitude, cowardice, lack of command and control, and just plain damn poor instincts and procedures. ONE good guy with a gun...
In Uvalde, there were 300-400 cops inside that school per report. NOBODY MOVED FOR 75 MINUTES. THE ONE COP WHO TRIED TO GO IN WAS STOPPED, DISARMED, AND SENT OUTSIDE. His wife was in there. She was killed. ONE good man with a gun...
Some people are just stupid.
Not counting 9/11/01 and Oklahoma City one of the worst mass murders was the Happyland Fire in 1990 that killed 87 people with what was a dollars worth of gasoline at the time, a container and a match. That's 28 more than what Paddock killed with a bunch of AR-15's equipped with bump stocks, thousand's of rounds of ammunition, firing from a hotel window into a crowd of 22,000.
If people think that we need to just keep on passing more laws to try and prevent such acts. Indeed they are just stupid. The laws are already in place. As long as mentally deranged people and criminals are allowed to roam free. There's really not one law that will do a God damn thing to prevent any of this.
AGAIN: Please people do some research. I'll try to type is plainly:
NOTHING WAS BANNED BY THE AWB OTHER THAN COSMETIC FEATURES OF CERTAIN RIFLES. THOSE SAME RIFLES WERE SIMPLY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD WITHOUT THOSE COSMETIC FEATURES AFTER THE "AWB."
Does everyone understand this yet?
"Banning" simple semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s was just as unconstitutional in 1994 as it is today. They were not banned. They simply banned COSMETIC FEATURES of said guns such as flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc. None of these features affects performance of the firearm.
They "defined" an "assault weapon" as a gun with these features, so the NEW GUNS manufactured after the ban without those features were said to NOT be "assault weapons," therefore they successfully "banned" them. It was for show.
DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THIS YET?
The first ban by name was even funnier. Overnight gun manufacturers changed names. California gun shops just added a paddle and kept selling them. They didn't even take them off the walls.
At the danger of dragging this thread back onto topic...
Per an Op/Ed in the Washington Post by Paul Waldman:
The phrase "in common use" has been used in several Supreme Court decisions concerning 2nd Amendment rights.
Justice Anton Scalia employed it in DC v Heller, implying that weapons that are "in common use at the time" should be the standard for which weapons should be protected.
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed the sentiment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.
From my view in the cheap seats, it appears that Republican Congressman Bishop tried a gotcha question with Democratic Congressman Nadler. Now the MAGAverse is altering the intent of Nadler's response by taking his answer out of context and by truncating his response.
IMO, it appears that Nadler is NOT stating that the bill in question seeks to ban all weapons that are in common use, but that the AR-15 style weapons should be banned, and just because that particular style of happens to be in common use should not necessarily remove such class of weapons from being subject to government regulation.
California already tried this and we simply made them featureless or with a mag lock to get around the stupid ban. The fix was in before the ink dried so to speak.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
