Gun Control (v.2)

EMERGENCY ALERT - S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!

Feb. 26, 2004, 1300 hrs Mountain - As predicted, S.1805, the Lawsuit Liability bill, is being debated on the Senate Floor right now (at the behest of its sponsor, Idaho Senator Larry Craig).

And late last night, Senator Larry Craig (a board member of the NRA) worked with rabid anti-gunner Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to come up with a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" which allows a large number of gun control amendments to be offered to S.1805.

By pushing this bill to be heard on the floor, and agreeing to hear a large number of gun control amendments (listed below), Senator Craig has opened up Pandora's Box of Gun Control.

That means you MUST call your US Senators immediately, even if you called them yesterday.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge both of Colorado's Senators to VOTE AGAINST S.1805, now that it has gun control on it and is likely to contain more.

As this alert is being written, the Senate just passed an amendment (by 70-27, for story on this amendment click here, or here for full text) to require Trigger locks (we do not have the language, but will shortly) and is moving toward more gun control. It's a federal government intrusion on your right to self-defense, and FAR outweighs any good S.1805's original language would do.

And as this is being written, Sen. Teddy Kennedy is offering an amendment to ban "Cop Killer Bullets."

After agreeing to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement", Sen. Larry Craig said "Some of these amendments could pass." This C-Span2 admission is understating it -- some of these gun control amendments WILL pass. In fact, one already has, and others gun control advocates are lining up to join in on the "fun".

NRA Board Member Sen. Larry Craig has agreed to allow a slated list of gun control amendments to S.1805. These include, but are not limited to, the following unspecified gun controls:

Boxer - new Federal rules for Gun locks
Campbell - Cop-Only Nationwide Carry
Kennedy - Cop Killer Bullets
Mikulski - Snipers
McCain-Reed - Gun Show ban
Feinstein - Assault Weapons ban
Frist/Craig - Cop Killer bullets (a toned down, yet still anti-gun rights version of Kennedy's amendment)

And these are only the amendments that have been announced. Others almost certainly will be floated, and maybe passed.

Does this constitute proof that the NRA "struck a deal" to allow gun controls to pass? Of course, they claim they didn't cut any deals.

But ask these questions:

1. Have you received an e-mail from NRA-ILA urging voting against S.1805 IF it gets gun control on it? They KNOW quite well that this bill will have gun control on it, and have known it for weeks. Instead, they play inside baseball and tell gun owners "Trust us -- we have a plan", trusting in their own cleverness to circumvent the anti-gunners amendments. That is the same thing they said on the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Deform bill (which stripped gun owners of their 1st Amendment rights) as well as the first Assault Weapons and High-capacity magazines ban bill, Brady Registration Checks, Lautenberg Gun Ban, etc, etc.

That's a failed strategy, and should be abandoned.

Remember, the definition of insanity is continuing to do what you've always done but expecting different results.

They'll post some things on their website (which is passive), but they won't apply real pressure. That mean's they are, by their silence, agreeing to this "Unanimous Consent Agreement." And their board member, Sen. Larry Craig, openly agreed to that agreement with Sen. Reed.

Craig will vote against most (not all -- in fact, Sen. Craig offered his own "Cop Killer Bullets" amendment in an attempt to appease Teddy Kennedy) of the gun controls, but he's the person who enabled all of these gun control amend

 

Can I ask you something Fred?

For gun control to be ineffective, you're working off the premise that a large per capita private ownership of guns is a deterrent enough to crime without banning firearms, correct?

So you're saying that the best way to prevent gun crime is to have an armed populace anticipating attack and prepared to respond against would be criminals with their own firearms.

Yet, this theory is flawed, because it didn't stop John Hinckley Jnr firing six shots at the Reagan entourage in, what, '81? Reagan was surrounded with what amounts to the most professional bodyguard service in the world*, all of whom were armed. Some, in fact, had concealed IMI Uzi 9mm SMG, as well as their service sidearms.

So I'm curious as to how a well armed public is likely to prevent violent crime if even the Secret Service were caught off guard?

E_S

 

Fred, where did you get this from?

Last I heard, the assault rifle ban may be extended if the lawsuit protection bill gets approved.

Some of the other claims seem rather alarmist.

 

For gun control to be ineffective...

Gun control is ineffective no matter what. Ask Uruk-hai...he feels much safer knowing that gangsters can get whatever weapons they want and he can't.

I'm curious as to how a well armed public is likely to prevent violent crime if even the Secret Service were caught off guard?

I never said that if everyone had a gun, crime would disappear entirely. However, the sight of a gun is very intimidating to a criminal who is planning to attack you, and it is very likely that he'll back off. womberty said it perfectly on the previous page:

Tell me, do you keep a first aid kit? I keep one in my car, in case I'm ever in an accident or at the scene of an accident where it might come in useful. Now, there's a good chance I could be injured or my car could be damaged in such a way that I can't get to the first aid kit, but does that mean I shouldn't keep it?

It's the same way with guns. There's a chance that a criminal will be able to surprise you before you can draw your gun, but that's no reason to leave your home unarmed.

EDIT: This is the text I copied (from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners). Here is the Boxer amendment that would require trigger locks on all firearms (except, of course, for a department or agency of the State), and here is the Craig amendment. I'm sure KABA.com will have posted a ****load of stories concerning S.1805 tomorrow.

 

And yet Reagan copped a .22 round and Hinckey fired 6 shots despite the presence of the best bodyguards in the world...

Interesting though...

E_S

 

It's funny how when someone is shot, they always try to take guns away from the people who didn't do it.

Besides, no gun control law would have stopped this would-be assassin. If he was determined to attempt to kill Reagan, he would have done it whether his weapon of choice was illegal or not.

 

America accounts for 4.5% of the worlds population, give or take .1%.

Irrelevant.

You're one of "Those" Americans aren't you? The kind that haven't left the US and have no comparative experience for life outside the US...

All people, not just Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms

PPOR.

E_S

 

PPOR? Sure thing. (clears throat)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Does it say "all Americans"??? No. All people, around the world, have those unalienable Rights. You would agree that we have a right to life, yes? If so, then we must also have the right to self-defense...after all, what good is the "right to life" if you cannot defend it? And this is where we get the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers knew that the best way to defend oneself from violent thugs was to carry arms, and that remains true today. Banning guns just makes it easier for the "bad guys" to take advantage of defenseless sheeple.

 

So the Americans making this decree on behalf of everyone, neglecting to consult them in the first place, were speaking on behalf of the whole planet?

Wait for it...



Don't even let me get into law mode, because I'll strike down the extraterritorial application of the US consitution in a second.

Does it say "all Americans"??? No. All people, around the world, have those unalienable Rights. You would agree that we have a right to life, yes? If so, then we must also have the right to self-defense...after all, what good is the "right to life" if you cannot defend it? And this is where we get the right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers knew that the best way to defend oneself from violent thugs was to carry arms, and that remains true today. Banning guns just makes it easier for the "bad guys" to take advantage of defenseless sheeple.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

E_S

 

BTW, the Preamble says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which means any laws passed are for those who are legally defined as Americans only, under the Constitution. Of which Article I, Section VIII makes no mention of the application of US legal standards to anywhere in the world but the US; the only regulation of states in implicit in Section VIII whereby the US can, and I quote, "To define and punish...offenses against the law of nations", meaning anything from Westphalia to the UN Charter and Customary International Law which protects the rights of Member states from attack from other States. And in effect, it rubber stamps international legal use of force law.

Furthermore, I can't find anything with Article VI which indicates that there is precendent or otherwise similar valid grounds for the extraterritorial application of US laws, including Amendments and articles of the Bill of Rights, such as your false hoc claim about "unalienable rights" as defined above. The Constitution states that the Constitution; "shall be the supreme law of the land[/i]" - not anywhere indicating supreme law or even law of any land but the US...

E_S

 

Furthermore, I can't find anything with Article VI which indicates that there is precendent or otherwise similar valid grounds for the extraterritorial application of US laws

Because HE says so, that's why:

HERE NOW

 

E_S

 

So the Americans making this decree on behalf of everyone, neglecting to consult them in the first place, were speaking on behalf of the whole planet?

Did you seriously think only Americans have basic rights like the ones mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, my statement was quite logical. All men are endowed with certain rights (for example, the right to life). Thus, people also have the right to self-defense. In other words, any human has the right to preserve his/her own life if it is threatened. Now, how in the world is the right to self-defense connected to the right to keep and bear arms?

 

I do support some gun control and i saw the funniest bumper sticker on a car dealing with this issue.it said blaming guns for columbine is like blaming spoons for rosie o'donnell being fat.

 

Thus, people also have the right to self-defense. In other words, any human has the right to preserve his/her own life if it is threatened.

By any means necessary?

 

What do you mean, DS?

That statement intrigues me....

 

Mr44 -

I am asking as to what limits can be placed on defending oneself.

Which leads to the whole 'right to bear arms' discussion.

Is a handgun reasonable? An Uzi? A bazooka?

I am not trying to be a pain in the rear...just have a reasonable discussion.

 

Well, fundamentally, I would say yes, by any means necessary.

However, everyone still has to act within the framework of society, so reasonable restrictions are enacted to uphold this standard.

For example, if a "bad guy" was beating a helpless 8 year old kid to death, and the only thing available was an Uzi, I think that the child has every right to use that Uzi.

However, since Uzis are prohibited to the average citizen (at least in the US) the point is rather moot.

That is why we have the standard of justifiable response.

 

Mr44 -

Good post.

I on other hand phrased my statement poorly.

Special Fred obviously views the 'right to bear arms' as a very important and personal issue. My personal experience is that when discussing gun control is to ask someone like SF...what do YOU think are reasonable limitations? I would ask the opposite question to someone who is for very strict gun controls...what do YOU think is acceptable in terms of gun ownership? I have found it to be proactive and very interesting to see what alternatives people from all sides of the argument come up with.

 

I do support some gun control...

Like what?

Is a handgun reasonable? An Uzi? A bazooka?

Yes.

My personal experience is that when discussing gun control is to ask someone like SF...what do YOU think are reasonable limitations?

There are no reasonable limitations. We have the right to keep and bear arms, up to and including military hardware. The second amendment doesn't say "shall not be infringed, unless the weapons in question are really scary."

EDIT: There is one reasonable limitation I forgot to mention: violent felons. If you are a violent felon, you are not entitled to the RKBA. All other citizens 18 and up are OK in my book.

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

No, my statement was quite logical.

No it wasn't. You said, that because people have a right to self defence guns are a basic human right.

Only in America are they considered a human right. And given the number of people facing real oppression and suffering each day, I'm more than a little annoyed by the suggestion that the right not to be imprisoned arbitrairily is on par with getting a Smith & Wesson.

Is a handgun reasonable? An Uzi? A bazooka?

Yes.

A bazooka is responsible?

Really?

Hmmmmm.

Actually, given you don't show much respect for the notions of proportionality in responses, I'm not really surprised. After all, you think it's OK to kill an intruder, regardless of their intent.

E_S

 

Yes.

A bazooka is responsible?

Responsible should read "Reasonable"

E_S

 

...because people have a right to self defence guns are a basic human right.

How are my parents (both senior citizens) supposed to defend themselves without a gun in the house? The right to defend oneself is effectively rendered null and void if the government steps in and bans useful self-defense tools because they're "too scary" for certain liberal panty-wetters.

And given the number of people facing real oppression and suffering each day...

Did it ever occur to you that most, if not all of them face real oppression and suffering because their governments have denied them the right to keep and bear arms?

A bazooka is [reasonable]? Really? Hmmmmm.

Let me explain this to you carefully so I don't sound like too much of a "gun nut"...if I became President of the United States tomorrow (pause for laughter), I would not simply throw bazookas and tanks "out on the streets". First, I would end the war on drugs, make gun safety training a requirement in all public schools, and implement Thomas Jefferson's idea of making military training a compulsory part of collegiate education. Then the militia would have access to the same weapons the military uses, and they would be expected to drill with them regularly.

 

Mr44 -

I am asking as to what limits can be placed on defending oneself.

Why would anyone seek to limit a man's capacity to defend himself?

Which leads to the whole 'right to bear arms' discussion.

Is a handgun reasonable? An Uzi? A bazooka?

Depends on what you mean by reasonable. Exactly what undue, inherent harm is there in merely owning a working RPG or rocket launcher? How exactly and how extensively does it compel the state to act? What about other weapons?

Rev Prez