Anti gun legislation

[goodtimes]

I know that some elected officials have talked about how new laws may be needed. Has any legislator (federal or state) announced plans to submit new legislation that would change existing gun control laws?

Yes. I don't recall the details (that is how lame & unrealistic the idea was), but I saw an interview on network news where a congresstwit from somewhere was [trying to] introducing new legislation. I didn't give it much attention, his plan was pretty lame and probably will never get to the floor.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

Te new legislation being introduced by the guy from new york is asinine. All it does is make it illegal for an unlicensed gun dealer to all guns without an FFL. Which just so happens to already be illegal. So all he s doing is getting his name put on something so he looks better to his constituents.

Mp@home, no one has said anything about prosecuting before a crime has been committed. What needs to happen is a psych eval fo something like military service, drivers license or college. The test doesn't even need to preclude someone from participating in whatever they are trying to, it could just be added to a file somewhere and when the background check is run it will show up that they are a crazy. That would stop crazy people from getting gun they wouldn't be able to just check the not crazy box. It wouldn't put any new requirements or restrictions on guns, the restrictions are already in place. It wouldn't violate anyones rights, because it is not a right to join the military, drive a car or go to school. Those are all privileges. If you don't want to take the test, don't. It's the same as requiring car insurance. You don't want car insurance, don't drive.

 

[ScoutII]

I know that some elected officials have talked about how new laws may be needed. Has any legislator (federal or state) announced plans to submit new legislation that would change existing gun control laws?

10-4 here in cali. They want to eliminate your right to carrying an empty weapon .

The bill, AB 144, was introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge on Thursday. If it were passed, violation of the law would be punishable with misdemeanor charges of up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000

 

[xtatik]

If You do not commit any crimes why should You be prosecuted? Should We put everybody between the ages of 15 to 50 in jail? that is probably the age
when people might commit a crime .

Dude, you're being absurd. Nobody's "prosecuting" anyone with the suggestions being made in this thread. Try to refrain, read and bring yourself up to speed on this thread. You might actually have something to contribute here if you do, and we'd probably like to read it, but so far you're not grasping what we're talking about.

 

[ScoutII]

. It's the same as requiring car insurance. You don't want car insurance, don't drive.

Well here in my town were running about 40% of the drivers are uninsured, vs the state average of just 33% So this only applies to law abiding folks.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

10-4 here in cali. They want to eliminate your right to carrying an empty weapon .

The bill, AB 144, was introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge on Thursday. If it were passed, violation of the law would be punishable with misdemeanor charges of up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000

That garbage again? Didn't that get shot down like 6 months ago? I don't personally agree with open carry, I think it is stupid. But I can see how in some places it is your only option.

How in gods name will banning open carry do anything but get make anti's feel better walking arou d the streets, completely oblivious to the fact that those 3 gangbangers they just walked past, are not only illegally carrying concealed, but sir carrying machine guns.

Stupid.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

Well here in my town were running about 40% of the drivers are uninsured, vs the state average of just 33% So this only applies to law abiding folks.

All laws are optional. :ylsmoke:

 

[xtatik]

10-4 here in cali. They want to eliminate your right to carrying an empty weapon .

The bill, AB 144, was introduced by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge on Thursday. If it were passed, violation of the law would be punishable with misdemeanor charges of up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000

Yep, see this is precisely the crap we're talking about avoiding. Banning guns loaded or not, is not the solution.

 

[MP@HOME]

Dude, you're being absurd. Nobody's "prosecuting" anyone with the suggestions being made in this thread. Try to refrain, read and bring yourself up to speed on this thread. You might actually have something to contribute here if you do, and we'd probably like to read it, but so far you're not grasping what we're talking about.

You may call it Interrogation,Psychic evaluation Medical Test or any thing
else You want .You don't have to pass a test before You exercise Your
Rights . We live in the USA, there is a Constitution and if We want to change it
there are some rules to follow,We don't just say WE should do this or that
just because WE think that would be the best way to do it.

 

[greenmeanie]

... and the likelyhood of a long protracted battle with massive casualties against the Swiss' phased retreat strategy was deemed to be not worth the potential benefits. Thank you for clarifying, there is more to it then that, but my statement is also true.

My Mom actually sent me this article:
http://celestiallands.org/wayside/?p=473

Seemed appropriate to share here. I've been out wheeling all weekend, but I'll catch up on this thread and re-enter the fray tomorrow, I reckon!

Using your arguement Hitler would have not invaded Poland, France or the Soviet Union as they had far greater military strength and far more room for manouvre to over come for the potential gains.

In reality an invasion of Switzerland would not have been a huge phased battle and more of a route. Almost no air power, next to no anti tank capabilities against a highly mechanized force with massive numercial supperiority using air power negate even the limited mobility of your own infantry forces meant that the Swiss placed most of their men at the border and expected to lose most of their men defending it. Unfortunately the border is 1170 miles with only 250,000 men to defend it whilst the attackers obviously have the luxury of concentrating there forces for a schwerpunkt at the location of their choosing. With overwhelming odds and the ability to negate much of the opposing force without engaging them in battle the opportuntiy for a coup de main is ripe.

The national redoubt was a hail mary pass that depended on the remaining militia mobilizing and the civilian population bring able to retreat across that same impossbile terrain faster than the highly mechanized enemy. Even had they been able to retreat to this position it does not contain the resources to support an extended campaign or a large population. All the Germans had to do was contain them and wait.

The Swiss wisely rely far more on there non military assets to prevent invasion. i.e. no natural strategic resources and a very strong financial system that was open to trade with all parties. The later was especially attractive for the Germans as it allowed them to trade with other neutral countries for resources like molybdenum that were scarce to them yet essential for good armour steel.

The Swiss militia was a factor - it had to be in any military campaign but it was not the deterrent you suggest.

 

[Dave Bennett]

My .02

To anyone who thinks for a minute that stricter gun laws are the answer to the recent tragedy in Tucson, consider this:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, trucks drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

We need to HOLD THE PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, not the means they chose to utilize!

.02

 

[Mr. Leary]

Using your arguement Hitler would have not invaded Poland, France or the Soviet Union as they had far greater military strength and far more room for manouvre to over come for the potential gains.

In reality an invasion of Switzerland would not have been a huge phased battle and more of a route. Almost no air power, next to no anti tank capabilities against a highly mechanized force with massive numercial supperiority using air power negate even the limited mobility of your own infantry forces meant that the Swiss placed most of their men at the border and expected to lose most of their men defending it. Unfortunately the border is 1170 miles with only 250,000 men to defend it whilst the attackers obviously have the luxury of concentrating there forces for a schwerpunkt at the location of their choosing. With overwhelming odds and the ability to negate much of the opposing force without engaging them in battle the opportuntiy for a coup de main is ripe.

The national redoubt was a hail mary pass that depended on the remaining militia mobilizing and the civilian population bring able to retreat across that same impossbile terrain faster than the highly mechanized enemy. Even had they been able to retreat to this position it does not contain the resources to support an extended campaign or a large population. All the Germans had to do was contain them and wait.

The Swiss wisely rely far more on there non military assets to prevent invasion. i.e. no natural strategic resources and a very strong financial system that was open to trade with all parties. The later was especially attractive for the Germans as it allowed them to trade with other neutral countries for resources like molybdenum that were scarce to them yet essential for good armour steel.

The Swiss militia was a factor - it had to be in any military campaign but it was not the deterrent you suggest.

Look bro, this is completely off topic, and, as a student of history myself, I am well aware of the facts. To this day, you cannot drive a loaded truck through most of the country. There are several train tracks that the trucks get loaded onto to pass through the country. It was that way in WWII as well, so all this talk about numerical superiority and tanks doesn't mean anything when attacking a country with dug in multi layered, mutually supporting defensive positions in terrain that is impassable except on roads for wheeled vehicles. Yes, they could have waited them out. It would have taken years, since an attack would have been too costly. The people were trained and knew where to go if there was an invasion. They would have ensured that the Germans would have suffered for every step into their country. Hence, benefits outweighed by the potential losses. BTW, even holding a force in position to contain the Swiss was something the Germans could not afford at the time, especially given the terms that the Swiss were willing to allow.


We have two different interpretations of the decision process. Now let get this thread back on topic!

 

[Scott Brady]

All laws are optional. :ylsmoke:

Somebody that gets it. . .

Stricter laws only service to mire the law abiding. They will not stop someone on the fringe. Tougher laws would not have stopped the tragedy in Tucson. There are 200 million guns in the US.

 

[02TahoeMD]

To anyone who thinks for a minute that stricter gun laws are the answer to the recent tragedy in Tucson, consider this:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, trucks drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

We need to HOLD THE PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, not the means they chose to utilize!

.02

Agreed completely with this statement. Unfortunately, our society has gotten away from the concept of accountability. "I did it because of (insert personal problem here) and thus can not be blamed for my actions." Horrible.

Somebody that gets it. . .

Stricter laws only service to mire the law abiding. They will not stop someone on the fringe. Tougher laws would not have stopped the tragedy in Tucson. There are 200 million guns in the US.

Agreed also here. The knee jerk reaction of society now is to increase laws when someone evil acts out. Evil has been around as long as man, and it will crop up whenever, wherever, regardless of any law. This is not the first mass casualty event in U.S. history. Let us look back a bit - at the end of the 1800s both the Dalton Gang and the James Gang committed multiple felonies across their regions. And both gangs were involved in shootouts in towns resulting in multiple civilian injuries and fatalities. There was no cry for gun control then, and these events were treated as what they were - criminal actions committed by evil men.

Witness also the case of the mass killing of the Clutter family in 1959, which was covered in the book In Cold Blood. Four people innocently killed. And it was recognized as the work of evil men, not an issue dealing with firearms.

So, while the events in Arizona are indeed tragic, they are nothing new, and not an excuse to add more laws. It is already illegal to assault someone with a firearm, and commit homicide. This piece of scum should be taken to the nearest landfill forthwith and disposed of properly. End of story.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Agreed completely with this statement. Unfortunately, our society has gotten away from the concept of accountability. "I did it because of (insert personal problem here) and thus can not be blamed for my actions." Horrible.

<snip>

This piece of scum should be taken to the nearest landfill forthwith and disposed of properly. End of story.

Agreed.