Second Amendment Under Attack In Congress
 

H.R. 308 - Introduced by Rep Carolyn McCarthy, would ban millions of magazines for self-defense firearms

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h308/show


S. 34 - Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, would give U.S. Attorney General the power to deny you the right to purchase a firearm, with no court hearing or due process

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s34/show#

S. 176 - Introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer, would repeal every state Right-to-Carry law in the U.S., and require you to prove your need to defend yourself and your family before carrying a firearm outside your house.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s176/show

http://www.boogai.net/top-story/boxe...ed-carry-laws/

Oh, the holy golden fetish gets touched again!

If they do not let me have hundreds of rounds and a semi-automatic rifle plus a 15-shot-magazine pistol on each floor of my house for self-defence, than I am no man anymore!

Oh, I meant to say: if I cannot wage private battle against hordes of monsters from the ghettos all around and am denied the capability to slaughter them by the hunbdreds, then I am not free a citizen in this country anymore!

For defending your family, choosing an appropriate liviung place is the best thing, if that option is available. For defending your house or yourself, you do not need machineguns and who knows what else. A single pistol does the job in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I do not buy the self-defence argment. It is an alibi for wanting to continue to hail the great fetish in American historxy and society: weapons. Its an obsession. The only case/film when the fat man really was right from A to Z, was Bowling for Columbine. And his diagnosis was: craving for drama, and a very basic, very disconnected-from-reality fear of that drama one is craving for.

Call it shizophrenia.

I have turned in recent years from opposing private gun owning, to tolerating it. But with limits:
No military items. No MG/MP-type weapons, no automatic rapid fire weapons. Hunting guns in hunting grounds and for farmers only. Self-defence: limited to the borders of own property, one weapon (pistol or revolver) per property. No carrying of arms in public space, no concealed weapons in public space. Mandatory regular training in a shooting club (like sports pilots must file x numbers of flight hours per quarter of the year), and when asking for a license, a police record check and a psychological assessment. Brutally pushing back the profit-craving firearms industry that tries its best to turn people into gun-craving addicts. No special ammunition on public sale, for exampel so-called cop-killer ammunition and armour breaking ammunition.

Self-defence is just this: self defence. The monopoly for using violence/force in all other cases, should be with the law-enforcement.

You Germans seem to have a fetish for judging others. What business is any of this of yours?

Board business. What is posted on this board, is free to be chosen as somebody's business by him/her just coming here.

Also, that American gun-laws are being brought up frequently, every couple of weeks or months.

Also, yours and our fetishes are quite complementary. You love weapons, and we love to moralise about weapons. :D

woo, hold your horses, August. It is a weak-counter-argument to the blunt generalization that all (U.S.) gun owners have somehow a fetish, to generalize yourself and call all Germans judgemental.

Especially in GT, we all make our judgement calls, towards other views and towards other nations. I think Sky's view is (in this case!;)) quite represantative of the German view about American gun owners. Making a statement which already defines a law with all exceptions is not.

I speak for a minority here when I call this proposal idiotic, making nearly every Glock owner illegal - though I find it funny that it is called 308...:DL

Personally I felt much more safer in states that allow open or concealed carry than in other states. Most owners I met are not distinguishable in their mental health from their non-owning counterparts - and yes: I've been to gun fairs in the deep South :03:

You people like nosy neighbors who always have to comment on our choice of bathroom wall paper, or the way we wash our cars, or any number of other personal things that have absolutely nothing to do with you.

Well the right to free speech allows you to be a Butt-in-ski but the same right also allows me to tell you what I think about such rudeness, and to think the less of you for being the moralizing busy bodies that you are.

Listen to yourself...No machine guns are sold for private use, outlawed, so only outlaws can and will get them or convert them.

You expect me to defend my family by moving, even that's beyond you.

90% of people defend their homes with pistols or shotguns. I have several guns, but like most would grab the 12 gauge, I don't want to miss.

Over 200,000 americans a year defend themselves with guns during acts of violence against them, store owners, home owners, etc.. I guess these just have to die, because the crooks will still have guns.

I am for guns laws. I have no problem with a 3 day wait, no problem with required training for guns like pistols, most rifles and shotguns, you have to have training to get your hunting license. I think all guns should be sold by dealers that have a certified store, training, etc...

Only farmers should hunt, are you serious, most farmers don't hunt, they don't have time, they let others hunt. The game population would die from disease if we didn't have a mass hunting population...You're being silly my liberal friend and you know we agree on many things.

Try to take guns in America and it's prohibition all over, crooks would have them, others would hide them..it would solve nothing. We've seen how good gun laws work in these big cities where only crooks have guns, no thank you.
Not to mention government would have to put mass assets to collect, search and lawyers would be getting rich

Penguin, I did not feel attacked inappropriately at all by what August said. No cautioning needed, therefore! ;)

August, this board in not "nationals exclusively", but is public and international. Everything being posted here is free to be commented by everyone, that includes me and of course also you.

Over here, we are not interested in the parking fees in let'S say Phoenix or Sacramento. It does not effect us in any way, and so we are not even taking note. The latest decisions by the Fed however do interest us, for they effect us as well.

What also does effect us is the national attitude of a foreign nation that defines the way it approaches international issues and other nations/people. Clture and media is such a thing. American movies and TV are omnipresent in many places of the world that are not any American at all. and what thes epropgrams are more filled with than anything else are violence, and weapons, and explosions, and then more of that. And this impacts on our own cultural climate over here as well. So we wonder why this is so, and we note this fetish that weapons are in your culture - you can hardly argue that it is only about pragmatic self-defence. For some, it is an obsession, for more it is a paramilitary issue, and for many it is a fanbatsy of one day needing to fight back hordes and hordes of criminal attackers that mean them bad.

Note that I said above that I have turned from somebody being against legal weapon ownership for principal reasons to somebody who tolerates and accepts gun ownership for self defence. It's just that I mark tighter limits than the American gun industry wants to see in place. And paramilitzary equipement and weaponry for me still have no legitimation to be distributed to a wide general public. Leave this where it belongs: with the military and law enforcement.

I described it above. It is softer a set of limitations than the laws we have in Europe, at last in Germany, and it is tighter a set of rules than it is in many American states.

Western media culkture is a very violent media culture, by content. Violence is the most favourite topic, the more explosions in a movie, the more successful it is. That may be true for Japanese or Korean movies as well. It's just that these are not so dominant on european media markets.

And I think it wouldn't hurt us if our culture would be less obsessed with violence and weapons. Media are one, though not the only point on the list to start with.

Of course you poeple inAmerica will do what youwantg to do inAm,erica anyway. But since we get effected by this issue as well, I just comment on this (having passed on the last two or three opportunitis when gunlaws were discussed in threads, btw. :D ). If you prefer to discuss parking fees in Phoenix, I'll pass. :shucks:

American media wouldn't have the success it has internationally if there wasn't a demand for it. If Germans or Poles or Swedes or whoevers didn't have the appetite for violent American movies, TV and games, then there'd be no money in exporting them for foreign consumption. Demand creates product, not the other way around.

I do not know all the correct terms, so when saying MG/MP typed guns I mean things like quick firing automatic attack rifles that hardly are used for hunting deer or getting the fox that steals your hens. I am talking about laser markers, night vision goggles, and people stockpiling ammunition as if they were saving for the next war. For self-defence, you do not need all this military or paramilitary equipment. Even a 40 year old small callibre PKK is sufficient for this kind of job most of the times.

I said where one has the option to move from a warzone, one should do it, because that is the best way to protect your children from criminal harm. If you voluntarily raise your family in a place where you expect shooting incidents, and by doing so making your kids soldfiers in your crusade for principal issues, you may think about for a monent what this tells about you and your claim to just "defend" your family. In fact you are just subborn and will to put them at the frontline of your own pride. That pride is pokay when you are speaking for yourslef only. When you have family and children, the kids interest go first. So, when you can, move out of a place where you expect of needing to defend them by the use of firearms againms threats that include firearms. Or do you think of your kids as your future private army?

For the third time in this thread I hereby declare that I have turned from someone once having been against private gun ownership in principal, to someone now accepting private gun ownerhsip on a level that strictly is tailored for direct and immediate self-defence against violent crime. That means the robber in your house, shop robbery, and the rapist, in most case I assume.



Yes, etc. See my ideas above, maybe they are tighter than yours, maybe not, however, we do not disagree completely.

I assume some farmers may have a rifle of any kind to fight their lifestock against any predatory animals that may pop up in certain areas from time to time, or needing to kill a sick animal for mercy, the horse that broke its leg or whatever. Even self-defence when livbing in a very isolated area is a valid argument, when the police needs two hours to arrive in case of an emergency.

Ah, today it is liberal day then, thanks for the reminder, I often get confused by the many different days we have, when I get called a phobic or a Nazi or a rightwinger or a socialist or a hawk or a dove as well. Has all happened, will all happen again.

I am not against (fourth time saying this now) against private gun possession in principal. I am however questioning the answers some people - not few people by the sales number of the gun-producing industry - give to what kind of arsenal it takes to succesfully repel a hostile attack, eh - I mean self defence against a rapist or robber.

Heck, I have several swords and knifes myself, though not storing the swords in my household. Could you imagine what bloody mess I could create with a Katana, even more since I got trained with it? I am not that phobically against weapons like you and maybe also August (not sure about him) seem to believe.

I just question the excesses that gun fetishism is being driven to by some people who seem to argue self defence means to be armed up to the teeth like a one man army. Want to protect your household and family? Doesn'T take half a dozen of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition. A pistol or revolver is enough. If it isn't or you cannot make something out of that, then more weapons or bigger callibres or a higher rate of fire or 500 shots in the ammo box will not serve you any good anyway.

One should not argue in absolutes here. Numbers show that gun ownership also does a lot of damage, kills and hurts by accidents, or making criminals more aggressive and acting preemptively with higher brutality just becaysue the suspect their iuntended victim has firearms. Some weeks ago I linked to a meta-analysis claiming right this.

You have to weigh things. The damage being done by legalising widespread gun ownership, and the damage done by excessive crime that represents the exception from the rule of how to define the lion's share of self defence situations.

Then rest easy Skybird. I do not believe you have a phobia against weapons. :salute:

No, it is not that one-lane road you claim. Demand can artifically be created, and is all the time. To do so is the job of the advertisement industry, and lobbying. One would not spend billions into that effort year by year if it were not producing returns the companies can count in dollars and cents.
That includes the weapons lobby. That includes Hollywood.

And like kids can get used to not like sweets as much as they usually do, you can also educate or influence people to find images of violence and weapons less attractive. For many of us, this also happens all by itself, naturally, when we become older.

I disagree with you sky on these issues. If the person is responsible and has commonsense it shouldn't mater what weapon he owns as long as its used right. Now a battleship I agree is abit much.. But Heavy weapons should be fine. Government has to stop screwing the people. So people need a way to defend themselves. Pop gun isn't going to cut it dude. ;)

Fear the government that fears your guns. What part of, not to be infringed upon don't the consitutionaly impared understand ???:O::O::O:Can't have a well arm state miliatia if we don't have the same arms as the oppressive federal government.

That's the heart of issue.
Are there laws in USA that ensures for the above to be implemented or you talking about yourself.
I have a gun in my drawer too but i don't thing that everyone should be able to carry one.
There is no need for that.
Is USA a war zone or conquering the wild west.
Yes not fair.
Freedom to carry a gun seems to me more of American symbol than necessity.