Congress Shafts Second Amendment... Again

[Yahoshua]

Sry for posting the whole article but this needs to be seen and read by all:

<That isn´t a valid reason, if people are interested they can click the link - Gizzmoe>

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070122.htm

Congress Shafts Second Amendment ... Again

Well, they certainly didn't wait long, did they?

Alan Korwin, author of "Gun Laws of America" ( www.gunlaws.com ), recently alerted us to some ominous activity taking place in Congress. Less than three weeks after the 110th Congress convened, the Democrats have already proposed four -- yes, FOUR -- new gun laws!

...

[Enigma]

"The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. In addition, children under 18 attending a gun show must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Worse, it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.

Whats wrong with this?

More ludricrous is H.R. 428 ( http://tinyurl.com/38k7mk ), entitled "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns." Yes, you read that right. The Democrats are pushing the banning of _toy_ guns, if they resemble real guns in size, shape OR overall appearance.

Ehh, maybe a bit over the top. People have been killed over toy guns that look too realistic. Theres no reason a kid needs a toy gun that is a direct replica. Dont see the big deal.

As for the gun shows law, I dont feel i'm the guy to comment. Never been to one, never plan to. I think if people are that passionate about owning firearms designed with the specific purpose of taking lives, (assault rifles, some handguns...) they still have a way to have the show. Just requires a little effort. I know for a fact that in some places in the middle east, gun laws are very lax. You can buy an AK-47 off the street like you can buy a Diet Pepsi in any strip mall in the US.....Maybe thats a better alternative for those who have the express desire to own weapons designed for killing as many people as efficiantly as possible.

Again, a can of worms that devides alot of Americans. For my views on gun control, ive been called un-American, a traitor, etc, etc. All hog wash to me at the end of the day. It's true that it's a protected right, but the pro gun crowd seems to not be able to distinguish between why that amendmant was written when it was written, and its relevance today...

[bradclark1]

I really didn't see a thing that stops or impedes weapon ownership.
Sounds like bitching just to be bitching.

[Yahoshua]

The reason I am adamantly opposed to these measures are for these reasons:

http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawEnglish.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/DbyGCp3.pdf

I have a problem with raising the age of firearm ownership to 21. If we can vote, enlist, fight and die in war, we can be trusted to buy a rifle and go home with it. I don't have a problem with the aprt about prosecuting people for negligence though.

As for gunshows, it is a restriction of the right to peacably assemble and restricts even the freedom of speech, right to privacy, and trade laws for those who attend.

Banning toy guns is just stupid, mandating that all "toy guns" are colored to distinctly mark them as fake (like the orange muzzle now seen on toys) makes more sense to me than to ban toy guns.

And you should take to heart and remember that a firearm is nothing more than a piece of machinery. It isn't the machine that kills people, it's the person who operates the machine that kills people. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that vehicles are the sole cause of traffic accidents. And that train of thought is blatantly false.

And I do know why it was written, what it means, and who it applies to. The militia, whether organized or unorganized, have the right to keep and bear arms as they choose. And it applies to all U.S. citizens, that is who the 2nd amendment was written for.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

As for gunshows, it is a restriction of the right to peacably assemble and restricts even the freedom of speech, right to privacy, and trade laws for those who attend.

Isnt it about keeping dangerouw weapons out of the hands of minors? I would have thought so.

And you should take to heart and remember that a firearm is nothing more than a piece of machinery. It isn't the machine that kills people, it's the person who operates the machine that kills people. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that vehicles are the sole cause of traffic accidents. And that train of thought is blatantly false.

You're right there. Another, blatantly true train of thought is that gun violence is much more likely when more guns are available.

[moose1am]

[QUOTE=Enigma]

"The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. In addition, children under 18 attending a gun show must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Worse, it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.

Whats wrong with this?

Nothing other than it's not in the Constitution and it's in opposition to what IS written in our constitution.

[FIREWALL]

The first 3 are BS but the last 1 on gun shows are regulated fairly
and as a gun buyer from CA. I BUY IN AZ. on occasion and everything
is fair and regulated fo saftey. I firmly beleive everyone has the right to own Rifles, Shotguns and handguns. But I'm against anyone owning
fully automatic weapons.

[Enigma]

I firmly beleive everyone has the right to own Rifles, Shotguns and handguns. But I'm against anyone owning
fully automatic weapons.

Amen.

[August]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

But I'm against anyone owning fully automatic weapons.

Why? Since they were regulated in the 1930s only one crime has been committed by a privately owned and lawfully possessed machine gun. A Florida cop used his Uzi to kill his wife. Of course he could just have easily used his service revolver...

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

The first 3 are BS but the last 1 on gun shows are regulated fairly
and as a gun buyer from CA. I BUY IN AZ. on occasion and everything
is fair and regulated fo saftey. I firmly beleive everyone has the right to own Rifles, Shotguns and handguns. But I'm against anyone owning
fully automatic weapons.

What, in your mind, is this the difference, btwn owning a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon?

[Enigma]

What, in your mind, is this the difference, btwn owning a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon?

Couple of hundred dollars, at least.

Originally Posted by Enigma

Couple of hundred dollars, at least.

$250.00 tax stamp from BATFE, notification of and authorization from the local law enforcement official (chief of police, sheriff) before purchase. Is that what you mean?

[Enigma]

Actually, I was just being a smart arse and suggesting that it might cost extra to buy.

BTW, any fully-automatic fire arm which is eligable for purchase by private individuals under the National Fire Arms Act of 1938 (NFA) is going for $3000 and higher.

EDIT: That is for people who are interested in obeying the law.

[PeriscopeDepth]

If it is the opinion of the government you can't be trusted with alcohol until 21, makes sense to me you shouldn't be able to own a gun either. IIRC, it doesn't stop parents from taking their kids out to shoot?

PD