Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Poll on Gun Control

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:05 AM
Original message
Poll question: Poll on Gun Control
Do you support further gun control? Or should the state make no more efforts to limit or monitor gun ownership?

The poll is left deliberately vague. If you believe gun control as it currently exists is adequate, select option two. If you wish to see further gun control of any kind, select one. Feel free to share your particular policy concerns below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'd rather see further crime control.
Guns have gone essentially unchanged for 100 years. But crime rates haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Yes, assault weapons were a big problem in 1905...
"But crime rates haven't."
Actually, they declined around the country when the Assault Weapons ban and the Brady Law were passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. Whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. Yup, that had nothing to do
with unprecedented economic growth and opportunity that followed from Bill Clinton's leadership.

not a thing.

Silly me, I thought when people had better circumstances there was less crime...but now I understand that anti-freedom gun laws were actually the cause!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
105. That is hilarious
especially when the "pro freedom" figures pimping the dishonest "gun rights" agenda are folks like AshKKKroft and Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Town Jake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
189. Benchy, you always provide the laughs...
...I think they miss you down in the Gungeon, BTW...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #189
192. The gun loonies always provide such preposterous crap...
Really, is no statement TOO absurd for trigger happy yobbos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. 100 years ago...
You could buy morphine over-the-counter. Can you imagine what it would be like now if that hadn't been stopped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. What ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
106. Cocaine too...
And racism was thriving...

Today the last gasps of that blinkered way of thinking are also those flogging guns for everybody...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
135. Actually, I'd rather see further crime PREVENTION
Education, GOOD jobs (though really any would be an improvement), family/community support, and hope for those in high crime areas. But since those issues can't be addressed in time for the photo-ops needed for the next election cycle, I guess we'll continue to hear "more gun control" from one side and "tough on crime mandatory sentences" from the other. And in the meantime, another generation of poor and minority males will be eviscerated by the increasingly privatized penal system of America. Yay.


The single most important factor in reducing crime throughout the years has nothing whatsoever to do with gun "control" or "tough on crime" sentencing. The single most important factor in reducing crime throughout the years has been the state of the economy. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
205. Perhaps there is a direct correlation there between moderate...
...gun control laws and the rise in crimes where illegal firearms are used. One recent study in South Africa which has more liberal firearms control laws showed the following:

<snip>

Firearm related crime:

Lead-up to new legislation



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Published in Nedbank ISS Crime Index
Volume 3 1999
Number 3, May - June


The proportion of crimes involving firearms has increased faster than crime in general over the last few years. But more firearms are not being used in all types of crime. An Institute for Security Studies case-docket survey carried out at the request of the department of safety and security, points to the need for a new act that will address the problems associated with firearms in South Africa.

While the number of murders reported since 1994 has been declining, the number of murders committed with a firearm increased. In 1998 some 12267 out of 24875 (or 49.3%) of murders were committed with a firearm. This is up from 41.5% in 1994 and 1995 (Figure 1). The proportion of reported attempted murders committed with a firearm decreased, however, from 87% in 1994, to 75% in 1998.

<snip>

Firearm related crime is unacceptably high in South Africa and there are many licensed firearm holders who are unfit to handle a firearm. The high level of legal firearm ownership in South Africa is not the cause, but the result of the soaring violent crime rate. South Africans are acquiring firearms to protect themselves from criminals as the poorly funded and badly trained police service is believed to be unable to do this. While the wealthy employ private security firms, build high walls and install elaborate electronic security systems in their homes, poorer South Africans can only afford the security a firearm can offer for self-defence.

South Africa needs a new Arms and Ammunition Act that will encourage responsible management of legal firearms by all legal firearms owners. Such an act must be accessible to ordinary South Africans. It must also be affordable and enforceable by law enforcement agencies.

<more>
<link> http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/CRIMEINDEX/99VOL3NO3/Firearm.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. TU for the post! I absolutely support further gun control....
I hope that this post gets a huge DU response. I'll try to keep it kicked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. I agree...
No other civilized country lets guns go virtually unregulated...or suffers such a high degree of gun-related violence and death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
91. Here are some WHO stats for violence as a cause of death...
http://www.who.int/whr/2002/chapter4/en/index9.html

In 2000, violence caused 700 000 deaths in the world: about 50% by suicide, 30% by interpersonal violence, and 20% by collective violence.
Interpersonal violence
Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, `maldevelopment' or deprivation". As well as violence by strangers and acquaintances, it includes child maltreatment, spouse abuse, elder abuse and sexual violence. The true number of deaths is probably underestimated.
Worldwide, adolescents and young adults are the primary victims and perpetrators: interpersonal violence was the sixth leading cause of death among people aged 15--44 years in 2000. The highest estimated regional homicide rates per 100 000 population occurred in Africa (22.2) and the Americas (19.2), compared with Europe (8.4), the Eastern Mediterranean (7.1), South-East Asia (5.8) and the Western Pacific (3.4).

Note: These stats are from 2,000; Africa had mainly collective violence; the US in 2000 had mainly interpersonal violence and suicide. As of now, our collective violence is off the chart. (Iraqis civilian death toll = 150,000 plus)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #91
103. Worth noting
the hypocrisy and dishonesty of pro-gun politicians such as Tom DeLay and Larry Craig...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #103
121. Tom DeLay defines the very word for hypocrisy and should be
held up for all eternity as a primary example of the working definition.

Pro-life?!! NOT!
Pro-Gun, Pro-War, Pro Death Penalty

Pro-true Christian or any moral values?!! NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #121
194. Exactly...look at the "Second Amendment Caucus" in Congress
Not just right wing Republicans...but some of the scummiest ones around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
168. Guns should be well regulated and rare.
The gun lobby is evil. Kick!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #168
175. Seeing guns rarely is worse than seeing them commonly.
Cause the ones who have the rare guns are usually the criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. ditto
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Donating Member (672 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. We need guns to fend off the BuSHITler psychotic morons!
Let's be reasonable here - there are plenty of laws - and even more people willing to break them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. With an attitude like that your name shouldn't be ZEN! (LOL)....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. that's one way to keep this kicked!
I'm waiting for the flames.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nankerphelge Donating Member (995 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. If you don't want our rights to be eroded...
you have to support the entire bill of rights, including the Second Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Does the life of myself or our nation's children enter into your interpretation of the Constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
73. My collection of mostly curio and relic firearms poses no threat to you
Or to anyone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enlightenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. The 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation . . .
I support the rights of a "well-regulated militia" -- to me, that's the National Guard, not the person who keeps an armory in his basement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
33. Welcome to DU, enlightenment!
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 11:04 AM by derby378
I would argue, though that Amendment II expressly says "the right of the people..."

Where's this militia going to get members if not from we, the people?

I support gun control initiatives that make us into smarter, more responsible gun owners, but I cannot and will not support anything like a ban on assault weapons. And I'm a Quaker, for cryin' out loud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #23
40. James Madison disagrees with you
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 12:06 PM by davepc
Federalist Paper 46. See also Militia Act of 1792.

Madison didn't like the Prussian style militia system, and much preferred the Swiss style militia. Most of the Founders agreed with him, and from the late 1780's into the 1850's thats what we had.

Then the Civil War happened, and the defensive Swiss style organization proved to be inadequate for offensive units to be drawn up and thrown into a war of conquest against the South. A Prussian style militia system began to be implemented, and by the mid 1870's we had one. A Prussian militia is made up of two parts, the Landwehr (Reservists) and Landsturm (National Guard). Congress formalized this arrangement in law and its what we've had with minor tweaks in the 1930's for over a 100 years.

"Select" style militia's are great for offensive military operations, and thats why we developed one after the Civil War and kept it around for use in our Imperialist expansion around the turn of the century and for foreign wars in Europe twice. Today its still working as effectively as it was designed to do by the Prussians.

But it is most certainly NOT what Madison meant when he wrote it that little amendment to the Constitution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
47. You are incorrect.
Well regulated militia means the citizenry, not what you want it to mean.

Here is the 5th Circuit Court of appeals ruling that cites the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. (Emerson v. US)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0


"The signification attributed to the term Militia
appears from the debates in the Convention, the
history and legislation of Colonies and States, and
the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense. . . . ordinarily when called for service
these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use
at the time.


I guess we could add females to that.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
204. National Guard-created during WW1
Second Amendment-added to the Bill of Rights at the inception of the Constitution. Please elaborate on your interpretation of the Second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
85. Our nation as a whole has the 'right ' to bear arms...and they do that so
well when it comes to war and selling arms to others (like Pakistan and India just now for example). The 2nd amendment was written long before this violence crazed recent history.

Look up some of the World Health Organizations stats on deaths due to violence...and compare the grand ole gun slinging us of assh....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'm a big believer in gun control: aim, exhale half way, scan, squeeze.
Oh, wait. That's not what you meant?

:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. LOL - I like your attitude.
Gun control is exactly that - educated people who know what they are doing. If there are any loopholes whereas criminals can get guns, I say close 'em up. I think gun control is a self-regulating issue - if there is an increase in gun violence due to easy-to-get guns, then we need to have better law enforcement. If the laws are not strick enough, then we need to tighten them up. If everything is relatively stable and gun-crime is fairly low, then it may not be wise to attack gun owners just because you personally don't care for that hobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
17. I support further gun control
I was watching "Back In Black" on the "Daily Show" and he pointed out that several terrorists were still able to acquire guns even though they were on the terrorist watch list. The NRA didn't think they should prevent ANYONE from buying a gun.

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/back/lb_10038.html

If it doesn't go direct, it's "Back In Black"-Accountability in the Daily Show directory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Pro-gun ownership rights and pro-NRA are mutually exclusive.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. Yes, but the NRA uses it's rather large lobbying
budget to suppress any laws that might actually crack down on terrorists, ex cons, gangs, etc and prevent them from being able to buy semi automatic assault weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. In that case, oppose the NRA and feel good about it.
Just know that those principles you listed aren't shared by most gun owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
38. I never said they were.
and the things I mentioned are examples of that. The poll was left blatantly vague so, gun control can come in many forms.

I'm a buddhist anyways and don't believe in guns at all but, I'm also not going to go on a crusade to change the 2nd Ammendment, or ban all guns. Even the HH Dalai Lama supports self defense although, I doubt he meant by shooting someone. Anyway, I don't think you can suppress violence by banning guns. Although, I think you can greatly decrease these violent mass murders by limiting what types of people can obtain guns. Violence is something within and if someone wants to kill someone else, they're going to find a way to do it.

We need to be looking at the culture of violence and what promotes it; prejudices, injustices, poverty, lack of education. If it's easy for known terrorists to stock pile weapons within the US, or for convicted felons, or members of gangs, or a 15 year old, then these loop holes should be closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
41. I never said they were.
We need to be looking at the culture of violence and what promotes it; prejudices, injustices, poverty, lack of education. But, if it's easy for known terrorists to stock pile weapons within the US, or for convicted felons, or members of gangs, or a 15 year old, then these loop holes should be closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. wasn't that amazing?!
and it was further evidence of my long held view that Wayne La Pierre is the devil incarnate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I love Black....
Check out the one called "Feeding Frenzy" it's hilarious....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. Oh I see...
The Bush administrations Gestapo Enemies of the State list which no one outside the government has seen, or knows who's on it REALLY isn't a bad thing, in fact its a good thing!

And people who have broken no laws, been accused of no crime, stood before no judge, be tried by no jury, should have their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms denied to them because some one in the Bush administration has decided they deserve to be on some secret list.

Well thats great precedent!

What other rights should be denied people on the Bush Gestapo list? The right to peaceably assemble? The right against unjust search and seizure?

I mean, they're on the Bush list, they MUST be real dangerous people! They might even be Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
49. The terrorists in the planes on 9/11 were also on the terrorist
watch list. I'm as anti-Bush as anyone here, and agree with the Gestapo comparison. But, do we just continue to ignore FBI warnings, as Bush did, and just let anyone who wants one carry a gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #49
60. No, the "terror watch list" didn't exist until Bush created it AFTER 9/11
http://www.nydailynews.com/04-08-2003/news/wn_report/story/73628p-68132c.html

WASHINGTON - U.S. border watchers are on the lookout for potential terrorists and other bad guys - 13 million of them.

The army of suspicious characters, including 20,000 identified by the State Department since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, is catalogued in a voluminous new watch list assembled for U.S. national security officials.

The mother of all watch lists will help officials in the State and Homeland Security departments "identify those aliens inadmissible or deportable," President Bush wrote to the House and Senate intelligence panels.

U.S. officials combined existing immigration and terrorist watch lists from State, the Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, Bush said.


13 million people.

And yes, I think anyone who complies with state and federal law (in this case the Gun Control Act of 1968 which specifies who may and may not posses firearms) should be allowed to carry a firearm.

If you don't want terrorists carrying guns, then arrest them, try them, and convict them. Felons are not legally allowed to posses guns in the United States.

I refuse to latch on to this anti-civil rights measure that seeks to deprive people of their due process simply because the Bush Administration puts them on some 'enemies list'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
122. There was a watch list prior to 9/11
Do you recall the PDB? "Osama determined to attack in the US with planes" or that's the gist of it. Although, the "terrorist watch list" that was a product of Homeland Security, did not exist until after 9/11, the FBI WAS following known terrorist cells in the US.

Their list was not published or shared, and that was part of the problem. If you read any of my previous posts, you'd see that I'm not siding with Bush but really anti gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
62. You would deny civil rights to people merely suspected of crimes?
Or even worse, people merely suspected of criminal intent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #62
128. I think we need to clear this up
I'm anti GUN .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Thanks
It is true that if nobody had any guns nobody would ever get shot.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #129
131. It's a hell of lot easier to run from a stone than it is from a bullet :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Ruffian Donating Member (672 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-05 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #131
227. for some.
tell that to someone who is infirm, or elderly, or with small children at hand.

Running isn't always an option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
24. I voted additional controls, but very narrowly difined.
I must admit, I have always disagreed with those who claimed they had to be armed to fend off a possible Gov't takeover. I always thought they were nuts! UNTIL YESTERDAY! When I heard that Jeb had ordered the State Police to kidnap Terri and take her to a hosp. to have that tube reinserted, I was SHOCKED for the first time in many many years.

As to further gun control, I think the penalties for committing a crime involving a gun should be increased to the point of being unreasonable, but a real deterent to ever possessing a gun during the commission on a crime.

Sad to say, I can no longer feel I will never have to protect myself from Gov't intrusion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. did he really?
I thought he had said he wouldn't do that? I haven't checked Terry updates since I went to bed. I don't think guns are going to help her much at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Yes he did, but the SP backed down when the local police said
they would enforce the court order. See this other DU post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1342834
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. don't these people care about W's Texas law?
that determines if someone can live based on their ability to pay for a hospital stay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Unfortunately, not enough publicity on Shrubs TX law.
I have heard it a few times, but not nearly enough. Way too many Americans still haven't heard a good description of what Gov. W did by signing that law!

BTW, I also have heard, if Terri had been in TX instead of Fl, not only would she be dean by now, but this entire fiasco would never have happened!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #36
48. to be fair to my current state of residence
Florida law, as upheld by the courts, allows Terry to die with dignity. That's why the Republicans took this to the federal level. The problem is that they and Jeb are looking for ways to violate the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
28. I'm in favor of more effective laws. However...
It's not going to matter what laws we pass if we can't make a societal change.

Like big cars, we are addicted to violence. Video games, movies, TV, music, the economy, etc., are all driven by gun use. Heck even presidential candidates have to "prove" themselves by hunting something.

Until we start expressing ourselves without resorting to shooting a weapon, we're going to restrict our growth as a society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
53. Om manè padmè hum... eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #53
201. Non summa non gratis cum laude. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
29. We need the Assault Weapons Ban reinstated.
It should never have been allowed to lapse.

And I'm speaking as a gun owner who is not an NRA supporter.

There's no reason why Tec-9's, AK-47s, and other such weapons need to be in the hands of anyone not in the military.

Gen. Clark had a good take on this: "I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Can you find compelling evidence that the AWB accomplished anything?
Or that the sunset seven months ago has unleashed a bloodbath specifically attributable to such weapons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. the problem was the law was badly written
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 11:11 AM by imenja
and purposefully so because of the gun lobby. The law banned only a few characteristics, such as the mechanism that concealed the flash from the discharge of bullets. It wasn't a real ban on assault weapons. That's what we need. And I see no conceivable reason why we can't have one. Does an individual's right to bear arms really require that he should be able to murder multiple people at one time? As 60 minutes showed last week, individuals can legally arm entire guerrilla armies under current gun laws. People can legally purchase 50 caliber rifles capable of taking down an airplane of killing someone from one mile away. If that, why not nuclear weapons? Is there no limit?

Forget terrorists getting their hands of WMD. They don't need to. They can find anything they need at a local gun show. And the NRA considers it outrageous to monitor their gun purchases. Now books, those are restricted. We need to keep an eye on what radicals are reading. But guns don't kill people, books do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. Since the law was too vague for you, how do you define an assault weapon?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. this is beyond my expertise
since I know nothing about guns, but any automatic or semiautomatic riffle would seem to have no conceivable hunting of self defense purpose: Guns that fire off multiple rounds of ammunition in a few seconds. You know, the kind of guns they use in Iraq.

Basically my view is if the thing isn't appropriately used for hunting or self defense, why should anyone have it? They are weapons after all, not toys. Whatever happened to collecting stamps?

And for heaven's sake, if a person let's his kids get a hold of a gun, he needs to be have those guns taken away or be locked up if the kid ends up shooting someone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #43
50. Isn't it a little inappropriate...
...to suggest far-reaching, rights-limiting legistlation on technical issues that are "beyond your expertise"? Especially when most Republicans (and about half of Democrats, according to this poll) don't share your view?

Isn't that rather like Bill Frist "diagnosing" Terri Schiavo using a five-year-old videotape, in spite of 70% of the country not sharing his opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
57. look, I'm a citizen posting in a message board
I'm not proposing legislation. I don't have to be a gun expert to know the whole issue is totally fucked up. You have to close your eyes to a tremendous amount to pretend that gun violence and the permissive state of gun laws in this country are not a serious problem.

Obviously if I were to write legislation on the issue I would have to become far more familiar with the subject. Is your position the fact that I don't have some testosterone-induced gun fetish mean I relinquish my rights to free speech? What I do have is a life, and I have a right to see that life as well as those of America's children protected.

Apparently your support of the 2nd amendment prompts you to disregard the First.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #57
65. Allow me to clarify.
"The law banned only a few characteristics, such as the mechanism that concealed the flash from the discharge of bullets. It wasn't a real ban on assault weapons. That's what we need. And I see no conceivable reason why we can't have one."

And when I (very politely) asked you to define an assault weapon (since you think they are all so horrible and must be banned), you were incapable of doing so, deferring to your lack of "expertise."

I'm not telling you to shut up or withhold your opinion. I'm telling you that perhaps you should become more informed on the issue before taking such a staunch stand.

You don't have to have a "testosterone-induced gun fetish" to understand what a gun is and how it works. It's not very complicated and there's a wealth of such information on the internet.

I'm glad you have a strong opinion in the matter, I only regret that it is a terribly misinformed one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. and what would an informed position look like?
I've love to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #67
75. In this specific matter...
...an informed opinion would come from someone who knows:

- A basic understanding of how a firearm works.
- Exactly what separates assault weapons from "regular" guns.
- The difference between "semi-automatic" and "fully-automatic" or "select-fire".
- An understanding that there are viable recreational reasons for owning guns that don't involve being a bloodthirsty murderer.
- That the Second Amendment is not about hunting.
- That most gun owners support laws that prevent criminals and children from obtaining them.

Again, I'm not telling you to shut up (or as you dramatically put it, "disregarding your First Amendment rights"). My only suggestion was to become more informed so that when you vehemently argue in favor of something, those who are informed don't laugh you off the stage.

Just friendly advice. Take it as you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. the current state of politics is horrifying enough as is
so I really prefer not to spend my time researching all the ways people find to kill each other. If I'm ever in a position where I'm involved in such legislation, I will certainly heed your advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #67
79. One that
understands what weapons were effected by the ban, the difference between those weapons and other weapons not effected, and an understanding of what weapons have been already been strictly regulated in the United States prior to the ban.

It boggles my mind how many people believe that the Assault Weapon Ban prohibited full automatic firearms, when in reality it did not regulate one single full automatic gun, ever.

Those people are usually the same ones warning about blood in the streets and spouting off about AK's and Tech-9's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #79
145. if you read above you'll see I did not think that
from everything I read about the assault weapon ban, it was worthless, and deliberately so. The politicians lacked courage to write any effective legislative prohibiting control of automatic weapons. And even that pathetic law that regulated very little is no longer acceptable under the NRA-Military Industrial Complex that rules our nation today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #145
154. "effective legislative prohibiting control of automatic weapons"
HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR SEVENTY ONE YEARS.

The National Firearms Act

Title 26, United States Code

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

CHAPTER 53 -- MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER

FIREARMS

Subchapter

A. Taxes.

B. General provisions and exemptions.

C. Prohibited acts.

D. Penalties and forfeitures.

Subchapter A - Taxes

Part

I. Special (occupational) taxes.

II. Tax on transferring firearms.

III. Tax on making firearms.

Part I -- Special (Occupational) Taxes

Sec.

5801. Imposition of tax

5802. Registration of importers, manufacturers, and dealers

§ 5801 Imposition of tax

(a) General rule. -- On first engaging in business and thereafter on or before July 1 of each year, every importer, manufacturer, and dealer in firearms shall pay a special (occupational) tax for each place of business at the following rates:

(1) Importers and manufacturers: $1,000 a year or fraction thereof.

(2) Dealers: $500 a year or fraction thereof.

(b) Reduced rates of tax for small importers and manufacturers:

(1) In general. -- Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting "$500" for "$1,000" with respect to any taxpayer the gross receipts of which (for the most recent taxable year ending before the 1st day of the taxable period to which the tax imposed by subsection (a) relates) are less than $500,000.

(2) Controlled group rules. -- All persons treated as 1 taxpayer under section 5061(e)(3) shall be treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of paragraph (1).

(3) Certain rules to apply. -- For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 448(c)(3) shall apply.

§ 5802. Registration of importers, manufacturers, and dealers

On first engaging in business and thereafter on or before the first day of July of each year, each importer, manufacturer, and dealer in firearms shall register with the Secretary in each internal revenue district in which such business is to be carried on, his name, including any trade name, and the address of each location in the district where he will conduct such business. An individual required to register under this section shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the individual with the initial application. Where there is a change during the taxable year in the location of, or the trade name used in, such business, the importer, manufacturer, or dealer shall file an application with the Secretary to amend his registration. Firearms operations of an importer, manufacturer, or dealer may not be commenced at the new location or under a new trade name prior to approval by the Secretary of the application.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1227, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub.L. 103-322, Title XI, § 110301(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2012.)

Part II -- Tax on Transferring Firearms

Sec.

5811. Transfer tax.

5812. Transfers.

§ 5811. Transfer tax

(a) Rate. -- There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm transferred, except, the transfer tax on any firearm classified as any other weapon under section 5845(e) shall be at the rate of $5 for each such firearm transferred.

(b) By whom paid. -- The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be paid by the transferor.

(c) Payment. -- The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be payable by the appropriate stamps prescribed for payment by the Secretary.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1228, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5812. Transfers

(a) Application. -- A firearm shall not be transferred unless (1) the transferor of the firearm has filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, for the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee on the application form prescribed by the Secretary; (2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; (4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and (6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law.

(b) Transfer of possession. -- The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1228, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

Part III - Tax on Making Firearms

Sec.

5821. Making tax.

5822. Making.

§ 5821. Making tax

(a) Rate. -- There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the making of a firearm a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm made.

(b) By whom paid. -- The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be paid by the person making the firearm.

(c) Payment. -- The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be payable by the stamp prescribed for payment by the Secretary.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1228, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5822. Making

No person shall make a firearm unless he has (a) filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, to make and register the firearm on the form prescribed by the Secretary; (b) paid any tax payable on the making and such payment is evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (c) identified the firearm to be made in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (d) identified himself in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; and (e) obtained the approval of the Secretary to make and register the firearm and the application form shows such approval. Applications shall be denied if the making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1228, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

Subchapter B--General Provisions and Exemptions

Part

I. General Provisions.

II. Exemptions.

Part I--General Provisions

Sec.

5841. Registration of firearms.

5842. Identification of firearms.

5843. Records and returns.

5844. Importation.

5845. Definitions.

5846. Other laws applicable.

5847. Effect on other laws.

5848. Restrictive use of information.

5849. Citation of chapter.

§ 5841. Registration of firearms

(a) Central registry. -- The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include --

(1) identification of the firearm;

(2) date of registration; and

(3) identification and address of person entitled to possession of the

firearm.

(b) By whom registered. -- Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor.

(c) How registered. -- Each manufacturer shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such manner as may by regulations be prescribed and such notification shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. Each importer, maker, and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to importing, making, or transferring a firearm, obtain authorization in such manner as required by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder to import, make, or transfer the firearm, and such authorization shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section.

(d) Firearms registered on effective date of this act. -- A person shown as possessing a firearm by the records maintained by the Secretary pursuant to the National Firearms Act in force on the day immediately prior to the effective date of the National Firearms Act of 1968 shall be considered to have registered under this section the firearms in his possession which are disclosed by that record as being in his possession.

(e) Proof of registration. -- A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1229, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5842. Identification of firearms

(a) Identification of firearms other than destructive devices. -- Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(b) Firearms without serial number. -- Any person who possesses a firearm, other than a destructive device, which does not bear the serial number and other information required by subsection (a) of this section shall identify the firearm with a serial number assigned by the Secretary and any other information the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(c) Identification of destructive device. -- Any firearm classified as a destructive device shall be identified in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5843. Records and returns

Importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall keep such records of, and render such returns in relation to, the importation, manufacture, making, receipt, and sale, or other disposition, of firearms as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5844. Importation

No firearm shall be imported or brought into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction unless the importer establishes, under regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary, that the firearm to be imported or brought in is --

(1) being imported or brought in for the use of the United States or any

department, independent establishment, or agency thereof or any State or

possession or any political subdivision thereof; or

(2) being imported or brought in for scientific or research purposes; or

(3) being imported or brought in solely for testing or use as a model by a registered manufacturer or solely for use as a sample by a registered importer or registered dealer;

except that, the Secretary may permit the conditional importation or bringing in of a firearm for examination and testing in connection with classifying the firearm.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5845. Definitions

For the purpose of this chapter --

(a) Firearm. -- The term "firearm" means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term "firearm" shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

(b) Machinegun. -- The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

(c) Rifle. -- The term "rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

(d) Shotgun. -- The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

(e) Any other weapon. -- The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

(f) Destructive device. -- The term "destructive device" means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; (2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

(g) Antique firearm. -- The term "antique firearm" means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

(h) Unserviceable firearm. -- The term "unserviceable firearm" means a firearm which is incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.

(i) Make. -- The term "make", and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.

(j) Transfer. -- The term "transfer" and the various derivatives of such word, shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of.

(k) Dealer. -- The term "dealer" means any person, not a manufacturer or importer, engaged in the business of selling, renting, leasing, or loaning firearms and shall include pawnbrokers who accept firearms as collateral for loans.

(l) Importer. -- The term "importer" means any person who is engaged in the business of importing or bringing firearms into the United States.

(m) Manufacturer. -- The term "manufacturer" means any person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), (J), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834, 1835; Pub.L. 99-308, § 109, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 460.)

§ 5846. Other laws applicable

All provisions of law relating to special taxes imposed by chapter 51 and to engraving, issuance, sale, accountability, cancellation, and distribution of stamps for tax payment shall, insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, be applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by sections 5801, 5811, and 5821.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232.)

§ 5847. Effect on other laws

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as modifying or affecting the requirements of section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, with respect to the manufacture, exportation, and importation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232.)

§ 5848. Restrictive use of information

(a) General rule. -- No information or evidence obtained from an application, registration, or records required to be submitted or retained by a natural person in order to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulations issued thereunder, shall, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, be used, directly or indirectly, as evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence.

(b) Furnishing false information. -- Subsection (a) of this section shall not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232.)

§ 5849. Citation of chapter

This chapter may be cited as the "National Firearms Act" and any reference in any other provision of law to the "National Firearms Act" shall be held to refer to the provisions of this chapter.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232.)

Part II -- Exemptions

Sec.

5851. Special (occupational) tax exemption.

5852. General transfer and making tax exemption.

5853. Transfer and making tax exemption available to certain

governmental entities.

5854. Exportation of firearms exempt from transfer tax.

§ 5851. Special (occupational) tax exemption

(a) Business with United States. -- Any person required to pay special (occupational) tax under section 5801 shall be relieved from payment of that tax if he establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that his business is conducted exclusively with, or on behalf of, the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof. The Secretary may relieve any person manufacturing firearms for, or on behalf of, the United States from compliance with any provision of this chapter in the conduct of such business.

(b) Application. -- The exemption provided for in subsection (a) of this section may be obtained by filing with the Secretary an application on such form and containing such information as may by regulations be prescribed. The exemptions must thereafter be renewed on or before July 1 of each year. Approval of the application by the Secretary shall entitle the applicant to the exemptions stated on the approved application.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1233, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5852. General transfer and making tax exemption

(a) Transfer. -- Any firearm may be transferred to the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof, without payment of the transfer tax imposed by section 5811.

(b) Making by a person other than a qualified manufacturer. -- Any firearm may be made by, or on behalf of, the United States, or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof, without payment of the making tax imposed by section 5821.

(c) Making by a qualified manufacturer. -- A manufacturer qualified under this chapter to engage in such business may make the type of firearm which he is qualified to manufacture without payment of the making tax imposed by section 5821.

(d) Transfers between special (occupational) taxpayers. -- A firearm registered to a person qualified under this chapter to engage in business as an importer, manufacturer, or dealer may be transferred by that person without payment of the transfer tax imposed by section 5811 to any other person qualified under this chapter to manufacture, import, or deal in that type of firearm.

(e) Unserviceable firearm. -- An unserviceable firearm may be transferred as a curio or ornament without payment of the transfer tax imposed by section 5811, under such requirements as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(f) Right to exemption. -- No firearm may be transferred or made exempt from tax under the provisions of this section unless the transfer or making is performed pursuant to an application in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1233, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5853. Transfer and making tax exemption available to certain governmental entities

(a) Transfer. -- A firearm may be transferred without the payment of the transfer tax imposed by section 5811 to any State, possession of the United States, any political subdivision thereof, or any official police organization of such a government entity engaged in criminal investigations.

(b) Making. -- A firearm may be made without payment of the making tax imposed by section 5821 by, or on behalf of, any State, or possession of the United States, any political subdivision thereof, or any official police organization of such a government entity engaged in criminal investigations.

(c) Right to exemption. -- No firearm may be transferred or made exempt from tax under this section unless the transfer or making is performed pursuant to an application in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1233, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

§ 5854. Exportation of firearms exempt from transfer tax

A firearm may be exported without payment of the transfer tax imposed under section 5811 provided that proof of the exportation is furnished in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1234, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

Subchapter C -- Prohibited Acts

Sec.

5861. Prohibited acts.

§ 5861. Prohibited acts

It shall be unlawful for any person --

(a) to engage in business as a manufacturer or importer of, or dealer in,

firearms without having paid the special (occupational) tax required by

section 5801 for his business or having registered as required by section

5802; or

(b) to receive or possess a firearm transferred to him in violation of the

provisions of this chapter; or

(c) to receive or possess a firearm made in violation of the provisions of

this chapter; or

(d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the

National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or

(e) to transfer a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter;

or

(f) to make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or

(g) to obliterate, remove, change, or alter the serial number or other

identification of a firearm required by this chapter; or

(h) to receive or possess a firearm having the serial number or other

identification required by this chapter obliterated, removed, changed, or

altered; or

(i) to receive or possess a firearm which is not identified by a serial

number as required by this chapter; or

(j) to transport, deliver, or receive any firearm in interstate commerce

which has not been registered as required by this chapter; or

(k) to receive or possess a firearm which has been imported or brought into the United States in violation of section 5844; or

(l) to make, or cause the making of, a false entry on any application,

return, or record required by this chapter, knowing such entry to be false.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1234.)

Subchapter D -- Penalties and Forfeitures

Sec.

5871. Penalties.

5872. Forfeitures.

§ 5871. Penalties

Any person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or be imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1234, and amended Pub.L. 98-473, Title II, § 227, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2030.)

§ 5872. Forfeitures

(a) Laws applicable. -- Any firearm involved in any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture, and (except as provided in subsection (b)) all the provisions of internal revenue laws relating to searches, seizures, and forfeitures of unstamped articles are extended to and made to apply to the articles taxed under this chapter, and the persons to whom this chapter applies.

(b) Disposal. -- In the case of the forfeiture of any firearm by reason of a violation of this chapter, no notice of public sale shall be required; no such firearm shall be sold at public sale; if such firearm is forfeited for a violation of this chapter and there is no remission or mitigation of forfeiture thereof, it shall be delivered by the Secretary to the Administrator of General Services, General Services Administration, who may order such firearm destroyed or may sell it to any State, or possession, or political subdivision thereof, or at the request of the Secretary, may authorize its retention for official use of the Treasury Department, or may transfer it without charge to any executive department or independent establishment of the Government for use by it.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1235, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

PART 179-MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

Subpart A-Scope of Regulations

Sec.

179.1 General.

Subpart B-Definitions

179.11 Meaning of terms.

Subpart C-Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

179.21 Forms prescribed.

179.22 Right of entry and examination.

179.23 Restrictive use of required information.

179.24 Destructive device determination.

179.25 Collector's items.

179.26 Alternate methods or procedures; emergency variations from requirements.

Subpart D-Special (Occupational) Taxes

179.31 Liability for tax.

179.32 Special (occupational) tax rates.

179.32a Reduced rate of tax for small importers and manufacturers.

179.33 Special exemption.

179.34 Special tax registration and return.

179.35 Employer identification number.

179.36 The special tax stamp, receipt for special (occupational) taxes.

179.37 Certificates in lieu of stamps lost or destroyed.

179.38 Engaging in business at more than one location.

179.39 Engaging in more than one business at the same location.

179.40 Partnership liability.

179.41 Single sale.

Change of Ownership

179.42 Changes through death of owner.

179.43 Changes through bankruptcy of owner.

179.44 Change in partnership or unincorporated association.

179.45 Changes in corporation.

Change of Business Location

179.46 Notice by taxpayer.

Change of Trade Name

179.47 Notice by taxpayer.

Penalties and Interest

179.48 Failure to pay special (occupational) tax.

179.49 Failure to register change or removal.

179.50 Delinquency.

179.51 Fraudulent return.

Application of State Laws

179.52 State regulations.

Subpart E-Tax on Making Firearms

179.61 Rate of tax.

Application To Make a Firearm

179.62 Application to make.

179.63 Identification of applicant.

179.64 Procedure for approval of application.

179.65 Denial of application.

179.66 Subsequent transfer of firearms.

179.67 Cancellation of stamp.

Exceptions to Tax on Making Firearms

179.68 Qualified manufacturer.

179.69 Making a firearm for the United States.

179.70 Certain government entities.

Registration

179.71 Proof of registration.

Subpart F-Transfer Tax

179.81 Scope of tax.

179.82 Rate of tax.

179.83 Transfer tax in addition to import duty.

Application and Order for Transfer of Firearm

179.84 Application to transfer.

179.85 Identification of transferee.

179.86 Action on application.

179.87 Cancellation of stamp.

Exemptions Relating to Transfers of Firearms

179.88 Special (occupational) taxpayers.

179.89 Transfers to the United States.

179.90 Certain government entities.

179.91 Unserviceable firearms.

179.92 Transportation of firearms to effect transfer.

Other Provisions

179.93 Transfers of firearms to certain persons.

Subpart G-Registration and Identification of Firearms

179.101 Registration of firearms.

179.102 Identification of firearms.

179.103 Registration of firearms manufactured.

179.104 Registration of firearms by certain governmental entities.

Machine Guns

179.105 Transfer and possession of machine guns.

Subpart H-Importation and Exportation

Importation

179.111 Procedure.

179.112 Registration of imported firearms.

179.113 Conditional importation.

Exportation

179.114 Application and permit for exportation of firearms.

179.115 Action by Director.

179.116 Procedure by exporter.

179.117 Action by Customs.

179.118 Proof of exportation.

179.119 Transportation of firearms to effect exportation.

179.120 Refunds.

179.121 Insular possessions.

Arms Export Control Act

179.122 Requirements.

Subpart I-Records and Returns

179.131 Records.

Subpart J-Stolen or Lost Firearms or Documents

179.141 Stolen or lost firearms.

179.142 Stolen or lost documents.

Subpart K-Examination of Books and Records

179.151 Failure to make returns: Substitute returns.

179.152 Penalties (records and returns).

Subpart L-Distribution and Sale of Stamps

179.161 National Firearms Act stamps.

179.162 Stamps authorized.

179.163 Reuse of stamps prohibited.

Subpart M-Redemption of or Allowance for Stamps or Refunds

179.171 Redemption of or allowance for stamps.

179.172 Refunds.

Subpart N-Penalties and Forfeitures

179.181 Penalties.

179.182 Forfeitures.

Subpart O-Other Laws Applicable

179.191 Applicability of other provisions of internal revenue laws.

179.192 Commerce in firearms and ammunition.

179.193 Arms Export Control Act.

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.

Source: 36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971, unless otherwise noted. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975.

Subpart A-Scope of Regulations

§ 179.1 General.

This part contains the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacture, making, exportation, identification and registration of, and the dealing in, machineguns, destructive devices and certain other firearms under the provisions of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53).

<36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979>

Subpart B-Definitions

§ 179.11 Meaning of terms.

When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. Words in the plural form shall include the singular, and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender shall include the feminine. The terms "includes" and "including" do not exclude other things not enumerated which are in the same general class or are otherwise within the scope thereof.

Antique firearm. Any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Any other weapon. Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

ATF officer. An officer or employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) authorized to perform any function relating to the administration or enforcement of this part.

Customs officer. Any officer of the Customs Service or any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard, or any agent or other person authorized by law or designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to perform any duties of an officer of the Customs Service.

Dealer. Any person, not a manufacturer or importer, engaged in the business of selling, renting, leasing, or loaning firearms and shall include pawnbrokers who accept firearms as collateral for loans.

Destructive device. (a) Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (1) bomb, (2) grenade, (3) rocket having a propellent charge of more than 4 ounces, (4) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (5) mine, or (6) similar device; (b) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Director finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (c) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term shall not include any device which is neither designed or redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army under 10 U.S.C. 4684(2), 4685, or 4686, or any device which the Director finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.

Director. The Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.

Director of the Service Center. A director of an Internal Revenue Service Center in an internal revenue region.

District director. A district director of the Internal Revenue Service in an internal revenue district.

Executed under penalties of perjury. Signed with the prescribed declaration under the penalties of perjury as provided on or with respect to the return, form, or other document or, where no form of declaration is prescribed, with the declaration:

"I declare under the penalties of perjury that this-- (insert type of document, such as, statement, application, request, certificate), including the documents submitted in support thereof, has been examined by me and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is true, correct, and complete."

Exportation. The severance of goods from the mass of things belonging to this country with the intention of uniting them to the mass of things belonging to some foreign country.

Exporter. Any person who exports firearms from the United States.

Firearm. (a) A shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (b) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (c) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (d) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (e) any other weapon, as defined in this subpart; (f) a machinegun; (g) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (h) a destructive device. The term shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Director finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. For purpose of this definition, the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked. The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore.

Fixed ammunition. That self-contained unit consisting of the case, primer, propellant charge, and projectile or projectiles.

Frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

Importation. The bringing of a firearm within the limits of the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, from a place outside thereof (whether such place be a foreign country or territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), with intent to unlade. Except that, bringing a firearm from a foreign country or a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States into a foreign trade zone for storage pending shipment to a foreign country or subsequent importation into this country, under Title 26 of the United States Code, and this part, shall not be deemed importation.

Importer. Any person who is engaged in the business of importing or bringing firearms into the United States.

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Make. This term and the various derivatives thereof shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this part), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.

Manual reloading. The inserting of a cartridge or shell into the chamber of a firearm either with the hands or by means of a mechanical device controlled and energized by the hands.

Manufacturer. Any person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms.

Muffler or silencer. Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Person. A partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, as well as a natural person.

Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Regional director (compliance). The principal ATF regional official responsible for administering regulations in this part.

Revolver. A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing.

Rifle. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

Shotgun. A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

Transfer. This term and the various derivatives thereof shall include selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of.

United States. The States and the District of Columbia.

U.S.C. The United States Code.

Unserviceable firearm. A firearm which is incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.

(26 U.S.C. 7805 (68A Stat. 917), 27 U.S.C. 205 (49 Stat. 981 as amended), 18 U.S.C. 926 (82 Stat. 959), and sec. 38, Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778, 90 Stat. 744))



Subpart C-Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

§ 179.21 Forms prescribed.

(a) The Director is authorized to prescribe all forms required by this part. All of the information called for in each form shall be furnished as indicated by the headings on the form and the instructions on or pertaining to the form. In addition, information called for in each form shall be furnished as required by this part. Each form requiring that it be executed under penalties of perjury shall be executed under penalties of perjury.

(b) "Public Use Forms" (ATF Publication 1322.1) is a numerical listing of forms issued or used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. This publication is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

(c) Requests for forms should be mailed to the ATF Distribution Center, P. O. Box 5950, Springfield, Virginia 22150-5950.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a); 80 Stat. 383, as amended)



§ 179.22 Right of entry and examination.

Any ATF officer or employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms duly authorized to perform any function relating to the administration or enforcement of this part may enter during business hours the premises (including places of storage) of any importer or manufacturer of or dealer in firearms, to examine any books, papers, or records required to be kept pursuant to this part, and any firearms kept by such importer, manufacturer or dealer on such premises, and may require the production of any books, papers, or records necessary to determine any liability for tax under 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, or the observance of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and this part.

<36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979>

§ 179.23 Restrictive use of required information.

No information or evidence obtained from an application, registration, or record required to be submitted or retained by a natural person in order to comply with any provision of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, or this part or section 207 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 shall be used, directly or indirectly, as evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the record containing the information or evidence: Provided, however, That the provisions of this section shall not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.

<36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979>

§ 179.24 Destructive device determination.

The Director shall determine in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 5845(f), whether a device is excluded from the definition of a destructive device. A person who desires to obtain a determination under that provision of law for any device which he believes is not likely to be used as a weapon shall submit a written request, in triplicate, for a ruling thereon to the Director. Each such request shall be executed under the penalties of perjury and contain a complete and accurate description of the device, the name and address of the manufacturer or importer thereof, the purpose of and use for which it is intended, and such photographs, diagrams, or drawings as may be necessary to enable the Director to make his determination. The Director may require the submission to him, of a sample of such device for examination and evaluation. If the submission of such device is impracticable, the person requesting the ruling shall so advise the Director and designate the place where the device will be available for examination and evaluation.

<36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979>

§ 179.25 Collector's items.

The Director shall determine in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 5845(a), whether a firearm or device, which although originally designed as a weapon, is by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. A person who desires to obtain a determination under that provision of law shall follow the procedures prescribed in § 179.24 relating to destructive device determinations, and shall include information as to date of manufacture, value, design and other characteristics which would sustain a finding that the firearm or device is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

<36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979>

§ 179.26 Alternate methods or procedures; emergency variations from requirements.

(a) Alternate methods or procedures. Any person subject to the provisions of this part, on specific approval by the Director as provided in this paragraph, may use an alternate method or procedure in lieu of a method or procedure specifically prescribed in this part. The Director may approve an alternate method or procedure, subject to stated conditions, when it is found that:

(1) Good cause is shown for the use of the alternate method or procedure;

(2) The alternate method or procedure is within the purpose of, and consistent with the effect intended by, the specifically prescribed method or procedure and that the alternate method or procedure is substantially equivalent to that specifically prescribed method or procedure; and

(3) The alternate method or procedure will not be contrary to any provision of law and will not result in an increase in cost to the Government or hinder the effective administration of this part. Where such person desires to employ an alternate method or procedure, a written application shall be submitted to the appropriate regional director (compliance), for transmittal to the Director. The application shall specifically describe the proposed alternate method or procedure and shall set forth the reasons for it. Alternate methods or procedures may not be employed until the application is approved by the Director. Such person shall, during the period of authorization of an alternate method or procedure, comply with the terms of the approved application. Authorization of any alternate method or procedure may be withdrawn whenever, in the judgment of the Director, the effective administration of this part is hindered by the continuation of the authorization.

(b) Emergency variations from requirements. The Director may approve a method of operation other than as specified in this part, where it is found that an emergency exists and the proposed variation from the specified requirements are necessary and the proposed variations (1) will not hinder the effective administration of this part; and (2) will not be contrary to any provisions of law. Variations from requirements granted under this paragraph are conditioned on compliance with the procedures, conditions, and limitations set forth in the approval of the application. Failure to comply in good faith with the procedures, conditions, and limitations shall automatically terminate the authority for the variations, and the person granted the variance shall fully comply with the prescribed requirements of regulations from which the variations were authorized. Authority for any variation may be withdrawn whenever, in the judgment of the Director, the effective administration of this part is hindered by the continuation of the variation. Where a person desires to employ an emergency variation, a written application shall be submitted to the appropriate regional director (compliance) for transmittal to the Director. The application shall describe the proposed variation and set forth the reasons for it. Variations may not be employed until the application is approved.

(c) Retention of approved variations. The person granted the variance shall retain and make available for examination by ATF officers any application approved by the Director under this section.



Subpart D-Special (Occupational) Taxes

§ 179.31 Liability for tax.

(a) General. Every person who engages in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in (including pawnbrokers) firearms in the United States shall pay a special (occupational) tax at a rate specified by § 179.32. The tax shall be paid on or before the date of commencing the taxable business, and thereafter every year on or before July 1. Special (occupational) tax shall not be prorated. The tax shall be computed for the entire tax year (July 1 through June 30), regardless of the portion of the year during which the taxpayer engages in business. Persons commencing business at any time after July 1 in any year are liable for the special (occupational) tax for the entire tax year.

(b) Each place of business taxable. An importer, manufacturer, or dealer in firearms incurs special tax liability at each place of business where an occupation subject to special tax is conducted. A place of business means the entire office, plant or area of the business in any one location under the same proprietorship. Passageways, streets, highways, rail crossings, waterways, or partitions dividing the premises are not sufficient separation to require additional special tax, if the divisions of the premises are otherwise contiguous. See also § 179.38-179.39.

(26 U.S.C. 5143, 5801, 5846)



§ 179.32 Special (occupational) tax rates.

(a) Prior to January 1, 1988, the special (occupational) tax rates were as follows:

Per year or fraction thereof

Class 1-Importer of firearms

$500

Class 2-Manufacturer of firearms

$500

Class 3-Dealer in firearms

$200

Class 4-Importer only of weapons classified as "any other weapon"

$25

Class 5-Manufacturer only of weapons classified as "any other weapon"

$25

Class 6-Dealer only in weapons classified as "any other weapon"

$10

(b) Except as provided in § 179.32a, the special (occupational) tax rates effective January 1, 1988, are as follows:

Per year or fraction thereof

Class 1-Importer of firearms (including an importer only of weapons classified as "any other weapon")

$1,000

Class 2-Manufacturer of firearms (including a manufacturer only of weapons classified as "any other weapon")

$1,000

Class 3-Dealer in firearms (including a dealer only of weapons classified as "any other weapon")

$500

(c) A taxpayer who was engaged in a business on January 1, 1988, for which a special (occupational) tax was paid for a taxable period which began before January 1, 1988, and included that date, shall pay an increased special tax for the period January 1, 1988, through June 30, 1988. The increased tax shall not exceed one-half the excess (if any) of (1) the rate of special tax in effect on January 1, 1988, over (2) the rate of such tax in effect on December 31, 1987. The increased special tax shall be paid on or before April 1, 1988.



§ 179.32a Reduced rate of tax for small importers and manufacturers.

(a) General. Effective January 1, 1988, 26 U.S.C. 5801(b) provides for a reduced rate of special tax with respect to any importer or manufacturer whose gross receipts (for the most recent taxable year ending before the first day of the taxable period to which the special tax imposed by §179.32 relates) are less than $500,000. The rate of tax for such an importer or manufacturer is $500 per year or fraction thereof. The "taxable year" to be used for determining gross receipts is the taxpayer's income tax year. All gross receipts of the taxpayer shall be included, not just the gross receipts of the business subject to special tax. Proprietors of new businesses that have not yet begun a taxable year, as well as proprietors of existing businesses that have not yet ended a taxable year, who commence a new activity subject to special tax, quality for the reduced special (occupational) tax rate, unless the business is a member of a "controlled group"; in that case, the rules of paragraph (b) of this section shall apply.

(b) Controlled group. All persons treated as one taxpayer under 26 U.S.C. 5061(e)(3) shall be treated as one taxpayer for the purpose of determining gross receipts under paragraph (a) of this section. "Controlled group" means a controlled group of corporations, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 1563 and implementing regulations in 26 CFR 1.1563 091 through 1.1563 094, except that the words "at least 80 percent" shall be replaced by the words "more than 50 percent" in each place they appear in subsection (a) of 26 U.S.C. 1563, as well as in the implementing regulations. Also, the rules for a "controlled group of corporations" apply in a similar fashion to groups which include partnerships and/or sole proprietorships. If one entity maintains more than 50% control over a group consisting of corporations and one, or more, partnerships and/or sole proprietorships, all of the members of the controlled group are one taxpayer for the purpose of this section.

(c) Short taxable year. Gross receipts for any taxable year of less than 12 months shall be annualized by multiplying the gross receipts for the short period by 12 and dividing the result by the number of months in the short period, as required by 26 U.S.C. 448(c)(3).

(d) Returns and allowances. Gross receipts for any taxable year shall be reduced by returns and allowances made during that year under 26 U.S.C. 448(c)(3).

(26 U.S.C. 448, 5061, 5801)



§ 179.33 Special exemption.

(a) Any person required to pay special (occupational) tax under this part shall be relieved from payment of that tax if he establishes to the satisfaction of the Director that his business is conducted exclusively with, or on behalf of, the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof. The Director may relieve any person manufacturing firearms for or on behalf of the United States from compliance with any provision of this part in the conduct of the business with respect to such firearms.

(b) The exemption in this section may be obtained by filing with the Director an application, in letter form, setting out the manner in which the applicant conducts his business, the type of firearm to be manufactured, and proof satisfactory to the Director of the existence of the contract with the United States, department, independent establishment, or agency thereof, under which the applicant intends to operate.

§ 179.34 Special tax registration and return.

(a) General. Special tax shall be paid by return. The prescribed return is ATF Form 5630.5, Special Tax Registration and Return. Special tax returns, with payment of tax, shall be filed with ATF in accordance with instructions on the form. Properly completing, signing, and timely filing of a return (Form 5630.5) constitutes compliance with 26 U.S.C. 5802.

(b) Preparation of ATF Form 5630.5. All of the information called for on Form 5630.5 shall be provided, including:

(1) The true name of the taxpayer.

(2) The trade name(s) (if any) of the business(es) subject to special tax.

(3) The employer identification number (see § 179.35).

(4) The exact location of the place of business, by name and number of building or street, or if these do not exist, by some description in addition to the post office address. In the case of one return for two or more locations, the address to be shown shall be the taxpayer's principal place of business (or principal office, in the case of a corporate taxpayer).

(5) The class(es) of special tax to which the taxpayer is subject.

(6) Ownership and control information: That is, the name, position, and residence address of every owner of the business and of every person having power to control its management and policies with respect to the activity subject to special tax. "Owner of the business" shall include every partner, if the taxpayer is a partnership, and every person owning 10% or more of its stock, if the taxpayer is a corporation. However, the ownership and control information required by this paragraph need not be stated if the same information has been previously provided to ATF in connection with a license application under Part 178 of this chapter, and if the information previously provided is still current.

(c) Multiple locations and/or classes of tax. A taxpayer subject to special tax for the same period at more than one location or for more than one class of tax shall --

(1) File one special tax return, ATF Form 5630.5, with payment of tax, to cover all such locations and classes of tax; and

(2) Prepare, in duplicate, a list identified with the taxpayer's name, address (as shown on ATF Form 5630.5), employer identification number, and period covered by the return. The list shall show, by States, the name, address, and tax class of each location for which special tax is being paid. The original of the list shall be filed with ATF in accordance with instructions on the return, and the copy shall be retained at the taxpayer's principal place of business (or principal office, in the case of a corporate taxpayer) for not less than 3 years.

(d) Signing of ATF Forms 5630.5 -- (1) Ordinary returns. The return of an individual proprietor shall be signed by the individual. The return of a partnership shall be signed by a general partner. The return of a corporation shall be signed by any officer. In each case, the person signing the return shall designate his or her capacity as "individual owner," "member of firm," or, in the case of a corporation, the title of the officer.

(2) Fiduciaries. Receivers, trustees, assignees, executors, administrators, and other legal representatives who continue the business of a bankrupt, insolvent, deceased person, etc., shall indicate the fiduciary capacity in which they act.

(3) Agent or attorney in fact. If a return is signed by an agent or attorney in fact, the signature shall be preceded by the name of the principal and followed by the title of the agent or attorney in fact. A return signed by a person as agent will not be accepted unless there is filed, with the ATF office with which the return is required to be filed, a power of attorney authorizing the agent to perform the act.

(4) Perjury statement. ATF Forms 5630.5 shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that the return has been executed under the penalties of perjury.

(e) Identification of taxpayer. If the taxpayer is an individual, with the initial return such person shall securely attach to Form 5630.7 a photograph of the individual 2 x 2 inches in size, clearly showing a full f
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #154
156. semi-automatic
probably was the more appropriate word choice. I appreciate your efforts to inform me, I really do. But you will never convince me that gun control is adequate. I see far to many murders committed with guns on the news. When so many children are getting their hands on guns, we have a very serious problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #156
164. The problems
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 07:34 PM by davepc
are lack of education, poverty, limited opportunity, erosion of hope, drug prohibition, government inefficiency, and culture that promotes violence for violence sake.

Gun violence is a symptom of a eroded and diseased social structure and system. You can wave a magic wand and make every gun disappear and the situation would remain unchanged.

We wont have a reduction of violence in this country until we attack the core reasons for it to exist. Which is people trapped in a society where they cant break out of a cycle of dependence and poverty.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #164
165. what if there were particular requirements for parents in purchasing guns
that they would have to undergo training and be legally required to keep weapons out of the hands of children? The NRA has consistently opposed mandatory training for gun owners. The problem is they oppose everything reasonable, and thus make some of us who oppose guns give up on compromise, since the NRA allows none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #165
176. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the NRA.
As many of us have said in this thread, the NRA is controlled by right-wing interests and most of the gun owners here (myself included) choose not to be affiliated with that organization.

In fact, I am personally not opposed to state-issued licenses to buy guns that include compulsory safety training and criminal/mental background checks. Not gun registration, mind you...but shall-issue (meaning if you want one and you're qualified, you get one) licenses seems like a good idea to me.

But unfortunately, the gun argument generally devolves into "ban them all" vs. "a gun in every classroom." There are subtle shades of gray between those two poles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #176
179. why not registration?
What could it hurt? I bring up the NRA because it's the country's most prominent and effective gun lobby. They wield a tremendous amount of power. While a few members here seem more moderate than the NRA, many do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #179
180. I say no registration because it makes confiscation too easy.
A master list of who owns what would make an oppressive tyrant's job a little too easy.

Put it to you this way: I don't want John Ashcroft types to have easy access to a detailed inventory of what I own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #180
181. good lord
let's not be paranoid. They don't want to take your guns away. Corporations make far too much money from them. Ashcroft refused to use the patriot act to monitor gun sales. He was too busy
monitoring libraries and bookstores. Face facts: corporate America is in your corner on this one. They'll put every single one of us pernicious book readers in jail before they consider confiscating a single gun. There is nothing radical about owning guns. Do you actually think we have a government that gives a fuck about how many people are murdered every day? They've got prison profits to maintain for heaven sakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #181
184. I beg to differ
"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 them all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't there." - Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Feb. 5, 1995, 60 Minutes interview

Seems there are people in the federal government who want to take guns away. I don't know whats being paranoid about taking people at face value on their statements.

I generally have no problems with the esteemed Senator from California, until it comes to the subject of firearm rights, and there we have to agree to disagree.

I don't trust the government with enumerated lists of my possessions. If we register all firearms with the feds then why not give the government a sample of our DNA while were at it? That way when a crime is committed they have a list to cross-check against, might go a long ways to helping fight crime...the government having everyones genetic makeup on file. I mean, its all for the common good right?

As a party, we can not pick and choose what parts of the Bill of Rights we support. It's an all or nothing proposition.

We wonder why we lose rural voters. We tell them we don't trust them enough to posses certain firearms, then get all enraged when they don't trust us to enact social policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #184
218. of course there are one or two reasonable politicians in America
but most are soulless money grubbing pigs. You're safe. Paul Wellstone was probably up there with her, and Barbara Boxer too. Some of those crazy Democrats even want universal health care and environmental conservation, if you can believe that! Talk about heresy. But as long as the Bill Frists, Tom Delays, and Antonin Scalias and Clinton groupies rule Washington, you're on easy street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sierrajim Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
141. Semi-automatic and full auto guns ARE useful
in a self defense situation if they weren't why would the military use them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #141
148. plan on invading a foreign country soon?
Join up. The military can use you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sierrajim Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #148
225. No I'm not planning on invading anyone
And no the military doesn't want me either way to old and disabled. But on to what you said "Basically my view is if the thing isn't appropriately used for hunting or self defense, why should anyone have it?" What I originally posted still stands both semi and full auto firearms ARE useful for self defense and according to "your view" that would be ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #39
84. One definition was in the 1994 law
Common characteristics of assault weapons include the ability to hold a large capacity ammunition magazine, folding stock, pistol grip, barrel shroud and flash suppressor.

• The ability to hold a large capacity ammunition magazine “clip” enables the shooter to continuously fire many rounds without reloading.
• A folding stock makes the weapon easier to conceal and more mobile. The mobility and concealibility of the feature allows the shooter to move the weapon without it being detected, thereby leaving innocent bystanders unaware of the danger around them.
• A pistol grip makes it easier to shoot from the hip and allows the shooter to stabilize the weapon during rapid fire.
• A barrel shroud cools the barrel of the gun allowing the shooter to hold the barrel while shooting. Holding the gun in this position allows the shooter to spray fire.
• A flash suppressor enables the shooter to remain concealed at night by diminishing the flash that illuminates when the gun is fired.

Weapons that were banned from private ownership included the following:
INTRATEC TEC- 9, TEC DC-9, TEC 22
AK-47/NORINCO, MITCHELL, AND POLY TECH AK’S
STREETSWEEPER, STRIKER-12 AND OTHER REVOLVING CYLINDER SHOTGUNS
GALIL
BERETTA AR 70
COLT AR-15
FN/FAL, FN/LAR
FNC
STEYR AUG
SWD M-10, M11, M-11/9, M-12

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #84
178. Some fact, some fiction.
The bullet points about magazines and folding stocks are mostly accurate, although you (i.e., the site you copy-n-pasted from) didn't differentiate between telescopic and folding stocks. Telescopic stocks are adjustable in length to make shooting more comfortable for different sized shooters. Folding stocks are indeed for making a rifle more compact.

Pistol grips are not designed to assist in "hip shooting" or "spray firing". They are a necessity on rifle designs in which the stock is not the grip area.

Barrel shrouds do not cool the barrel, that is simply a false statement. Much like pistol grips, they are a necessary safety feature of many rifle designs. You can't put your bare hand on the barrel of any firearm without burning yourself. Assault weapons are not a special exception.

Flash suppressors are designed to direct the expanding gases away from the shooter's field of vision. The claim that this feature makes the shooter invisible at night is simply false.

As for your list of banned weapons, the AWB banned those model names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #35
52. Head to the gungeon and you'll get the answers to your questions


Just a quick note....

What you might call a guerrilla army is close to what the 2nd amendment regarded as a well-regulated militia in the case of a tyrannical state.

The 60 minute piece was hyperbolic.

Gundealers (Federal Firearm License holders) at gunshows have to do background checks. This is no gun show loophole for FFL holders

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #52
74. gun show or store
the weapons people can buy are horrifying. This is a world gone mad.

I'd think you'd love Bush and Ashcroft. They are one with you on such issues, are they not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #74
80. The weapons people can buy today...
are actually a whole lot less "horrifying" than those you could purchase in a dime store in 1925.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #80
87. Fortunately, we've made Some Progress in 80 years.
Silly argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #80
140. even if you're right, that doesn't make me feel any better
Instruments of murder still kill, regardless of what you call them. Frankly, however, I do not believe you at all. Technology has advanced tremendously since 1925, and the machinery of death is enormously profit making. Profit trumps life in American politics. Nothing demonstrates that better than the power of the gun lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #74
95. Actually Bush said
that he would sign any bill re-authorizing the Federal AWB if it reached his desk. He was very consistent on saying that. He never once came out against it.

So people who feel the ban are a good idea are actually on his stated and re-affirmed side on this issue, not those of us who were against the AWB.

http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/03Releases/r-assaultwepsprez.htm

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.

In an article published this weekend, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. You're assuming he's not being disingenuous with his 'support'
If he knows the current Congress has no intention of renewing it, it's a safe position for him to take.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #95
139. but surely you know that was bullshit
He mouthed the words but did nothing to advance the bill. Not that the ban was worth much as written anyway. It was deliberately written in accordance with the wishes of the gun corporations and the NRA. Gun store owners said it was essentially worthless, since it offered no serious prohibitions on automatic rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #139
151. *sigh*
Of course the 1994 AWB offered no prohibitions on automatic rifles, because AUTOMATIC RIFLES, THEIR SALE AND DISTRIBUTION ARE ALL STRICTLY REGULATED BY THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT OF 1934.

Thats SEVENTY ONE YEARS we had the laws on the books, and after the passage of the the bill the Treasury Department has been in charge of enforcing it. In 1972 a specific department within the treasury -- the Bereau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- has been the federal enforcement arm of the 1934 law, and every other Federal Firearms law in the United States. That includes, but is not necessarily limited to:

The 1934 National Firearms Act
The 1938 Federal Firearms Act
The 1968 Gun Control Act
The 1970 Organized Crime Control Act
The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act
The 1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
The 1990 Crime Control Act
The 1993 Brady Act
The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
The 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban


There has been extreamly strict federal regulation of military arms in this country for 71 years.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. and semi-automatic weapons?
or anti-air craft weapons like the 50 caliber rifle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. If you want to ensure no Democrat holds national office ever again
in the united states, push for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

And despite Brady Campaign propaganda, the Barret .50 is not an "anti-aircraft" weapon.

The bolt action .22 rifle I have in my closet can penetrate the aluminum skin of an jet airliner with as much ease as the Barret .50.

Skeet shooting an airplane moving 400+ mph with a 30lb bolt action rifle is neigh impossible.

Every Anti-aircraft gun in the world, going back to World War I has been some type of a machine gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #155
159. Democrats have given that up ages ago
I'm not talking about a Democratic party platform. Politicians lack the courage of conviction or independence to defy corporate interests. My views are based on my sense of human decency, what's essential in a civilized nation. Obviously one has nothing to do with the other. There is no question that the gun lobby wins. They always do. Profit is far more important than human life in American politics. No issue demonstrates that better than guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #155
161. BTW, if you can shoot that airliner down from the ground
they need to take that thing away from you ASAP. Because if you can do it, so can Bin Laden's buddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #161
166. yeah sure
and I have a penis too, so I can rape a girl if I wanted. I guess the government should take that away from me too, before I go out and do it right?

I live along a major flight path in North Jersey. I don't worry about anybody shooting down airplanes with rifles, because it would take an act of god (or a machine gun) to do it.

I'm much more worried about somebody with one of these:

Thats a REAL threat to air traffic in this nation, not some gun that the Brady Campaign uses as a Boogieman to scare people who don't know any better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #166
167. hmm, there's an idea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnutchuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #166
197. HaHaHa Some might argue in favor of that suggestion! LOL nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Ruffian Donating Member (672 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-05 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #161
229. Have you been paying attention?
The anti-aircraft weapons are fully automatic, and even they aren't that effective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
86. Evidence
Yes. In 1999, a study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) found that gun trace requests for assault weapons declined 20% in the year after the ban went into effect.

We don't need a "bloodbath" to know that certain weapons aren't needed by civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. What a huge jump from a category of firearms used in only 2% of crimes
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 01:27 PM by davepc
prior to the ban. (according to the NIJ)

What a huge dent in gun crime!

And lets not overlook the overall drop in ALL crime over the same period.

So what was it, the drop in ALL crime since 1994 or the AWB bill alone?

or did the AWB cause a reduction in all crime by itself?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #86
125. That factoid is pretty far from showing a positive effect on public safety
Trace requests are not necessarily related to use of guns in violent crimes. The trace request figures include requests to determine the rightful owner of firearms recovered from criminals who possessed them illegally.

We don't need a "bloodbath" to know that certain weapons aren't needed by civilians.

What criteria would you use to determine what is and is not appropriate for a civilian to own? Need has nothing to do with ownership of anything except for prescription medications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #125
137. I'm not looking to restrict all kinds of things, so I'm not going to get
drawn into a discussion of blanket bans on ownership of this and that.

As I said earlier, I own a gun; I'm not a rabid anti-gun person. I just happen to think that there have to be lines drawn somewhere, and while there are some who would think that even handguns shouldn't be in the hands of civilians, I think the line gets drawn at the level of personal protection and hunting. You don't need assault weapons for either of these.










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #137
160. I might agree with you
It depends on precisely what you mean by "assault weapons".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #32
108. Nothing showed how effective it was
better than the scummy actions of the gun lobby itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. The AWB is a poison pill for Democrats
I respect Wesley Clark, but I cannot agree with his assertion. If I want an assault weapon, I'm supposed to forget about being a civilian? No, thanks. It is the civilian who gives the soldier his power and authority, not the other way around.

Also, I briefly owned a TEC-DC9 about 10 years ago. Nobody suffered or died as a result of my owning that gun. Looking back, however, had I known then what I know now, I probably would have chosen a different gun that was better constructed. But mere ownership of such a gun does not endanger the community.

Also, the AWB virtually guaranteed that Democrats would not make any headway in the Southern states - which we desperately needed in 2000 and 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #37
45. so who do you plan on slaughtering with that assault weapon?
and if you don't plan on killing people, why have them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
54. Sometimes your best de-fense is a good o-ffense
Dictators generally prefer unarmed peasants - they're so much more pliable and easier to control.

And yes, I've seen Bowling for Columbine. Wonderful movie. Everyone should see it. But it still doesn't address some of the fundamental flaws of the AWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #54
61. I'll be honest here
I fear people with assault weapons far more than the government. Your argument depends on an intent of violating the law, of using force to overturn elected representative government. I know the West of the country is full of people who believe as you do, militia movements, white supremacists, etc.... I don't like any of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #61
72. I would wager that I hate them more than you do
White supremacists and militiamen like the ones you speak of generally have no regard for our laws and regulations - they want to put their own "laws" in place (The Order, Bo Gritz, etc.) I'd rather not be caught unarmed if they come calling on me.

And our unfortunately high murder rates demonstrate that we can't always rely on cops to protect us from these folks, so a little self-reliance is badly needed here.

I'm not trying to turn all Republican on you - but I do have some strong opinions about the right of the individual to determine his own destiny. It's something I learned partially from pro-choice activists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. I realize you do
as do a very large number of DU members. That's in fact what prompted me to post this poll. I made a passing reference to the fact I dare not mention gun control since that was unacceptable on DU, and some gun control advocates told me they had never encountered such views. I posted this thread to see if my point bore out. Clearly it does.

I had actually hoped I could avoid getting into it with gun owners, but that I didn't is clearly my own doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. One thing I learned in the whole debate...
...is that a lot of gun owners are, unfortunately, very stupid or very careless or both. I think this accounts for some of the gun crimes we see committed today.

I think we need gun-control laws aimed at making gun owners in America more responsible, more conscious of their own actions, and less likely to react in anger or blind rage. I'm actually in favor of some sort of instant background check or even a waiting period for buying handguns as well as assault weapons. I would even support mandating a firearms training/safety class like the one we need in Texas for a concealed handgun license - if you want an Uzi, for example, you need to know what it feels like to hold one in your hand, what it feels like to fire it, and what those bullets are capable of doing. I can't really support a system where you walk in, pay cash for an Uzi, sign a Federal form, and walk out five minutes later with said assault weapon without even knowing what it's like to own such a firearm. In that respect, I support gun-control initiatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #83
143. I'm glad to hear that
even those modest proposals are no longer permitted in today's political discourse. I just wonder how many schools have to become killing fields before people will start to consider some modest restraints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #83
150. How much is "a lot"
If you are correct we would have millions upon millions of gun deaths every year considering we have what 80 million gun owners?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #76
88. And of course, some gun owners agree with you.
We're not all AW supporters or NRA members.

Some of us own just one gun, or a small collection of guns used in hunting. (I myself am not a hunter; I belong to the former category.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #88
142. It's the uncompromising position of the gun lobby that infuriates me
My problem is not that people hunt. Hunting is a great sport and a fine way to obtain hormone free meat. I'm not thrilled with handguns, but I recognize that some people feel a need to have them around (though hell will freeze over before I allow one in my own house). What bothers me is the adamant refusal by the NRA to allow ANY reasonable gun control. That view is represented in countless posts on this very thread. That reactionary point of view prompts a strong reaction on my part: If they refuse to permit any reasonable gun regulation, why should I compromise my principles to support their right to own guns at all? I must say it's one issue that makes me furious, precisely because the other side is so completely uncompromising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #142
158. I hear ya'
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 07:14 PM by mcscajun
I don't feel the gun lobby speaks for me; that's why I spend some time supporting www.StoptheNRA.com even though I am a gun owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #76
97. I was one of those; I'm surprised at the results of this poll but not
extremely so.

"I made a passing reference to the fact I dare not mention gun control since that was unacceptable on DU, and some gun control advocates told me they had never encountered such views."

I have been fascinated by many of the posts; historical (Federalists papers, civil war, Prussian vs Swiss militia, etc) and some of the factual information about guns (although I must confess the later mainly puts me into deep sleep). Given the close almost tie vote here, I must conclude that I was mistaken to think that all DUers would automatically support gun control. Either those who responded were so passionate about the subject that they disproportionately chose to vote (which I strongly suspect), or these are accurate results representative of DU's opinion as a whole, and must be given more consideration.

This has been a very good and informative post. I'd like to keep it kicked. IMHO it is a very important subject. I'm nominating for front page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. Angry assumptions and accusations certainly won't get your cause very far.
Just ask the VPC or Brady Bunch.

But then again, you admitted that you have no "expertise" on this matter, so I guess you get a pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #55
59. you haven't answered my question
why do you need a gun like that? Why does anyone? What possible law abiding purpose can there be for such weapons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. I thought I just did
Putting these guns in the hands of the citizenry keeps the politician at bay. Since, in our democratic system, the politician derives his or her powers and rights from those he or she governs, there's no reason to deny the citizenry their own version of "checks and balances" against the government they have collectively put in power. And if ownership of AR-15s and AK-47s helps reinforce those checks and balances, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. yes, you did
Orlando didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
69. I had no idea that you had to demonstrate need in order to own property.
I'll have to review the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. this is not simple property
these are weapons capable of mass slaughter. Does the Constitution also allow you to own nuclear weapons? Is that covered under the second amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #71
77. Apples and oranges
A nuclear weapon can wipe out an entire city, poison the soil, and doom an entire generation - just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Chemical, biological, and radiological weapons also cause widespread, indiscriminate damage - once released, they cannot be controlled. They will kill anyone, even the ones who unleashed them.

But a gun is a gun is a gun is a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #71
82. Do you really want to ban everything "capable" of mass slaughter?
That's a pretty huge list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #82
146. do you see some virtue in having those weapons widely accessible?
Apparently the NRA does, because they create huge profits for corporations that make profit from death. I'd like to see them start to be held civilly liable for the murders they facilitate.
Actually, they belong in prison, but that will never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #71
127. Nuclear weapons are regulated as destructive devices
The federal government regulates everything from nukes down to machine guns and hand grenades under its power granted by the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.

Weapons that are appropriate for military use are regulated. You have to draw the line somewhere. I think the line is drawn correctly now.

Where would you draw the line?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #127
144. in a perfect world
I would draw the line at hunting rifles. I know this is not a remote possibility under the American political system, but my personal desire would be no gun ownership other than rifles appropriate for hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #144
157. I see where you are coming from, but firearms are a technical subject
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 07:17 PM by slackmaster
To make a gun law that does what you ask, it's necessary IMO to come up with a concise technical description of what is prohibited and why. A lot of the so-called "assault weapons" that were covered by the now-expired federal ban were very useful in hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #157
163. yes, you're correct
in writing legislation that is important. But on a personal sense, I know I hate guns, period. I'd prefer we had a system that allowed them to be taken off the streets entirely. I understand, however, that the Second Amendment doesn't permit that, at least as has been interpreted by courts thus far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #163
186. The Second Amendment has little to do with anything
Here is the core dilemma for people who would impose strict gun control in the USA:

The states have the power to regulate private ownership of firearms; the federal government's power is limited to regulation of interstate commerce in them. That power has been stretched almost beyond recognition through the National Firearms Act of 1934, but at the end of the day the federal government has no power to:

- Require any kind of "needs test" for firearm ownership, or

- Establish a national gun registry for ordinary firearms (meaning those not covered under the National Firearms Act), or

- Regulate occasional private intrastate sales of used personal firearms.

Because we have open borders between the states, it serves little purpose for one state to say its citizens can't have a particular type of weapon when the same weapon is available in another state.

But on a personal sense, I know I hate guns, period.

I respect your right not to own guns, and your right not to allow them on your property. If you will simply respect my right to own and to lawfully use them, you and I have no conflict.

I'd prefer we had a system that allowed them to be taken off the streets entirely. I understand, however, that the Second Amendment doesn't permit that, at least as has been interpreted by courts thus far.

Actually the issue is federal government's lack of power to regulate ownership of private, personal property. No state has ever given much consideration to a real ban on firearms. The broader the scope of any proposed gun ban, the more people you piss off.

BTW - Today I just received my type 03 Federal Firearms License, which allows me to buy curio or relic firearms interstate. I can sell them within the state for the purpose of enhancing or disposing of my collection.

The state of California won't let me buy or sell handguns through that privilege, but it will save me a lot of money buying the kinds of firearms I'm most interested in. No more California sales tax, no more dealer markup, no more background check fee for every single purchase I make for my collection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #186
219. I have no problem with your owning guns, as long as you or your children
don't kill people with them. THAT is the problem. Obviously it's not working out very well at the moment. All these school massacres make that plain. It doesn't bother me if people collect stamps or tellytubbies, cause those hobbies don't threatened my life and those of my neighbors.

Hasn't the second amendment been interpreted as protecting Americans rights to own guns? If that's not the case, I'm greatly hearted. Perhaps there is some hope to end the genocide of young African American men in this country (to name just one of the many evils resulting from gun proliferation).

Why is is that you feel compelled to play with and collect machinery of death? I will never in a million years figure out what motivates this sort of thing. There is obviously a fascination with violence you and other gun owners have that I find tremendously disturbing. I understand the law protects your right to do so, but what I don't understand is why any one would be obsessed with such things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
42. Which of these two guns should be banned, and why?


or





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. The one on top has pretty wood, so I bet it's safer.
The black one looks so angry and mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Hint: they're both semi-automatic... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. ssssssshhhhhh
And they both fire the exact same round from the exact same magazine!

Except only one is illegal under the California State AWB (which the federal ban was based on)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #42
56. The one on the bottom has a pistol grip!!!
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 11:30 AM by IMModerate
And OMG, it's got a muzzle flash suppressor, and an external magazine!!! In the hands of a determined killer, this could be dangerous.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. Doesn't the flash supressor make the shooter invisible?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #58
70. Not at all
The purpose of a flash suppressor is to direct the luminous gas out of the shooter's line of sight. This reduces the extent to which the shooter's ability to aim the weapon is hampered by the muzzle flash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #70
90. And the secondary effect of Flash Suppression?
A flash suppressor enables the shooter to remain concealed at night by diminishing the flash that illuminates when the gun is fired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Where did you come up with that bit of fiction?
I got another one for you, George Bush is a progressive Democrat!

A suppressor doesn't diminish the flash, it merly directs it AWAY from the shooters line of sight. Instead of a flame of burning gas erupting from the barrel up wards it gets directed to the sides and bottom of the barrel. It does absolutely nothing to make a shooter "harder" to detect at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #92
107. Sounds like you own one of these.
Happy hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. Actually I don't
And I've never hunted a thing in my life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #90
119. No, the flash is not diminished at all
Total luminosity remains the same to a distant viewer. The brief bright flames are redirected usually into a star-shaped pattern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
89. As I can't recognize them by pictures alone, check the following list
Are both of these guns on the list?

If they are, then the answer is Both should be banned.

INTRATEC TEC- 9, TEC DC-9, TEC 22
AK-47/NORINCO, MITCHELL, AND POLY TECH AK’S
STREETSWEEPER, STRIKER-12 AND OTHER REVOLVING CYLINDER SHOTGUNS
GALIL
BERETTA AR 70
COLT AR-15
FN/FAL, FN/LAR
FNC
STEYR AUG
SWD M-10, M11, M-11/9, M-12

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #89
94. I can recognize both of them by sight
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 01:49 PM by davepc
One is banned under the California AWB, and one is not.

However both shoot the SAME .223 round from the SAME magazine (AR-15) and have the SAME rate of fire (semi-automatic).

Yet one is a murder weapon in waiting, and one is a perfectly acceptable civilian firearm.

edit: fixed typo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #94
99. I think you meant "Sight"
But whatever...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #89
110. Perhaps the lamest argument in the gun nut "arsenal"
Unless you're the sort of whackjob who beats his meat over gun porn, you are not qualified to say crazies and criminasls oughtn't get sold military style weapons.

By that "logic"or whatever it is, unless you can diagonse tumors, you're not qualified to try to support a cure for cancer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #110
114. LOL. I've never seen a post of yours that didn't mention dicks.
I think you have an obsession.

It's not a style unless someone thinks it's ugly.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. I've never seen a post from the trigger-happy
that was honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #116
138. And I've never seen an anti-freedom,
pro-"control" person admit or concede that their standard bearer is a REPUBLICAN.



So let me ask this, since I never seem to get an answer from the pro-control crowd. Jack Brooks or Henry Hyde- who do you want on your team? I'd really love to see an answer to that question, since I think it would be quite illuminating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #138
191. Hahahahahaha...that IS rich.
Edited on Sun Mar-27-05 08:09 AM by MrBenchley
"Jack Brooks or Henry Hyde- who do you want on your team?"
I've never heard of Jack Brooks...but Henry Hyde is a corrupt piece of shit...who is pro-gun.

http://www.issues2000.org/IL/Henry_Hyde_Gun_Control.htm

It's hilarious to hear gun nuts try to pretend that the position pimped by luminaries like Grover Norquist, David Duke and John AshKKKroft is "pro-freedom."

And yeah, Sarah Brady is nominally a Republican....but in the last two electoral cycles every penny her group handed out went to Democrats. And LIBERAL Democrats at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retired AF Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #116
153. oh
cry me a river. Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #153
193. Gee, in my experience
it's usually the trigger-happy who are wailing like banshees over some imagined threat to their phallic toys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. You talkin' to me?
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 02:21 PM by mcscajun
I'm not the one using the 'you gotta be an expert on guns' to say what shouldn't be sold.

Nor am I a 'gun nut' -- that title belongs to others here.

I don't have a dick, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. I was agreeing with you...
the bills are clearly written...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #118
123. Thanks for the clarification
I was clearly confused. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #123
132. No problem
There's nothing in the "gun rights" bundle of tricks that isn't a flat-out lie in every way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #29
68. General Clark was full of shit
The "assault weapons" ban covered semiautomatic copies of real military weapons. No military force in the world issues semiautomatic firearms to its troops.

This is a classic example of misunderstanding of the issue due to deliberate blurring of the distinction between semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms. The latter have been strictly regulated since 1934.

The AWB did not actually ban real AK-47s. It didn't even ban all semiautomatic copies of that design. Those were available during the ban.

Expiration of the ban has not made the public any less safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #68
111. Wow, a trigger happy gun nut attacking a Democrat...
Who'd have guessed THAT.

"Expiration of the ban has not made the public any less safe."
Since the public isn't safe to begin with...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous44 Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #111
169. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #29
206. Heinrich Himmler said the same thing..
during the 1930's. He said if any German wanted to keep guns, they should join the SS or SA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #206
209. All guns vs. some guns.
Himmler has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. Or with Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #209
221. Same context, no philosophical difference...
Gen. Clark's interpretation of "assault rifle" is based upon cosmetic features discussed ad infinitum through this thread. To say "if you like gun "X", join the military but you can't have one at home" is the same perspective espoused by Himmler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #221
226. As my previous post would indicate, I'm reserving the right
to respectfully disagree with your view on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Billy Ruffian Donating Member (672 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-05 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
228. Do you understand what weapons were banned?
The AWB banned certain firearms based upon cosmetic features only.

Just as one example, the Colt AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle that LOOKS like the military M-16, was banned.

The Ruger Mini-14, also a semi-automatic rifle, that uses EXACTLY the same ammuntion, was not banned, because it is not scary looking.

Fully automatic weapons have been very strictly regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Tec-9 submachine guns, and AK-47s are fully automatic weapons, and are NOT covered under the AWB.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
63. Honestly, I wish they'd roll back a few of the defacto gun bans

like the 1989 Bush the Elder ban on importing some semi-automatic rifles and the Reagan 1986 ban on manufacturing or importing new machine guns.

These laws don't make it illegal to own the rifles if they were made prior to the enactment of the laws which in effect limits the supply, raises the prices, and now only the rich can afford to have these weapons. Not very progressive if you ask me.

Repealing the 1986 would still keep machine guns heavily regulated by 1934 laws (registered, taxed, Law-enforcment signs off on the purchase, etc).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
81. Even The Gun Control We Have Now...
Isn't being enforced and I would love to see even that!! But I also think it needs to be controlled even more!

When my son was very young I never even let him have the usual "cowboy" outfits, you know gun & holster! And we lived in Tex-ASS at the time. And no, he didn't run into any problems from others, and he didn't turn out to be Gay! Not that I have a problem with Gay's, it just that I have always had a problem with GUNS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
96. My father has a gun, in case our house is robbed or something
But I can tell you, he's only brought it out once and as far as I can remember it's never been fired (for force). The one time it was brought out, was when the house alarm system went off at 1am.

I think we should enforce the laws we have now, not make new ones.

I've personally thought about getting a Concealed Hand Gun License. I'm a single 24 year old woman, and when I've lived by myself, though mostly in "safe" areas, I've always thought that I was an easy target (eventhough I do lock my doors, etc).

As far as my knowledge on the AWB, aren't most weapons that people, in general, think it covered (like AK 47) were already covered under another ban? And wasn't the AWB mostly based on the "look" not really the capability?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. Not based on the looks, but the capabilities
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Thanks
You know I read that, and it was in the eyes, not in the brain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #101
199. Please also read OrlandoGator's rebuttal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #96
124. You're right!
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 03:26 PM by davepc
Almost every firearm people *think* was covered by the 1994 AWB-- that is military rifles capable of fully automatic fire -- have in fact been highly regulated in this country since 1934. Manufacture and importation of new ones has been shut off since the mid 1980's.

The AWB banned guns that looked scary, not guns that were more capable of killing people by the busload more easily then any other weapon.

Let’s sort through the Brady Center and Violence Policy people’s propaganda and talk about what those "features" are and what they actually do.

* Folding or telescopic stock
* Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
* Grenade launcher

Let’s start at the bottom.

Grenade Launcher

What their referring to as "grenade launchers" are not devices such as this one:

Those devices are already highly regulated by the ATF, and have NEVER been allowable for civilians to possess in these United States. More so, the grenades themselves, and the materials used to make them are also highly regulated by the ATF as "explosive devices". So even if you managed to acquire a M203 (breaking one federal law), you'd still to acquire grenades (breaking another federal law).

The Grenade launchers regulated by the AWB are like the ones shown in this photo:



As you can see the "launcher" is a simple device that screws onto the top of the barrel.

Now some old military rifles (from the 1950's and earlier) come with these devices built on to them. But since the grenades themselves are illegal to own (and in most cases impossible to get), this "feature" on the list is merely a prohibition against older, obsolete, semi-automatic military rifles.

This also leads to some confusion about Rifle Propelled Grenade launchers (RPGs) which are common weapons used by the insurgents in Iraq. RPG's look like this:

And are unable to shoot bullets. Needless to say, RPGs are not legal to own in the United States.

Flash suppressor or threaded barrel

Everyone thinks they know what a flash suppressor is, and what it does, except most of them are wrong.

The suppressor does not make the burning gasses that escape from the end of the barrel of a rifle when you fire it disappear. It diverts the flash away from the line of sight of the person shooting the rifle. This allows people to shoot in low light conditions without having the flash from the rifle block the view of what they are shooting at. It DOES NOT make the rifle flash suddenly invisible to people observing it being fired.

Threaded barrels allow things like grenade launchers to be attached to the rifle. Threaded barrels can also be used to attach sound suppressors to guns. Sound suppressors are highly regulated by the ATF, and have been since the National Firearms act of 1934. Unlike what you see in Hollywood, these suppressors do not make the sound of a rifle firing inaudible. The "crack" of a rifle is caused by the bullet breaking the sound barrier, a mini sonic boom if you will. The only way to make a rifle "Hollywood" quit is to use sub-sonic ammunition. Physics being what they are, subsonic ammunition doesn’t travel as fast, and has less energy behind it, so it’s a poor choice if you’re planning on going on a murder spree.

Bayonet mount

This is a simple metal lug on military rifles that allows a knife to be attached to the end of it.



This is a very common thing on old military rifles from the flintlocks used by the American Revolutionaries up to the M4 Carbines used by US soldiers in Iraq.

It does not make the rifle shoot any more bullets any faster with any more power. It just lets you stick a knife on the end of it.

A rifle without any bullets and just a knife stuck on the end of the barrel is nothing more then a heavy stick with a knife. Modern “assault rifles” are very bad bayonete platforms because of their reality light weight and short barrel length. If you’re going to go on a crime spree using a bayonete I’d recommend a Civil War musket, as its heavy wood and steel construction, weight, and long barrel length makes it much more useful as a knife/club combo.

Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock

Pistol grips don’t make rifles any easier to aim. They’re used because the stock is in line with the bore instead of being underneath it. When construction of firearms switched over from wood to metal and plastics, it was no longer necessary to set off the grip under the barrel on the stock, because instead of one long piece of wood, modular metal construction was used.

“Spray Fire” is an invented term used by anti-gun propagandists, and having a pistol grip on a rifle does not make it any easier to aim then any other rifle, semi-automatic or full automatic. The only thing that makes firearms easier to aim is training and practice.

Folding or telescopic stock




This is a telescopic stock. It gets longer or shorter if you pull or push on it. What this does is let shooters of different sizes/arm lengths comfort hold the rifle to their shoulder. It also does make the rifle take up a few less inches of space. An AR-15 is about 34”. Telescopic stocks allow you change that overall length by a few inches either way. It certainly does not make the rifle magically more concealable. The only way to seriously shorten the length to go on a trench coat murder spree is to cut the barrel down. (Which is illegal to do, under the 1934 National Firearms Act).

Folding stocks are a bit different.




This is a folding stock.

Folding stocks were originally created by the military for their parachute infantry. It was easier to carry a rifle when you jumped out of an airplane if you could fold the stock back a little. They do make rifles more transportable, and I guess more concealable as well, but they have the unfortunate disadvantage of being pretty flimsily. A filmy stock that wiggles and flexes as the rifle is being fired make it difficult to aim. Also, some folding stocks, like the one pictured here make it impossible to pull the trigger on the rifle (it gets in the way, you see).

What you gain in conceal ability, you give up in accuracy. With AWB rifles, mass murders don’t get to choose, they get the more stable/accurate rifle.


I hope I've shed some light on what the AWB did, and did not cover.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #124
133. Thanks for the information.
It was very informative, and this is what I was thinking of (the previously banned weapons that even when AWB lapsed it didn't effect).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
100. NRA
I heard on one of the news networks....that they want to have "teachers" carrying guns.........doesn't this make the problem even worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #100
112. Of course...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
102. Normally I am in favor of gun control-- but
with the Bush regime in power and the coming instability from rising oil prices, having a gun might be important after all.

Even without these considerations, I would only want sensible restrictions on some types of guns anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindacooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
113. I find it interesting that those who oppose new gun control laws
and say 'let's enforce the laws already on the books' opposed those laws (on the books) they now say should be enforced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #113
117. Not all of us are that way
I say we need better enforcement of existing laws, and I am happy with the present suite of federal gun laws. It's a good system that could prohibit people known to be dangerous from buying guns, but enforcement is spotty. Better enforcement will cost money, and I'm willing to have some of my tax dollars go to law enforcement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #113
120. You'll also find it interesting
that they reguarly attack Democrats but rarely have a harsh word for a Republican (except the rare Republican who is for gun control).

You'lll also find it interesting that when they say this law or that is "ineffective" they NEVER support amending it so that it IS more effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
126. More...where I am is full of gun nuts...
We've got the "privilege" to carry concealed weapons. For me, that is utterly terrifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #126
134. lots of people are terrified by things they don't understand.
Take a look at the rates of gun violence among CCW holders and the general population.

Be wary of the Brady Campaigns statistics on the issue, they like to lump in people who have lost their CCW permits for non-gun/violence arrests, such as drunk driving or soliciting prostitution.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #134
136. Maybe...
But I have personal experience with gun violence, so I'm probably a bit biased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #134
195. Some are so terrified they tote popguns in their pants
and oppose any common sense regulation out of ignorance.

"Be wary of the Brady Campaigns statistics on the issue"
Why? What makes somebody who would drive drunk a good candidate for wobbling around armed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shelley806 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
130. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #130
171. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
147. There is no point in new gun laws if you can't enforce existing ones
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 06:49 PM by Selatius
If we can adequately enforce gun laws now, we wouldn't have this discussion. Also, if the Democratic and Republican Party leaders weren't busy taking corporate cash and playing politics, we would be adopting common sense crime control legislation such as helping the poor, providing higher quality and more affordable public education/college education, reforming the tax code so that the poor aren't taxed, more federal investment dollars in urban/poor communities nationwide, and a re-examination of the failed drug war.

How is this going to be paid for? Restore the tax code back to before the corporate lobbyists began inserting loopholes, credits, tax shelters, etc. This is not, as the corporatists say, class warfare. This is social justice.

I'd also advocate mandatory gun safety classes nationwide teaching people how to safely store guns, maintain guns, and finally how to use them. As a matter of fact, I think it's a good idea that there be a minimum amount of training each person is required to go through each year with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
149. How about another greatest vote so we can get everyone voting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gyopsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
162. Further Gun Control
It seems to work well in many other countries. Take the UK for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
170. Actually, I support reducing gun control
:shrug:

Four years of these assholes will do that to ya!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
172. I support more rigorous enforcement of existing laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
173. guns are bad.............period
they are designed to kill things,

what is good about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
174. I need a gun but that there stupid kid down the
street don't need one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
177. Let's review the poll results.
Edited on Sun Mar-27-05 01:34 AM by OrlandoGator
Here at Democratic Underground, 56% of members think that there should be more gun control and 44% think there should be not. This figure is pretty consistent with every other gun control poll I've seen at DU.

If this is such a "slam dunk" issue for Democrats, why aren't the figures more profound in favor of more control?

Lets assume that there are an equal number of Democrat voters and Republican voters. Let's also estimate that 75% of Republicans want no further gun control.

By my math (and admittedly this is a rough estimate based on assumptions), somewhere around 60% of American voters do not favor further gun control.

It doesn't seem to me that Democrats taking a rigid stand on one side of this issue is a good way to win elections, especially since it seems that many of you wish to stand on the side many less Americans agree with. Hell, according to this poll almost half of Democrats are opposed to more gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #177
182. That's a lot of assuming you're doing. /nt
Edited on Sun Mar-27-05 03:01 AM by FubarFly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #182
183. 44% of DUers don't want further gun control.
That's an assumption I don't have to make, it's at the top of this thread (and every other DU gun control poll).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #183
185. Well, you've got me.
Data doesn't get much more accurate than in anonymous internet polls.

Carry on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #185
187. This is somewhat better than most anonymous Internet polls
At least there is a reasonable effort to keep people from voting more than once.

People who respond to a poll like this are those who care enough or have a strong enough opinion to bother to express it. Another group of undertermined size either missed it or didn't care or isn't sure enough about his or her position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #187
190. It's still a meaningless poll.
Edited on Sun Mar-27-05 05:40 AM by FubarFly
It doesn't reflect an accurate view of the DU community, nor can it be used to infer the opinions of Democrats at large.

Regardless, IMO, polls shouldn't affect opinion one way or another. What should matter is what you think is right or wrong. I would love to hear a moral explanation of why we should loosen gun restrictions.

Every explanation I've heard so far is tainted with either cynicism: gun laws won't work anyway, fear: we can't let the government take our guns!, or greed: we can win elections! And when all else fails, ignorance: the second amendment says so by golly, and who are we to argue with the infinite wisdom of our all-seeing-all-knowing founding fathers. As if the the Constitution wasn't an open document that was supposed to grow as our country did. As if our amendment process wasn't intended to be used when it was wise and just to do so.

I've yet to see anyone explain why it's good and proper to relax or abandon gun control for it's own sake. Will abandoning gun control save lives? Will it somehow improve the culture of violence that has gripped America? Or is that just a "liberal myth?" Is this a principled decision we all should make? Perhaps you believe this. I would love to know why.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #190
198. The issue is realpolitik
I see very few people arguing for loosening our existing gun laws. Most of us who do not support additional restrictions believe the ones we have now are appropriate, but are not being effectively enforced. We've identified the people who should be denied the right to own a gun, but when they make an attempt to buy one (which in itself is illegal) and get stopped by the system, the probability they will be prosecuted is nil. So they are left free to focus their efforts on subverting the system. I don't know any gun owner who would be even slightly bothered to see aggressive prosecution of people who fail the Brady background checks.

I've yet to see anyone explain why it's good and proper to relax or abandon gun control for it's own sake. Will abandoning gun control save lives? Will it somehow improve the culture of violence that has gripped America? Or is that just a "liberal myth?" Is this a principled decision we all should make? Perhaps you believe this. I would love to know why.

If you believe the Democratic Party's philosophy and agendas will lead to greater public safety, a higher standard of living, better assistance to those who need it, and so on, is it not in the best interests of the nation and our party to let go of a policy that has alienated millions of potential voters? If you can't get elected, all your grand plans for the future become moot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #183
196. 109 out of 67,000 isn't 44%
except in fantasyland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #196
207. Them are some Freeper way of looking at thangs!
I am very disappointed to see someone on DU using that sort of rhetorical technique - very poor way of making an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #207
213. I'm disappointed constantly by the trigger-happy
Edited on Sun Mar-27-05 10:39 AM by MrBenchley
and the idiotic quality of their rhetoric.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #213
215. I've never met a trigger happy person since I moved from the city
Edited on Sun Mar-27-05 10:58 AM by Mr_Spock
I've had guns pulled on me when I lived in the city - and I think LOCAL governments should deal with gun ordinances appropriately. The only time I even see a gun now that I live in the suburbs is when you catch some hunters as they enter the woods. It's all about where and what kind of community you live in. This is a BIG fucking country and federal gun laws are NOT the way to deal with this issue - at least beyond background checks and many of the other ALREADY EXISTING gun laws!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. Rubbish...
"This is a BIG fucking country "
And most guns used in crime in NYC come from Dixie....Federal gun laws are exacly the way to deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #216
220. Rubbish back to you - we have plenty of laws - NOT ENFORCED!!
How do you propose to enforce these new laws you are proposing? And please provide at least a summary of the law(s) you are proposing.

I'm putting the popcorn in the microwave now - tilting back the recliner - this will be fun :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #220
223. Don't you ever get tired of parroting right wing propaganda?
"How do you propose to enforce these new laws you are proposing?"
Since you haven't asked me what I propose, I care not a bit what your objections to them are. Clearly a closed mind and an itchy triger finger go together.

"I'm putting the popcorn in the microwave now - tilting back the recliner - this will be fun :D"
Hold your breath and lie down, for all I fucking care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #223
224. Hehe - I detect an abandoned argument - mmmm, the popcorn was good though
You have no idea what your position is except AGAINST. I used to be like that when I lived in the city. First thing me and my anti-war, anti-violence dad did when we I bought my house in the woods was to go to the local gun shop and buy a rifle. It was fun testing our ability to hit that damned little target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #182
203. He's making an informed decision based on available information
I happen to agree with him - Dems need to be more pragmatic WRT this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cire4 Donating Member (580 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #177
188. Public opinion polls do not support your assumptions....
All public opinion polls on the matter consistently show that a majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws....

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns2.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #188
208. Touch the fire - get burnt hand.
I'm telling you - this issue will NOT resonate with Americans and can only serve to lose the vote of gun-owning Democrats and otherwise moderate gun-owning Republicans. I see it at work - it's a one-issue vote for many otherwise socially liberal moderates who hardly like the Republican party at this time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #208
210. Sorry to bear bad news, but Dems are on an 11-year losing streak.
Sure, Bush cheated in 2000. He probably cheated in 2004, too.

But sooner or later we have to face facts...Democrats are losing national elections and Republican corporate stooges who serve profits and religious zealots are winning them.

The Assault Weapons Ban was a "water-tester" thrown out there to see how the American public would react to federal gun restrictions. It backfired so badly that the Democrats lost Congress for the first time in 40 years.

We simply are not in a position to take "principled" stands on issues that only about 40% of Americans agree with. I think it is possible to stand for the gun ownership rights of law-abiding people while enforcing the existing laws we have to keep guns out of criminals', children's and mentally ill people's hands.

Why do Democrats attack the guns instead of the circumstances that lead to people misusing guns?

Want popular gun control that will help win elections? Put forth zero-tolerance laws for people who use guns to commit crimes. Use a gun, you get 30 years.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone of any political background opposed to that. But don't chap my ass because I like having a pistol grip on my rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #210
211. Yeah, I've noticed - and, as I said before, I agree with you
I suppose it's nice having at least a couple of people who take a pragmatic approach to this issue here. It pained me so much seeing a socially liberal guy I know who agrees with me on every issue NOT vote for a Dem because of this one somewhat unimportant issue. Why can't status quo and push for better enforcement be the stance of most Dems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrlandoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #211
212. Sorry, that wasn't directed at you. I should have done a reply to OP.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #212
214. LOL - I was a bit confused by the tone of your post!
...but I just took it in stride... :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #177
202. I agree with you.
We really do have plenty of gun laws already - we need to enforce them so criminals and nut-jobs don't have them. Further gun control is NOT an issue Dems want to be involved with. If a decent idea to further restrict access of guns from criminals - great - vote for it. But don't run for office as a gun-control nut - unless you are running for a Rep. seat in an inner city area where I think guns should be prohibited. JMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasSissy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
200. Depends on WHAT KIND of gun control.
Limit my ability to own several handguns? No. Require a background check and 3 day waiting period? Okay. Outlaw oozies? Okay. Outlaw handguns? No.

The devil is in the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauliedee Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #200
217. assault weapons a huge threat
Al Qeada has pamphlets for terrorists teaching them how to but assault weapons at gun shows....scary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LdyGuique Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-27-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
222. The one control I don't see has to do with immigrants
First of all, I was surprised that illegal immigrants were buying weapons in substantial ammounts, including 50mm. Somehow, I was under the impression that one needed to be a citizen without a felony record to buy guns.

I was further surprised that the NRA can't even bend on that issue. They are for weapons in the hands of all without any controls whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-28-05 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
230. Locking
Interested participants may resort to their accustommed corners down in the "Gunners" forum to continue....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC