Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

[MKULTRA]

he first major anti-gun bill of the new Pelosi-led Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat yet to Second Amendment Rights.

On the first full day of the new Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill that was quashed last year but under the new Pelosi House leadership, the Bill has a higher likelihood of getting passed this time.

Conducting Talk Show interviews on this topic is Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, the nation’s second largest gun group.

During your interview, Larry can share with your audience that the proposed Bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

CONGRESS PUSHES ANTI-GUN BRADY LAW EXPANSION BILL - Press Release

With so many Democrats in congress, we're going to see a lot of anti-gun legislation proposed and probably passed.

[Diamond Cross]

On that point I agree.

I hope it gets vetoed.

[DosEquis]

When i read...to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

Its sounds to me that they dont want people who are prohibited, because of something they did, from owning firearms to ever own them again. On that concept I agree with it.

However, the waiting periods and all that are dumb. I am generally a pro-gun democrat, other than assault weapons. I don't think anyone has a need to own one of those. The military and police choose them for a reason, and its not to hunt rabbits.

[MKULTRA]

People certainly do have a need for assault rifles. I can think of two off of the top of my head: Katrina and the L.A. Riots. And I don't think that banning assault rifles has lowered crimes with those weapons. Likewise, I think once someone has done their time in prison/on probation then they should be able to vote and own firearms. A lot of these guys getting out of prison have to go live in bad neighborhoods, where you have to have a gun for your own safety. They can't get a gun because of the law so they are forced to either go unprotected or break the law.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

People certainly do have a need for assault rifles. I can think of two off of the top of my head: Katrina and the L.A. Riots. And I don't think that banning assault rifles has lowered crimes with those weapons. Likewise, I think once someone has done their time in prison/on probation then they should be able to vote and own firearms. A lot of these guys getting out of prison have to go live in bad neighborhoods, where you have to have a gun for your own safety. They can't get a gun because of the law so they are forced to either go unprotected or break the law.

While I understand your point regarding serving time they should have just followed the laws in the first place. I don't have much sympathy for them, including some of my relatives who have served time for a variety of things.

I dont think banning assault weapons will have much impact on lowering crime. My motivation comes primarily from our police officers having to deal with criminals who are armed better than they are. Since there are so many guns any gun legislation that is passed would take years, if not decades, before the actual affects are seen.

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

When i read...to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

Its sounds to me that they dont want people who are prohibited, because of something they did, from owning firearms to ever own them again. On that concept I agree with it.

However, the waiting periods and all that are dumb. I am generally a pro-gun democrat, other than assault weapons. I don't think anyone has a need to own one of those. The military and police choose them for a reason, and its not to hunt rabbits.

The biggest problem here is this......... please define "assault weapon."

Massachusetts says "assault weapon" includes any rifle with a pistol grip, a hinged stock, and a bunch of other shit I hear my friend (he lives in mass) bitch about being completely stupid.

So, tell me, why does a pistol grip turn a rifle into an "assault weapon"?

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

While I understand your point regarding serving time they should have just followed the laws in the first place. I don't have much sympathy for them, including some of my relatives who have served time for a variety of things.

I dont think banning assault weapons will have much impact on lowering crime. My motivation comes primarily from our police officers having to deal with criminals who are armed better than they are. Since there are so many guns any gun legislation that is passed would take years, if not decades, before the actual affects are seen.

The problem with your logic here is that you yourself admit it does not lower crime. What does that tell you? People who want assault weapons are going to get them regardless. The criminals already have them. The only thing we are doing, by disarming people who have served their time, is forcing them to either break the law or making them easy targets. If you have lived in a bad neighborhood then you know the truth in what I'm saying. So I don't understand how on one hand you admit it does nothing to lower crime but then on the other somehow believe the ban makes cops safer when our streets are flooded with assault weapons. If someone is shooting at a cop with an AK, the last thing he/she is worried about is being charged for possessing an illegal firearm.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by 7960

The biggest problem here is this......... please define "assault weapon."

Massachusetts says "assault weapon" includes any rifle with a pistol grip, a hinged stock, and a bunch of other shit I hear my friend (he lives in mass) bitch about being completely stupid.

So, tell me, why does a pistol grip turn a rifle into an "assault weapon"?

I can't explain why they feel anything with a pistol grip is considered an assault weapon. You can just change the stock on it and it would get rid of the pistol grip. The Mass law sounds stupid to me because it is so generalized.

Generally speaking, I would consider something that is designed for military and police use an assault weapon. The military and police choose these weapons because it gives them a tactical advantage when shooting people, not rabbits and deer. Some examples are AK47s, SKS, AR15/M16, M4, etc. A lot of them are already illegal in their "automatic" form.

[MKULTRA]

I don't see why people seem to believe that guns only made for killing other people should be outlawed. Guns are used over a million times a year here in the US defensively. One of the most important reasons for owning a gun is to protect yourself and your family. In today's world target practice and deer hunting come in a far second or third. So obviously a gun made to kill people is exactly what should be legal, except in extreme cases like lasers and RPGs, etc. about anything we want should be legal. The worse a situation is like Katrina or a really bad earthquake, the more you need a gun capable of killing people. The M4 is a great weapon to have in an urban environment, especially where a deer rifle or a pistol just won't cut it in a lot of situations.

The criminals get all the guns they want. Our streets are flooded with them. We have citizens all over that border right now in SW Texas, that are routinely robbed and raped. Parts of Texas are arguably more dangerous than the West Bank. Yet, our citizens are expected to ward off drug runners with fully automatics using deer hunting rifles. It's just not realistic. Likewise, look at the situation in LA, where they are ethnically cleansing black Americans. Yet, many of these people cannot own weapons for things as ridiculous as smoking marijuana. And even those that can can't carry concealed weapons or any weapon around for that matter because of LA's gun laws, that are beyond ridiculous.

The origins of gun control laws are racist. Check when the first ones were passed and why they were passed. And if gun control worked then LA and Washington DC would be the two safest places in America.

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Generally speaking, I would consider something that is designed for military and police use an assault weapon. The military and police choose these weapons because it gives them a tactical advantage when shooting people, not rabbits and deer. Some examples are AK47s, SKS, AR15/M16, M4, etc. A lot of them are already illegal in their "automatic" form.

The same tactical advantage for shooting people is also helpful when shooting deer. I hate to say I agree with the automatic weapon ban, but I do. But I can't understand why an AK-47 and an M-16 are illegal if they've been permanently converted to semi-auto. It doesn't make any sense when there are other weapons out there that don't "look like that" but are as powerful.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

The problem with your logic here is that you yourself admit it does not lower crime. What does that tell you? People who want assault weapons are going to get them regardless. The criminals already have them. The only thing we are doing, by disarming people who have served their time, is forcing them to either break the law or making them easy targets. If you have lived in a bad neighborhood then you know the truth in what I'm saying. So I don't understand how on one hand you admit it does nothing to lower crime but then on the other somehow believe the ban makes cops safer when our streets are flooded with assault weapons. If someone is shooting at a cop with an AK, the last thing he/she is worried about is being charged for possessing an illegal firearm.

I understand the "only bad people do it anyway argument". You could apply that to many laws, so why have those laws too? If an assault weapon ban is passed it would probably take 20 years of enforcement before it was considered rare in civilian hands. It would do little to lower crime as not many crimes are done with assault weapons. When a cop pulls someone over only to get a full clip shot into him, or 2 bank robbers in north hollywood can take on 30 policemen affectively, it is just not acceptable to me.

[7960]

I agree with just about everything you said except these:

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

I don't see why people seem to believe that guns only made for killing other people should be outlawed. Guns are used over a million times a year here in the US defensively.

Nice made-up stat. Nobody knows if it's 1,000 or 1,000,000.........

The origins of gun control laws are racist. Check when the first ones were passed .......

Here we go again............ if you say the origins are racist then SHOW they're racist. It gets pretty old having to remind you that if you make the claim you should back it up.

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

..... or 2 bank robbers in north hollywood can take on 30 policemen affectively, it is just not acceptable to me.

Those two bank robbers could do that because they were wearing body armor. Should we ban that, too?

[Scrum]

So they want a better, faster, way to enforce the laws on the books?

I don't see a problem with that. Wouldn't this lower waiting periods since the background checks would be instant?

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I understand the "only bad people do it anyway argument". You could apply that to many laws, so why have those laws too? If an assault weapon ban is passed it would probably take 20 years of enforcement before it was considered rare in civilian hands. It would do little to lower crime as not many crimes are done with assault weapons. When a cop pulls someone over only to get a full clip shot into him, or 2 bank robbers in north hollywood can take on 30 policemen affectively, it is just not acceptable to me.

But how are gun laws going to stop criminals from owning assault weapons? You're not making any sense here. I don't know if this has just been your stance for so long or how you were deceived into believing this or what, but think about what you're saying. A criminal is not going to go rob a bank and then use a 38 because an AK-47 is illegal. They use the guns they want. Anyone of us could drive downtown right now and buy a weapon or modify a legal weapon to be a fully automatic in a few minutes. Criminals know these things. If they want to use a machine gun then they will get one to use. You admit yourselves the ban has done nothing to lower crime. Criminals do not care what the gun laws are. Someone robbing a bank or shooting a cop could care less whether the gun he is using is illegal or not.

Also

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So they want a better, faster, way to enforce the laws on the books?

I don't see a problem with that. Wouldn't this lower waiting periods since the background checks would be instant?

Gun registration is and always has been the first step towards gun confiscation. I don't know of any country that has shown me different. Look at Canada and Mexico. For more extreme examples look at the USSR and Germany.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

Gun registration is and always has been the first step towards gun confiscation. I don't know of any country that has shown me different. Look at Canada and Mexico. For more extreme examples look at the USSR and Germany.

So do you think car registration, pet registration or bike registration is the first step to confiscation too?

How long has the registration rule been on the books?

[MKULTRA]

I don't think you can compare books to guns. But yes, we ban books here every year. Likewise, has not government involvement with our pets and cars increased since registration? But again, those things are not guns. I'm looking at history and a consistent pattern is blatantly obvious. Gun registration is and always has been the first step towards gun confiscation.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA