Rendell Increases Effort Against Assault Weapons

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:45 pm

onegunguitar wrote:As the old saying goes "Guns don't kill people,people kill people"

simple truth

PanzerFaust · Post by **PanzerFaust** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:58 am

*In 2002, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 44% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 1 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

* Since 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* Since 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life

PanzerFaust · Post by **PanzerFaust** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:04 am

Ron wrote:Wasn't this ban already in effect from 1994 to 2004?
I think that the lawmakers are trying to reinstate that same ban... as useless as it was. Cop killings with assault rifles did go down during that time period though... instead they were shot with handguns.

* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 2004. (3)

* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet. (3)

* The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:16 am

PanzerFaust wrote:* The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban

Now, that's what I call FEELGOOD legislation.

fullthrottle666 · Post by **fullthrottle666** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:57 pm

rickster wrote:Its like this, If someone wants to go apeshit and kill people, they can do it with anything.Take away all the guns in the world and there will still be mentals stabbing people,blowing things up, flying jets into buildings, etc, etc, etc.A semi auto Hunting Rifle is the Same as most Semi Auto assault rifles.A semi auto handgun is just as deadly (maybe not as accurate) but still.We dont need more Gov.Telling us what we can and cant have.Making any of the above illegal does not mean criminals wont still have them or be able to get them.It just means law abiding citizens wont.Thats My Opinion.

It's a question of firepower or said otherwise.. killing power. Before the perp can be stopped. And what about the risk to law enforcement?

How do you feel about the ban on machine guns (automatic weapons)?

Rendell also want to limit handguns sales to one per customer per month, which also seems extremely reasonable to me. Who needs more than 12 handguns per year

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:09 pm

Take all the guns away!
People dont need multiple guns. I guess hunters might need a gun, but thats it. If you dont hunt and dont wear deer piss, you shouldnt have a gun.
Cops should have guns. We dont need some drunk asshole showing off his guns every 5 mins to people. You dont want your house broken into? LOCK YOUR DOORS...or wait...get one of those new things....the um...oh yeah a SECURITY SYSTEM.
You cant bitch about laws too much...they still let you go to bars and then drive yourself home. Thats worse than a loaded gun.

fullthrottle666 · Post by **fullthrottle666** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:23 pm

FourthDimensionAudio wrote:Take all the guns away!
People dont need multiple guns. I guess hunters might need a gun, but thats it. If you dont hunt and dont wear deer piss, you shouldnt have a gun.
Cops should have guns. We dont need some drunk asshole showing off his guns every 5 mins to people. You dont want your house broken into? LOCK YOUR DOORS...or wait...get one of those new things....the um...oh yeah a SECURITY SYSTEM.
You cant bitch about laws too much...they still let you go to bars and then drive yourself home. Thats worse than a loaded gun.

drunk driving is a problem too. but what does this have to do with the danger that high fire power poses to society? how many guns do you need to protect yourself? you have only two hands.

KeithReynolds · Post by **KeithReynolds** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:26 pm

Oh i agree.
I am 100% anti gun. Nothing bothers me like some redneck bragging about having 15 guns. I have several friends like that & I tell them all the same thing. Id say people who have guns are scared more than the avg person. For some reason, guns make them feel safe.
All a person has to do is take that gun from your hands, and then its over. No good comes from people owning guns.

bfoust · Post by **bfoust** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:29 pm

wow. remind me not to talk about guns here anymore.

fullthrottle666 · Post by **fullthrottle666** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:12 pm

FourthDimensionAudio wrote:Oh i agree.
I am 100% anti gun. Nothing bothers me like some redneck bragging about having 15 guns. I have several friends like that & I tell them all the same thing. Id say people who have guns are scared more than the avg person. For some reason, guns make them feel safe.
All a person has to do is take that gun from your hands, and then its over. No good comes from people owning guns.

no need to apologize i'm kind of anti-gun myself. i don't see the utility, benefit to society or romanticism in something that is designed to take life.

animal or human.

our forefathers were thinking of muzzleloaders when they penned the Constitution. i sincerely doubt they had modern weaponry in mind. or could forsee the consequences of popular ownership of .

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:19 pm

fullthrottle666 wrote:How do you feel about the ban on machine guns (automatic weapons)?

Its funny you mention that.

US v. Miller of 1939 is the "Roe v. Wade" of gun control law. This was the case that upheld the National Firearms act of 1934 (another of FDR's power grabs). Miller was prosecuted for being in possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Here is the opinion that the Supreme Court issued:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

So, because the Supreme Court believed that a sawed-off shotgun is not a military weapon, they decided it is not covered under the 2nd Amendment.

By this interpretation, had Mr. Miller been in possession of a Thompson (Tommy Gun) Machine Gun instead of a sawed-off shotgun, the court would have overturned the National Firearms Act and gun control laws would not have a legal leg to stand on.

Its a good thing that the ruling is only presently used to uphold the 1st federal gun control law. If it was applied literally to all weapons today, it would go something like this:

Weapons not protected under the 2nd amendment (not considered military weapons):

.22
shotgun
.25
.32
9mm short

Weapons protected under the 2nd amendment (usable military weapons)

.3006 with suitable scope
.45 semi-automatic
AK47
UZi
M16

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:36 pm

fullthrottle666 wrote: our forefathers were thinking of muzzleloaders when they penned the Constitution. i sincerely doubt they had modern weaponry in mind. or could forsee the consequences of popular ownership of .

Wrong. The Founders were thinking about tyranny. They wanted citizens to be armed to protect them from their own government. Notice this has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Still as relevant today as it ever was.

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:37 pm

fullthrottle666 wrote: How do you feel about the ban on machine guns (automatic weapons)?

Wrong. You can still purchase fully automatic weapons. You can do it on a gun by gun basis. Its just a few hundred dollars and a bunch of paperwork.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:43 pm

If a criminal law banning assault weapons in Pennsylvania is passed, which of the following will most likely happen as a result?

a) All illegal assault weapons in Pennsylvania will vanish into a special black hole owned by Robert Rendell.

b) The Pennsylvania murder rate will drop significantly.

c) Pennsylvanians who presently sell illegal weapons will immediately stop selling illegal assault weapons.

d) The transportation of illegal assault weapons across state lines into Pennsylvania will stop immediately.

e) Law-abiding citizens will turn in their assault weapons, criminals will not.

JayBird · Post by **JayBird** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:36 pm

If you can't "legally" hunt with these weapons, then what is the point of letting common everyday individuals own them? There is none. If people are honestly going to defend this issue with, "So I can protect myself!", then they might be too paranoid and unstable to own any weapon. Either way, they will NEVER stop these weapons totally...even if they become illegal altogether. Drugs are illegal, but they are everywhere. Laws don't seem to scare anyone and the law typically protects the criminal anyway. I really have no faith in my government and their decisions.

fullthrottle666 · Post by **fullthrottle666** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:37 pm

lonewolf wrote:If a criminal law banning assault weapons in Pennsylvania is passed, which of the following will most likely happen as a result?

a) All illegal assault weapons in Pennsylvania will vanish into a special black hole owned by Robert Rendell.

b) The Pennsylvania murder rate will drop significantly.

c) Pennsylvanians who presently sell illegal weapons will immediately stop selling illegal assault weapons.

d) The transportation of illegal assault weapons across state lines into Pennsylvania will stop immediately.

e) Law-abiding citizens will turn in their assault weapons, criminals will not.

f) as time passes by these weapons will be more and more difficult to obtain crimanls and citizens alike until they eventually become a non-issue.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:59 pm

fullthrottle666 wrote:
lonewolf wrote:If a criminal law banning assault weapons in Pennsylvania is passed, which of the following will most likely happen as a result?

a) All illegal assault weapons in Pennsylvania will vanish into a special black hole owned by Robert Rendell.

b) The Pennsylvania murder rate will drop significantly.

c) Pennsylvanians who presently sell illegal weapons will immediately stop selling illegal assault weapons.

d) The transportation of illegal assault weapons across state lines into Pennsylvania will stop immediately.

e) Law-abiding citizens will turn in their assault weapons, criminals will not.
f) as time passes by these weapons will be more and more difficult to obtain crimanls and citizens alike until they eventually become a non-issue.

1st off, according to crime statistics, they already are a non-issue (see b).

2nd, banning them and making them harder to obtain just drives the price up along with the risk/reward for profiteers. Since this is a state law and we are surrounded by "legal" states, the supply will not go away.

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:50 pm

JayBird wrote:If you can't "legally" hunt with these weapons, then what is the point of letting common everyday individuals own them? There is none. If people are honestly going to defend this issue with, "So I can protect myself!", then they might be too paranoid and unstable to own any weapon.

As I stated before, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If you can't get that, you aren't grasping this issue at any level. It has everything to do with protecting citizens from their own government. "Common everyday individuals" should be denied their constitutional rights? As opposed to an elite with special priviledges? How American that is.

I take great offense at your implying holding this position constitutes paranoia and a lack of stability. Based on that line of reasoning I could say that misreading the second amendment to mean it only protects hunting might indicate someone is too ignorant of the constitution and the Founding documents of this country to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I would never do that, though.

shredder138 · Post by **shredder138** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:06 pm

Could someone please elaborate on the whole "protection from the govnt"
thing. Maybe I'm an idiot, but it seems to me that if you use your gun to protect yourself from the govnt, you're only fucking yourself. You know, incarceration. If Uncle Sam wants you he'll get you.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:36 pm

shredder138 wrote:Could someone please elaborate on the whole "protection from the govnt"
thing. Maybe I'm an idiot, but it seems to me that if you use your gun to protect yourself from the govnt, you're only fucking yourself. You know, incarceration. If Uncle Sam wants you he'll get you.

You are not an idiot. You simply have not studied the Constitution or the Founders' intent as they expressed it in the Federalist Papers. These were written by the architect of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, along with James Madison and John Jay. The Federalist papers were written and published before the Constitution was ratified. Their purpose was to persuade the people of the United States to ratify the Constitution by describing in detail, the reasoning behind the Constitution's structure. Federalist 46, in particular, describes the rationale behind what eventually became the 2nd Amendment, and the 10th amendment, among other things. Here it is so that you can read and understand their intent.

http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/re ... no-46.html

Here is an excerpt that describes in detail the Founders' intent on this subject. Keep in mind that the numbers refer to a percentage of the total population and the proportions are still valid today. Alexander Hamilton's foresight is incredible:

"...That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess
the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

fullthrottle666 · Post by **fullthrottle666** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:23 pm

Our founding fathers did not and could not envision life as it is TODAY. They had no clue about the firepower of the semi or automatic weapons of today. They were thinking muzzle loaders. Big diff! (I don't have a problem with ownership of a muzzle loader) own all you want.

Times change. Science advances. We get smarter and more experienced as a society. as time advances.

MAYBE, just maybe it's time to make a few changes to the Constitution. Not sweeping revision, but very very careful "footnotes"? Times change man, we are living a very different life now.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:20 pm

fullthrottle666 wrote:Our founding fathers did not and could not envision life as it is TODAY. They had no clue about the firepower of the semi or automatic weapons of today. They were thinking muzzle loaders. Big diff! (I don't have a problem with ownership of a muzzle loader) own all you want.

Times change. Science advances. We get smarter and more experienced as a society. as time advances.

MAYBE, just maybe it's time to make a few changes to the Constitution. Not sweeping revision, but very very careful "footnotes"? Times change man, we are living a very different life now.

I laugh my ass off every time an "enlightened" citizen goes on their spiel about how we are so much smarter today and that somehow, technology trumps our human rights. The Constitution is outdated?

That's the biggest simplistic political cliche since "Lets legalize pot and tax the shit out of it". At least the latter makes some sense.

Please explain to me how advances in science and technology should diminish my human rights?

Footnotes for the Constitution? ROFLMAO! Maybe we should just change the Preamble to read WE THE SHEEPLE......

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 pm

fullthrottle666 wrote:Our founding fathers did not and could not envision life as it is TODAY. They had no clue about the firepower of the semi or automatic weapons of today.

They had cannon, which has firepower that is much greater than the semi or automatic weapons of today. Why did they not put a limit on the 2nd amendment forbidding cannon?

Because, like being a little bit pregnant, you cannot put limits on human rights.

Possessed · Post by **Possessed** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:07 pm

I'm all for gun owners and I am a permit carrying citizen.
I'm not paranoid but I do know if the shit hits the fan I'm ready.
If some douche tries to hurt me,my family,etc. they will get a big chunk led in their ass/head/gut etc.

How did underage kids get assault rifles for Columbine? I'm sure they didnt' get them at the local gun store. If they did the place should be closed for selling to underage kids.
I do think that there should be some restrictions ie- age, criminal record, mental issues, required safety courses maybe? But if you pass the background checks and aren't crazy you should have the right to buy whatever gun you want.
I'm sure if the government takes away our right to bear arms that will NEVER stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
To me it's like a green light for the criminals to go crazy with armed robbery because they know the law abiding citizens don't have guns.
If someone want's to commit murder they have so many options besides guns that they will find a way to do it.
Just look at Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, etc. They preferred to not use firearms to kill but they still killed a lot of people.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

fullthrottle666 · Post by **fullthrottle666** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:39 pm

lonewolf wrote:
fullthrottle666 wrote:Our founding fathers did not and could not envision life as it is TODAY. They had no clue about the firepower of the semi or automatic weapons of today. They were thinking muzzle loaders. Big diff! (I don't have a problem with ownership of a muzzle loader) own all you want.

Times change. Science advances. We get smarter and more experienced as a society. as time advances.

MAYBE, just maybe it's time to make a few changes to the Constitution. Not sweeping revision, but very very careful "footnotes"? Times change man, we are living a very different life now.
I laugh my ass off every time an "enlightened" citizen goes on their spiel about how we are so much smarter today and that somehow, technology trumps our human rights. The Constitution is outdated?

That's the biggest simplistic political cliche since "Lets legalize pot and tax the shit out of it". At least the latter makes some sense.

Please explain to me how advances in science and technology should diminish my human rights?

Footnotes for the Constitution? ROFLMAO! Maybe we should just change the Preamble to read WE THE SHEEPLE......

No one is trying to take your gun. We're just trying to limit ownershipo of VERY dangerous weapons. A machine gun is not a weapon that any reasonable person would own or wish to own. For what purpose? Protection against the govt?? LOL. Protection from what? A semi-auto is Not going to make any diff, but limiting ownership these weapons, and others will make a big diff in public safety. To Law enforcement. To citizens alike.

The right to bear arms does not mean the right to very dangerous weaponry.