 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 07 - 07:10 PM There ya go. When burglars and such knock on your door and ask politely if they can come in and take whatever they want.... make them tea! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,Canadienne Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:48 PM you are quite correct Bill I'm sorry but when is there a more compelling time to discuss gun control? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:45 PM popguns? They have a bit more than popguns... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: gnu Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:41 PM No sweat, Bill. Willing to fill out the forms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bobert Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:41 PM Well, I was really hoping that the VT kids and professors who were killed would be buried before the gun debate entered at full throttle... I have made no attempts to hide my feelings in past threads how I feel about handguns and will look forward to voicing those thoughts again when the ***timing*** is appropriate... I remember after Columbine, Bill Clinton was asked why he hadn't propsed stronger handgun controls and he said, "Because the votes aren't there in Congress"... Well, I don't know if the votes are there this time around but I certainly expect a vigorous debate not only among the population by also Congress over the next few months... BTW, posting right wing, pro-gun, NRA cut 'n pastes is not a discussion... Discussions involve ***ideas*** and not endless propaganda collected by folks who profit financially from the proliferation of handguns... Might of fact, discussion should rarely involve cut 'n pastes... Integrating research is one thing... Accepting reems and reems of propaganda as fact isn't research... I'll be looking forward a real discusssion about handguns when the ***timing*** is more respectfull to those who have been killed... Bobert (Former NRA member) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,meself Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:39 PM Although, those war-like lads of Afghanistan seem to be holding their own with their popguns ... not to mention those war-like lads of Iraq ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:37 PM The point has been made that IF your home is invaded, and unless you are trained and comfortable with having guns, you are VERY unlikely to have a weapon right at hand, and that it is more likely the criminal will end up adding YOUR gun to his collection... Also, if you DO have a gun, and IF you shoot at an intruder, you'd better be sure they fall inside! otherwise, they...or their relatives..may sue you, claiming 'no proof of criminal intent' or something similar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:19 PM Exactly, Ebbie! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 07 - 06:14 PM A case can be made, imo, for arming oneself against intruders into one's home, if one is comfortable with balancing that need against the possibility of a youngster getting hold of said weapon. My guess is that statistics are available. As far as protecting oneself against a government is concerned, keeping weapons for that purpose imo is a silly and vain hope. In the day, there were no fast highways or fleets to travel on them, there was no database detailing the location of homes and their owners, there frequently were no military or police authorities close to those homes. I can just imagine my fighting off a tank with my popgun, or holding the door against troops intent on breaking it down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Bill D Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM there is no point...Those who simply WANT guns will twist any argument in order to have them. I have never seen so many fallacious 'straw man' arguments in such a sort space....many of them by my friend beardedbruce. "shall we ban English majors?"...right. cute. That vague clause in the 2nd amendment was written in a totally different time. The founders never saw an AK-47 or a Glock. (How many would that disturbed fellow been able to shoot with a muzzle-loader?) Whether the founders intended for every citizen to have the right to keep firearms around **AT HOME** or not...which I doubt was the intent, it is time for that clause to be either amended or clarified to specifically state that weapons are to be possessed BY "a well-ordered militia" and issued TO qualified members OF that militia when necessary. I note that the smoke had not cleared until a gun advocacy group actually released a statement saying that IF their idea of allowing students to carry concealed weapons had been followed, 'this might have been avoided'. And when the cops rush in and find 27 students with guns, who do they look at? I submit- we have tried allowing guns to damn near anyone who asks for them for years now. It's time to try it the other way and SEE if reducing the number of guns AND legal gun owners doesn't also reduce gun violence. ...and for crap's sake...if you are going to advocate for a position, at least TRY to stick to relevant facts! and bruce...***I can find the Bill of Rights when I need it***....PLEASE deliver us from tedious copy/paste of specious arguments and slanted irrelevancies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:54 PM It's been part of the discussion since about the 9th post, not much we can do to change it now! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:51 PM Yes, Giok, I know, but this one did NOT start out as a gun debate. There IS a thread for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:45 PM I've got my threads all in a twist! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:43 PM Darn, I thought this was the 'let's poke pointy sticks at the funny rednecks' thread... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:41 PM A condolence/obit thread has been started kat. G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: katlaughing Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:37 PM TAKE IT TO THE GUN CRIME THREAD, PLEASE! Let's keep this as a condolence thread. Do your debating in the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:37 PM So, why does the USA have the highest rate (per capita and absolute) of gun violence of any industrialized nation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:35 PM If most Americans do actually want to have gun ownership as a legal right, that's their business. What strikes me as strange is a situation where this is seen as a constitutional right, rather than as a matter to be determined on a democratic basis of what most people actually want. That doesn't really seem too democratic, especially since the amendment involved is so very strangely worded, with that "properly regulated militia" qualification hanging in the air. In the list of important things to have, guns seem pretty low in the list. And yet all the other things - mobile phones, computes, cars. jobs, health care - are left to sink or swim on their own, without any constitutional amendments. Is there another country in the world where there is this kind of special preserved protection for guns? Plenty of places where gun ownership is relatively easy, but that's another matter entirely. If the Swiss decided it might be a good idea to change their law they'd just have a referendum to determine whether to do so or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:25 PM OH fuck what's the point!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:23 PM OK, we can prohibit women from gun ownership. After all, why should theyhave any means to defend themselves? We can always trust the police to be right there to protect us. ( SARCASM: Please note the recent murders of women by men who have court orders against them, yet then pour flammable liquid on the woman and set them on fire.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:20 PM As would the control of freedom of speech to prevent inciting unrest, the prevention of public gatherings, and the restriction of religion to ones that the Powers That Be can depend on for support. But I do NOT advocate the removal of basic rights for the appearance of safety, especially when the laws to be inacted have been shown, repeatedly, to not be effective in reducing crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:17 PM The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training and a mandatory period of service in the Rekrutenschule (the "recruits-school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men still remain part of the militia either in a home guard or reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place. The emergency ammunition is the only ammunition that requires accounting for during inspections.[1] From Wiki |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:15 PM very true Bruce, but a proper legal framework to control the ownership and use of firearms would create a less macho mindset in a large section of the American public, as well as placing guns in their true context... Glad to see you still here.....best wishes A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM "Give me a thousand in cash--coin of the realm--and I could go into any large city in North America and acquire a handgun or rifle within 12 hours. The legalityillegality of guns is a farce." 1. I agree with you. So why shgould more ineffective laws be of any use, except to disarm the law-abiding citizen? 2. Name a single country that the statement would NOT be true. Those with more restrictive laws like Russia, England, and others still have gun violence. 3. Look at the countries with a requirement for fully automatic weapons in the home ( Israel, Switerland). Is there more or less crime there than in the restricted nation, like Russia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM The USA entered the war because the Japs bombed your fleet at Pearl harbour, not to do us any special favours. You'd probably still be doing target practice otherwise. Sorry to defile such a thread, but you have no right to insult our country - just because you can't face the fact that allowing any idiot to buy a gun is not a good idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Charley Noble Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:08 PM I'm amazed how ballistic the debate can get when I leave for a couple of hours. This time I don't think I'll even bother to return. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Peace Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:06 PM I fail to see how fighting with each other will get any questions answered. That aside, I goddamned guarantee you this: Give me a thousand in cash--coin of the realm--and I could go into any large city in North America and acquire a handgun or rifle within 12 hours. The legalityillegality of guns is a farce. If I needed a piece I would get one. It's that simple. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:02 PM Er, Slag, you missed out the bit about speaking German! And isn't it customary to say 'save your sorry asses' when talking about how the US won Dubya Dubya Two without any help from those goddam Commies? Now trot off and play with your toys, there's a love. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:01 PM "BB you polluted the argument by bringing in the ACLU which has probably defended gun-owners in the past." Please look up "sarcasm". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM "I do like to think that I have the right not to remain silent." Actually, what you advocate is a situation where the government CAN force you to remain silent. Or give up any other right that the Powers That Be decide are a threat to "the public good" as defined by the Powers That Be. But if you want that, feel free to argue with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Slag Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:59 PM Yup Cap'n Ginger, 4000 miles of cold Atlantic Ocean. That's the same Atlantic that our gun toting GIs had to cross to save your bloody asses from the peaceful and loving appeasement which good old Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Adolf. The same ocean that more than a million NRA donated rifles crossed to provide means for a homeland defense for you peace loving English folks. Your time's coming because you have NOT learned from your past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM It's too easy to get guns. There ought to be more restrictions on the purchase of firearms. A person ought to prove his mental competency to own them. I'm sure it was fairly easy for the young student to acquire his weapon. Some of the arguments presented in favor of unlimited control of firearms makes me wonder about those arguers' mental competency. When the NRA is criticized, the defenders begin to sound like angry hornets. Why should anyone doubt those with their anger showing under certain circumstances wouldn't use a gun irresponsibly? BB you polluted the argument by bringing in the ACLU which has probably defended gun-owners in the past. There is a sensible approach to all of this that has to do with diffusing the anger on this issue. This is an issue regarding the ownership of guns and who should be able to have them. Until this issue is solved, the Center for Disease Control will continue to cite gun violence as one of the leading health problems in the US. So to all of you hot heads who are so angy about your guns being taken away, your anger undercuts your argument. For those with cooler minds and logical thinking, who should have guns and who shouldn't could be given more serious thought. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM Not so much a discussion, BB, as a one-man barking session. As I have said, I'm thankfully unaffected by your 'rights' and your 'freedoms' and am merely gaining some vicarious amusement from prodding you and watching you inflate like a proposterous little puffer fish in a frenzy of cutting and pasting. I do like to think that I have the right not to remain silent. It would, after all, take a heart of stone not to laugh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM "It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to keep this out of the courts for a long time." It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to get this into the courts for a long time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM Are you unaware BB that your "Armed citizens" live under one of the most tyrannical governments in the world?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM Captain Ginger, read my 17 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM - YOU obviously feel that since the times have changed, rights should be forfeit whenever YOU disagree with them. If you want to make a case for changing the 2nd amendment, do so- but until it is changed, it remains as valid as the others, and you alter it at the risk of losing those, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: artbrooks Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:51 PM The "militia clause" is apparently going to the Supreme Court again, based upon the recent ruling on the DC government gun control law. It will be interesting to see if the current Court upholds the 1939 decision. It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to keep this out of the courts for a long time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM Captain Ginger, Sorry if a discussion of the rights that some of us support is so annoying to you. Feel free to require everyone to think just like you, and act like YOU want them to. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitutional Legal Scholars Acclaim Federal Court's Overturning of D.C. Gun Ban WASHINGTON, March 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On March 9, a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has overturned the 31-year-old ban on keeping handguns in homes in the nation's capital city, ruling that the ban is unconstitutional. The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. Two Independent Institute research fellows were involved in the plaintiffs' case. "The Founders' true intent of the Second Amendment is vindicated by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Parker v. D.C. (2007)," said constitutional legal scholar Stephen Halbrook. "Rejecting the perverse 'collective rights' view that this Bill of Rights guarantee protects governmental units rather than persons, the Court squarely holds that law-abiding individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and thus that D.C.'s ban on possession of handguns even in the home is unconstitutional." Halbrook, who has written extensively about the second amendment, is the author of the Independent Institute's forthcoming book, The Founders' Second Amendment, which is being published by Stanford University Press. In addition, Independent Institute Research Fellow Don B. Kates, Jr. notes that, "The Founders of this nation strongly endorsed the right to arms; as Thomas Paine put it, 'arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world....' The D.C. Circuit court opinion effectuates that constitutional tradition." "Based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this ground-breaking ruling overturns one of the longest-running and most restrictive gun bans in the U.S.," said David Theroux, President of the Independent Institute. "Washington, D.C., has led the nation with the highest murder rate for most every year of this ban's existence. The federal court's decision upholding the individual's right to self-defense should be applauded by all those who care about the civil liberty protections of the Bill of Rights." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM The 'founders' also advocated slavery and the confiscation of Native American land. Should that, too. be sacrosanct? It seems to me that the constitution is about as useful as Isadora Duncan's scarf. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:48 PM Sounds like good sense Andres. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: bobad Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:47 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM "Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed. Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake. Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM "March 12, 2007 Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years. Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron. Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them. In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so. The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:43 PM Oh dear, could someone put BB out of his misery before he slips up with his cut and paste and ends up posting part of his lower bowel to this thread! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM "Prohibited Persons The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list was in contradiction between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to great confusion. This list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.) A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Escamillo Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM We have seen the ceremony at VT some minutes ago. It ended in a paroxysm of applauses, football hurras , shouting "we are the VT", and loud wows. This is what I said above, and this is the subject that (IMHO) should be addressed immediately, in the US, in my country and all the world. An educational institution is not a football team. No internal brotherhoods should be allowed, no competitions be promoted, no seek for any kind of internal or external championship be accepted, and especially no discrimination or mockery against others in or out of the institution be tolerated. To achieve this, it is not necessary to amend the constitution or create new laws, it is only a matter of orientation from the politic and educational authorities, it is their duty. And we as parents can claim for a change and get it done. This will not solve the problem of the easy distribution of firearms, and will not cure psychotic personalities, but will surely configure a social environment where students could develop feelings of solidarity instead of anger and revenge. And of course, we all know that we in particular, or our children, never became murders just for having been discriminated from some team. Let's see the problem in general, not in particular. Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: Captain Ginger Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM It's OK, Ake - I don't think he's yet grasped the concept of the conditional clause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: akenaton Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM I appear to be RIGHT BB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM "Our nation's primary gun law is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed in the wake of the murders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert Kennedy. Major Provisions: Established categories of prohibited firearms purchasers and possessors. Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship. Licenses and set standards for gun dealers. Establishes licensing fee schedule for manufacturers, importers, and dealers in firearms; sets record-keeping standards; requires licenses to be obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury; requires serial numbers on all guns. Prohibits the mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition. Prohibits the interstate sale of firearms. A handgun purchaser may only buy a gun in the state in which he/she resides; however, long gun sales to individuals in contiguous state that did not violate either state law, were allowed. (Today, long guns may be purchased from gun dealers in any state, regardless of purchaser's state of residence). Sets age guidelines for firearms purchased through dealers. — Handgun purchasers must be at least 21. — Long gun purchasers must be at least 18. Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons. The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law. Sets penalties for carrying & using firearms in crimes of violence or drug trafficking. Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i.e., parts to make machine guns). Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms. Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation). This provision was adamantly opposed by the NRA. In fact, some of its most radical members did not want the McClure/Volkmer bill to pass if it contained this provision. Immediately following the enactment of this law, the NRA announced that "its highest priority" in the next Congress would be to repeal the ban on machine guns. To date they have not introduced legislation to do this. Prohibited the sale of parts or "conversion kits" - used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic. Classifies silencer parts and kits as weapons falling under the National Firearm Act." http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=1968&menu=gvr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:33 PM "To my knowledge the "right to bear arms" actually refers to militias. Please correct me if I am wrong...Ake " You are wrong- THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Like "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |