Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kurb

Some Thoughts on the 2013 GunBan Bill

24 posts in this topic

Stolen from someone far more articulate and well read than myself.

2013 Firearm Ban, Food for thought, facts and figures, ala Terry: You're going to want to read this till the end, the statistical punchline is worth it. Source link: http://www.ibtimes.com/dianne-feinstein-gun-bill-text-list-guns-banned-details-assault-weapons-ban-2013-1037402

First, what makes this the most onerous 2nd Amendment attack ever? It is a PERMANENT BAN, with NO expiration. Once passed, you'll have to take up arms to remove it from law. I mean that quite literally.

Second, what does it ban? Mostly everything useful to support the 2nd Amendment. Everything AK, AR, semi-auto rifle OR shotgun, with few exceptions. Handgun-wise, mostly everything semiautomatic, with a few exceptions.

If you think a 10 round mag limit is bad, and you want to double or triple up on the magazines (jungle style), think again. Those are banned as well. You won't be able to keep magazines "near" each other.

The exceptions still require you to go through a full NFA background check--despite having already done so. The same goes for private sales, and if you happen to pass your favorite 22 plinker on to your next of kin without the legalese, you could both wind up in federal prison. These exemptions may or may not require the ATF tax stamp per item/accessory--in the first few drafts it was included. If you know what that is, you know why this is a burden.

Statistically, it's worthless. Here's why:

They tout up to 7% of homicides were reduced with the previous AWB. 7% of roughly 15,000 is around 1,000. Note that these were still criminal incidents, they would've used steak knives if possible. Note further, violent crime using other means was also up. They don't mention that. This also correlates to the findings of other countries which have "gone this way".

They keep using emotions and exasperation to draw support. Example: Since the ban expiration--almost 10 years ago--they exhaust themselves in saying that 350 people have been killed by these specific weapons, and 450 injured. So 35 people a year are killed, and 45 are injured.

The injuries could've been self inflicted, so take them off the charts. 35 people a year, killed, at the hands of a criminal. That's what it takes to ban something? Are you serious? More people are killed by knives in a single month, than by the weapons defined in this bill, across 10 years.

Here's where they shoot themselves in the foot, the proverbial punchline: More people were killed with the banned weapons DURING the ban tenure of 1994-2004 than AFTER it expired, 2004-present.

DING DING DING DING, we have a winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Here is our President on more restrictive firearms laws. What a socalist, America hating tool, giving us some bleeding heart sob story on why things like more effective background checks are a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feinstein, Obama, Biden does no wrong. What in the fug are you smoking? It's serious bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. And God bless Ronald Reagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.c...brady-bill.html

Here is our President on more restrictive firearms laws. What a socalist, America hating tool, giving us some bleeding heart sob story on why things like more effective background checks are a good idea.

Well done CWG, I knew I could count on you to point out quality legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

68% of gun related homicides involve a handgun. Solution: ban rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • You miss the point. Taylor was here before. We picked him because of what he could do for our wide receivers not because he had some great knowledge no other person had on the staff. Shula and Rivera and Gettleman studied multiple college systems for months before signing Taylor or drafting McCaffrey or Curtis and would have drafted the same whether Taylor was here or not. They liked the way Taylor developed McCaffrey which showed his talent but Stanford's offense wasn't Taylors idea or unique to him. Shula has a connection to Taylor as early as when Shula was at Alabama.  The debate was whether Taylor was chosen to replace Shula because Shula didn't know what to do to run a college offense and if he screwed up Taylor would replace him. And that Taylor was the reason and most influential in getting McCaffrey. I said it wasn't even close to the truth and this plan predated Taylor and was more thorough and we'll thought out. Everything since then just confirms I was right once again like usual.  
    • Assholes should've never taken it away in the first place.  Me and a couple buddies had a hookup and were all hyped up and planned out going to it... then the NBA had to get all political and take it out on the city of Charlotte and the fans -- which made no fuging sense.  Seriously doubt we'll even get the chance to go again.
    • 6'6" 255.  He'll definitely have some good mentors with JP, CJ and the rest of the D-Line crew. 255 he'll need to put some weight on don't you think?