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

    • I have to apologize to @TheRed , not for what I have said, but most certainly how I have said it. He was right that this isn't how I normally post and my passion for the subject matter got the best of me and left me with the just the worst. I should have said, "Please, you have obviously got an informed opinion and a desire to get the best out of this country we share, so don't pass up on your opportunity to cast a ballot. It doesn't have to be for every race, but find someone or something you can get behind and put your votes there." One single vote may not matter in a presidential, or even gubernatorial, election, but don't let that turn you into thinking the voter doesn't matter. Look, act and vote local -- these are the races that have the most impact on your life and where you have the most impact, too. A change at the local level does reverberate up the ladder, it is how all great movements start. I won't get on you or anyone else about not voting again, but please, in exchange, could you just commit to casting a ballot next time your local elections roll along? You are full of smart ideas and are passionate about a number of issues, don't let that go to waste. You might very well actually improve things. And Lord, we sure do need that, don't we? Once again, my apologies to @TheRed and @NanuqoftheNorth for going above and beyond in calling you out. You deserve a better shake than I gave you.
    • I wouldn't say he made him look bad, just expendable (and overpaid).
    • Good let them. Will just allow other good players to drop to us in round 2-4

      Sent using the amazing CarolinaHuddle mobile app