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.c...an-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!
Some Thoughts on the 2013 GunBan Bill
Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:12 PM
Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:55 PM
Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:15 PM
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.
Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:24 PM
Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:05 AM
The goverent has no business knowing what I possess.
I also believe the gun ban has lost steam.
Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:14 AM
I know you are fishing for me.
I could/would argue registration of handguns makes a million times more sense than this rifle ban does.
Posted 29 January 2013 - 02:06 PM