Rendell IS calling for the Obama Admin

[rl6214]

To re-institute the AWB. Just on the news. Previous thread said he was expected to call for it, now it's been done.

Is he just grandstanding?

[RamboLiberal]

1. I just posted story from Post-Gazette

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x215996

[tridim]

2. Got a link?

I'll wait, because I assume you're already on your way to walmart to buy more ammo.

[rl6214]

3. Ha, ha, ha, ha,

That's a good one.

I'll wait, because I assume you're already on your way to walmart to buy more ammo.


Link is above your post.

[tridim]

5. Sounds reasonable to me

"How much blood has to be spilled in the streets of America before we say enough is enough?" asked Chief Harper, who said he's still grieving over the deaths. "The use of assault weapons isn't for sport. It's only meant for harm."

---

The mayor also supported two other gun control measures pushed by Mr. Rendell. He wants the state Legislature to require handgun owners to report to police, within 72 hours, any weapons that are lost or stolen, as a way of reducing "straw purchasers," who sell "lost or stolen" guns to criminals.

I have to assume you do want more blood to be spilled, so let me know what you disagree with.

[benEzra]

6. "The use of assault weapons isn't for sport. It's only meant for harm."

How is it, then, that the most popular sporting rifles in the United States are "assault weapons", yet only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle?

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, sometimes.

[tridim]

7. So you ARE for more blood on the streets?

3% of the blood is still blood.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. I'm FOR respecting the 2A. Why aren't you?

[tridim]

10. I'm 100% for the second ammendment.

Always have been, always will.

[yay]

12. So you don't support the AWB. N/T

[tridim]

16. I support drawing a line as to what arms the citizenry can carry.

We just disagree on where that line should be.

[bossy22]

18. i think that line has been drawn

at fully automatic weapons

[Hoopla Phil]

27. That has YET to be tested though hasn't it? I wonder if that will ever happen.

Because I do want a full auto rifle. I can remember way back at gun shows seeing a semi auto AR-15 on a rack for $700.00 and right next to it a full auto for $800.00. Of course you'd have to pay the $200.00 tax and wait 6 months to take delivery but I do long for those days. Today that same legal M-16 goes for around 15K.

[bossy22]

37. i think it has

in heller the court recognized that restrictions could be put on such weapons as machine guns....i doubt that any court would overturn the hughes amendment

[Hoopla Phil]

38. I don't recall seeing that machine gun reference in Heller. In fact

I recall a section where the M-16 was given as an example of what the militia would be able to keep.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. Here it is. From the Heller decision

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of theright.

[inkool]

20. Where would you draw the line?

Personally I like it where it is, but if a rational argument were made to move it I am willing to listen.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. I have heard rational arguments that are on two lines.

1) the line is at anything that does a radius of damage. Things like that would be grenades and chemical weapons. It is a rational argument and I tend to go for it. However, it can be reasonably argued that the 2A does in fact protect those weapons. But then you have to toss in the nuclear example. . .that kinda puts a kink in it so HOW much of a radius is reasonable? I do see the logic in this option though.

2) no regulation at all. The stipulation being that whatever you DO have you have to go through all the correct safety procedures to story and or handle these "over the top weapons". If you have nitro based dynamite then you have to have proper storage and rotation to insure separation and deterioration does not happen. If you what an nuke fine. BUT you and the NRC are going to be best buddies cause they'll be at your place very often for inspection. I can see the intellectual honesty here but do believe that it is over the top. I like option 1 better.

[jazzcat]

53. wow.

Wow.

[yay]

21. Then you're not 100% N/T

[tridim]

22. Where do you draw the line?

The second ammendment doesn't say anything about single shot, semi-auto, full-auto, bazookas, grenade launchers, high powered lasers, rail guns, SAM's or nuclear warheads. It just says "arms".

I support the right to bear arms with reasonable restrictions for the general citizenry, and IMO the AWB is perfectly reasonable.

[bossy22]

24. the AWB is anything but reasonable

its just plain silly

the logic of the AWB makes no sense...you could argue that what makes a gun more dangerous is that its semi-automatic and accepts a detachable mag....fine that atleast has some merit. But the AWB doesnt prohibit that...in fact the AWB allows you to own any semi-automatic with a detachable mag- as long as you dont have certain features on that gun...features which are mostly cosmetic in nature

its like saying you want a law to stop drag racing...so you decide to ban what you call "drag racers"....in that legislation you define drag racer as "any compact car that has 300 or more hp and has one or more of these following features- an underspoiler, street glow, racing stripes, rear spoiler, 300 watt or more sound system, racing seatbelts.

The only issue with this legislation is...you didnt ban what actually makes a "drag racer"....a "drag racer"- more specifically- a very powerful motor in a small car. All you did was make sure that these cars were more bland

the same goes with the AWB

why is a mini-14 which can accept a 30 rd mag


anymore dangerous than an AR-15 which can accept a 30 rd mag


both guns are semi-auto, both can accept 30 rd mags, both fire the same bullet, at close to the same rate

but according to most AWB's the mini-14 is a-ok, but the AR-15 is not

the truth is there is no difference- other than looks...

they can't ban all semi-auto long guns with detachable mags- since the second amendment holds that arms protected are those that are in common use and used for lawful purposes. Semi-auto long guns with detachable magazines are just that...

so again where should we draw the line, at full automatic firearms, firearms are not particularly suitable for defense and other lawful purposes (even though they can be used for those purposes)

[rl6214]

33. There go you

Throwing those damn facts around again.

[yay]

40. Well technicly

The AR is leaps and bounds more accurate than the mini... but that's not really relevant.

[rl6214]

30. And in my opinion

the AWB is not at all reasonable. Don't go after the weapon, go after the person using the weapon.

[Hoopla Phil]

36. I have heard rational arguments that are on two lines.

1) the line is at anything that does a radius of damage. Things like that would be grenades and chemical weapons. It is a rational argument and I tend to go for it. However, it can be reasonably argued that the 2A does in fact protect those weapons. But then you have to toss in the nuclear example. . .that kinda puts a kink in it so HOW much of a radius is reasonable? I do see the logic in this option though.

2) no regulation at all. The stipulation being that whatever you DO have you have to go through all the correct safety procedures to story and or handle these "over the top weapons". If you have nitro based dynamite then you have to have proper storage and rotation to insure separation and deterioration does not happen. If you what an nuke fine. BUT you and the NRC are going to be best buddies cause they'll be at your place very often for inspection. I can see the intellectual honesty here but do believe that it is over the top. I like option 1 better.

[yay]

46. This is where I would draw the line.

FUCK I had this post fucking typed out was just finishing up the LAST FUCKING PORTION and I accidentally hit the button on my surge protector. EPIC FAIL!...Oh well gave me a chance to review my post.... moving on.

Bear in mind, I'm a big supporter of states rights.

Keep the NFA, but with modification and revision. Replace individual tax stamps with a passport like license. The background check system would need to be simplified to cut down on time, but not so much as to miss something. To buy NFA items all you would have to do is show your license and pass the NICS background check. Failing a NICS background check would void all licenses. States still get to choose what NFA items are allowed.

Short barreled weapons, DD's, AOW's, and suppressors would require separate licenses but would require no safety class. Each license would cost $200, but you could apply for 2 or more to cut down on time. No renewal would be required.

F/A Weapons would follow the same rules as above but would require a safety class. Cannot be applied for at the same time as the others.

Explosives, like grenades, RPGS, ect. First time applicants are required to take a safety class, a refresher would be required every 3 years. License would cost $200 and would have to be renewed annually.


Repeal the hughes amendment.
Repeal the weapons and ammo import bans
Repeal the "U.S. parts requirement" on imported weapons.
Repeal the national ban on "armor piercing" bullets. Let states decide if they will allow it or not.

Implement a national CCW program. States can choose weather or not to honor national CCW licenses.

Divert more funding and update the NICS background check system. Make it as fail proof as possible
Divert more funding to the BATF

Strictly enforce mandatory minimum sentence laws for firearm related offenses except in extreme cases.


All right my flame suit is on. Feel free to pick it to pieces on both sides. I feel that these are good compromises for both sides. But that's my opinion.

[Callisto32]

54. Clarification please.

I am curious as to what you consider "general citizenry" and what the other categories of people are, why you make those separations, and why the different categories should be armed differently. Further, why is it only appropriate to arm each group to that extent?

[Hoopla Phil]

26. The 2A DOES affirm my right to a semi auto rifle with full capacity mags.

[rl6214]

28. I believe

that I should be able to buy an m16 that has a 3rd burst capability. Full auto is fun but goes thru too much ammo. I wouldn't mind a rifle with the selector for 3 rd burst.

[gorfle]

43. What arms do you think the founders intended the citizenry to carry?

What arms do you think the founders intended the citizenry to carry. Not specific models, but generally.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Then you DO support a persons RIGHT to have a semi auto rifle with full capacity mags?

[X_Digger]

13. "When did you stop beating your wife?" n/t

[tridim]

23. Only 3% of the time.

:eyes:

[Hoopla Phil]

31. Then you get prosecuted 100% of the time for the crimes.

Rifles are used in 3% of the CRIMES. That is CRIMINAL use yet you want to take them away from all the NON-CRIMINALS. That makes no since to me.

[benEzra]

14. And banning rifle handgrips that stick out would save lives, how?

Straight-stocked rifles can't be used to commit murders? And if you banned straight-stocked rifles, too, shotguns couldn't be used?

Here's the difference between an "assault weapon" and a non "assault weapon":



Change the stock.

BTW, I'm opposed to alcohol prohibition, also. That does not mean I'm in favor of people being killed by drunk drivers. What it means is that I think prohibition is a counterproductive and wrongheaded way to address the problem of people killed by alcohol (200+ times as many as are murdered by rifles, BTW).

[Tejas]

47. and those pesky bayonet lugs,

just think of how many liquor store robberies were prevented!

:sarcasm:

[hack89]

15. So any restriction on any right is ok as long as it saves lives?

You sound like GWB justifying the patriot act.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. That is a CRIMINAL act. Why take away guns from the NON-CRIMINALS?

That is not common since that is NON-since.

[gorfle]

42. It's insignificant blood.

Look, twice as many people are killed every year by hands and feet than by rifles.

Compared to the number of lawfully owned and operated firearms, that 3% of blood is insignificant. Yeah, tell me how I'd feel different if it was someone I loved who was killed, yadda yadda yadda.

The bottom line is, there is not a rifle crime problem in the United States.

[krispos42]

45. Assumes facts not in evidence

The underlying assumption is that, in the 3% number claimed above, that if those murders did not have rifles defined (arbitrarily) as "assault weapons", the murders would not have happened.


This is highly unlikely.


All you can say is that the murders would not have been committed with an "assault weapon".







If Canada banned the sale and owership of black-painted automobiles, I'm pretty sure that the number of deaths and injuries related to black-painted-car accidents would drop to damn near zero. I'm also pretty sure that any person or politicial pointing to the drop in black-car-painted deaths and injuries as a sign that traffic safety was improved would be publically humiliated.




The UK banned "assault weapons" in 1988 and handguns in 1997. As a result, they have very few gun-related deaths a year, less than five dozen. However, claiming that the UK has a lower murder rate since the bans went into effect is a majorly false premise. The homicide rate in the UK has doubled in the past 25 years.

Twice as many people are being murdered a year (per capita), but very few of them are with guns.


Progress?

[Statistical]

51. That is why antis love the stat "gun crime" never "violent crime"...

or "gun deaths" not "homicides".

It creates an apples to orange comparison and looks good. "GUN DEATHS down 80% <fine print.... overall homicide rate up 12%>".

[krispos42]

52. That's why I made a graph.

It tends to prove my point in a manner that is effective.


The biggest argument I had about the graph was... proper sourcing and footnotes! :-)

[one-eyed fat man]

49. let's look at PA and cop killers.............

The clarion call has been sounded, both by the politicians and the media in Pennsylyvania, that the only way to prevent cop killings is to pass more gun laws. You seem to agree. Lets look at the three thugs that killed the Philly cop last year.

Howard Cain was the trigger man in the Liczbinski murder. You can see his fifteen page criminal record here.Howard Cain
[br />Look at all the violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that Cain has been arrested for. Keep in mind, these are only gun charges. Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed “Nolle Prossed,” meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer.

You can find Levon Warner’s criminal record here. Levon Warner
His is only six pages. Warner is facing three charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for unlawfully carrying firearms, in his latest arrest for conspiring to murder a police officer. Do you think Ms. Abraham’s office will make them stick this time? Previously, the Philadelphia DA’s office thrice declined to prosecute Warner for gun law violations. The Philadelphia judicial system chose not to try him for six other violations of Pennsylvania’s gun laws.

And last, but certainly not least, Eric Floyd.Eric Flyod

Again, hopefully this time, he’ll actually face weapons charges, in addition to the murder charges. But again, in 1994, he was arrested for robbery, and the prosecutors declined to prosecute him for carrying firearms illegally in two counts. Also in 1994, the courts declined to try him for two counts of carrying firearms illegally.

Now keep in mind, this is only weapons charges. The rap sheets of these scumbags total twenty six pages, and contains all manner of things that should have kept them off the streets for good. Maybe you should ask Governor Rendell why the Pennsylvania criminal justice system is so absolutely and utterly broken.

The Pittsburgh shooter, a 27 year-old, still living with his momma loser, unlike most cop-killers, didn't have years of arrest records before he started blasting. Poplawski had been expelled from high school and was dishonorably discharged from the Marines. With a Dishonorable Discharge it was against the law for him to have a gun. The law failed to stop him.

Gun control laws obviously cannot be the panacea you propose, since the system is currently not using the laws already in the books in prosecutions. Don't you think you deserve better from your political leaders? You going to fight hard to pass more gun "restrictions" the crooks won't obey and your prosecutors won't prosecute??

Maybe that's why your politicians are out grabbing headlines, so you won't notice the "catch and release" policies they have been using for years aren't quite working.

[paulsby]

55. the premise is incorrect

"The use of assault weapons isn't for sport. It's only meant for harm."

1) so called "assault weapons" are often used for sport.

2) it also creates a false dichotomy. sport or harm.

[yay]

4. Too late in the day, and the wrong day of the week

You have to get there early/late to even think about getting any. Especially if it's a popular caliber.

[Pullo]

11. They're out at Walmart

you got any other suggestions?

[tridim]

17. Mexico?

[Hoopla Phil]

34. You don't want that stuff. It all comes from Central America and is mostly corrosive.

[rl6214]

35. Against the law

to have ammo or weapons in Mexico. Don't you know that? THERE ARE NO WEAPONS IN MEXICO.

[Botany]

9. The Average White Band?

[bossy22]

19. who knows

he probably is grand standing

the AWB would not prevent this guy from having an SKS

[Howzit]

41. I wager that the next AWB will be cloaked as an anti-terrorism measure

aimed at de-clawing the burgeoning selection of Right Wing militias.

[X_Digger]

44. If recent saber rattling is indicative..

.. then yes, that, and to save Mexico from the Narco Wars (tm).

[one-eyed fat man]

48. funny you should mention that

but DHS has sent a report to all law enforcement agencies listing military veterans as potential terrorists!

The commander of the veterans group the American Legion, David Rehbein, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing concern with the assessment, "To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable."

[Pullo]

50. It will definately be part of something like "Patriot Act II"

Last one was the "crime bill."