Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIllinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms
“Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called ‘assault weapons’ but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution.”
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-illinois-bill-to-ban-all-modern-firearms/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Glad to see that pump action shotguns are included since the anti-gun coalition has always stated that they're not against hunting. Proof of the lies that have been told.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... total intransigence on trying to rein in our national gun-death problem.
If the NRA was really advocating for gun owners, they would support reasonable legislation. Their failure to do that will result in bans far beyond what are reasonable and necessary.
That said, I understand that the linked article is likely hyperbole and scare tactics, but that does not mean we won't see a legislative backlash of gun and ammo laws. We will.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)this has always been the goal and doesn't have anything to with backlash. The definition of "reasonable" would keep changing. That is why "reasonable" or "common sense" were never defined.
See DC and Chicago.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... had the NRA supported modest legislation, measured effectiveness, then supported taking additional modest steps until the problem was solved we wouldn't have ...
A. 30,000 gun deaths a year
and ...
B. Laws that banned single-shot 22's.
Thanks to the NRA's intransigence, we've still got the former and will soon have the latter.
then supported taking additional modest steps until the problem was solved we wouldn't have ...
That's the problem. Where do the "additional modest steps" stop short of a total ban? The anti-gun owner crowd usually won't say where they want to stop, though occasionally they let it slip out. Many want a total ban on private ownership of all firearms.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that's the problem. The problem isn't the number of guns, it is who has the guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)we would still have them. There is no evidence gun laws dropping crime. Playing with band aids and duct tape doesn't address the problem let alone solve it. As soon as that modest legislation proved to not do anything, there would be more modest legislation proposed.
Even if we had complete bans like DC, Chicago, UK, Jamaica, we would still have that same number. Granted, the number of gun suicides would drop, but the number of rope suicides would go up.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Even before the Virginia Tech tragedy, in which Cho killed 32 people before shooting himself, federal law required states to put the names of people declared mentally ill by a court into an FBI database. The trouble was too many states simply did not do it. Some claimed they did not have the money and resources.
The new law authorizes up to $1.3 billion in federal grants so states can improve their tracking of people who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. But it took years for support to build, even though the measure had the backing of the National Rifle Association.
"We've tried to get this done in federal legislation since the mid-90s. But it was opposed by the mental health lobbies. They felt it was unfair to stigmatize that person and put him into the federal system," NRA spokesman Wayne Lapierre told ABC News.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4126152
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...have in the past, and are now, advocating gun Prohibition for such a claim to be credible anymore.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)but Chamberlain thought he was being 'reasonable'. It's not always the 'reasonable' actions that are problematic, it's what comes after neing 'reasonable'.
Pullo
(594 posts)the "backlash" might be quite a bit different than the one you are expecting.
Pro-RKBA supporters tend to take the long view, while the anti-gun crowd's resolve tends to be fleeting. Look no further than liberalization of concealed-carry laws sweeping the nation the last 18yrs since the '94 "assault" weapons ban, and the general trend of easing restrictions on gun ownership. This has happened in tandem with a steady decline in violent crime over the same period.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)this story is in fact true, the legislation will be litigated to pieces and will die a painful, costly, and ugly death. he net effect will be that it makes gun control legislation more difficult to pass going forward. The antis are masters of the self inflicted gunshot wound.
Pullo
(594 posts)Stuff like this will do great damage to our party in the 2014 mid-terms.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 2, 2013, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)
They do, the people pay.......twice. Once in freedom, once in labor.
Marinedem
(373 posts)The Grabbers will never want to take away your daddy's shotgun, or that 7 round pistol that grandpa brought back from dubya, dubya two.
No siree. The grabbers are masters of restraint and common sense. They only want the scariest, blackest rifles of the streets. You need not be worried about anybody taking away your duck gun or your antique pistols (Until after the scarier guns are gone, of course. Ban the fuck out of everything later!)
The next person that trys to tell me that the grabbers only want "Common sense" regulations and have no intention of infringing on the rights of "regular" gun owners can get bent. Shit like this shows what it's all about. Total control and regulation.
Truth be told though, I absolutely LOVE this type of legislation. It never passes, shows of the true intentions of statist grabbers, and strengthens the resolve of gun owners against future legislation, as they now see what the end-game is.
Carry on, Illinois. You already had more Americans killed within your borders last year than Afghanistan, but whatever.
Pullo
(594 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Hope you don't mind your words joining the fray in GD:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2119824
I will take my post down if you would rather post this great response solely under your own name. But I couldn't phrase things any better if I tried!
-app
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)of this bill?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)..........speaks for itself.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)somebody wrote: Look no further than liberalization of concealed-carry laws sweeping the nation the last 18yrs since the '94 "assault" weapons ban, and the general trend of easing restrictions on gun ownership. This has happened in tandem with a steady decline in violent crime over the same period.
Huh? loosening 'what' restrictions on gun ownership? when has america had much gun regulation to begin with?
And you cherry pick the last 18 years when murder & violent crime rates fell from all time highs in the early 1990's, well what about the previous 25 years?
I don't remember the exact years, but for about an 8 year time period starting about 1964 thru about 1972, both the national gunstock doubled from 75 million to 150 million, as well as the gunmurder rate.
It's common knowledge that from the 1960's thru the 1990's the total number of guns in america went from about 75 million to maybe 225 million, tripling, AND THIS WAS THE PERIOD VIOLENT CRIME & MURDER RATES SKYROCKETED TO ALL TIME HIGHS. You only cherry pick the periods of decline as if to prove some efficacy on concealed carry.
Stop believing in the 2nd Amendment MYTHOLOGY. Your arguments are predominantly fabricated to fit the nra's agenda of making money for themselves.
The National Academies of Sciences concluded in 2005 that current data do not allow for firm conclusions about how "right to carry" laws affect crime.
We think it's worth quoting the conclusion from Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review: "The literature on right-to-carry laws summarized in this chapter has obtained conflicting estimates of their effects on crime ... No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous co-variates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change.
Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates."
politifact: Getting back to our rating. LaPierre said, "Across the board, violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the Right to Carry is lower than in areas that prevent it." We do not find that current crime statistics support this point. Some academics have said trends over time show that "right to carry" laws lower crime rates, but that argument is contested. There's certainly not straight-line correlation between states with "right to carry" laws and crime rates. LaPierre made it sound like the data clearly supported his view. They don't. We rate his statement FALSE.
The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the 'state armies' - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state...The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." Warren E Burger, (repub) Chief Justice of the United States.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If a state goes shall-issue in year 00, you won't suddenly get masses of armed citizens carrying. It takes a few years before you have a signifigant percentage of the population carrying, and criminals start coming to grief when their intend victims start shooting them. It doesn't happen overnight.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)GSCloud: If a state goes shall-issue in year 00, you won't suddenly get masses of armed citizens carrying. It takes a few years before you have a signifigant percentage of the population carrying, and criminals start coming to grief when their intend victims start shooting them. It doesn't happen overnight.
Wrong, no state has 'a significant percentage of the population carrying', not too many states have over 4% of population possessing concealed carry permits.
That wasn't the progun selling point either, which was the mere threat that anyone could be carrying a concealed firearm would be enough to deter violent crime.
As well, montana enabled shall issue in 1991 & since then her violent crime rate near tripled & is now doubled, never falling below the 1991 start year.
West Virginia enabled si-ccw about 1989 & her violent crime rate doubled.
Both dakotas enabled shall issue ccw & their violent crime rates are now about tripled (tho still low about 250).
Pennsylvania enabled shall issue ccw 1989 & for 20 years it remained above it's start year falling only marginally below in 2009, but an average of the 23 years would put pennsy's violent crime rate about 5 - 10% above it's start year.
St Louis city enabled shallissue ccw in 2005 & the very next year had the highest violent crime rate in the country.
Detroit enabled shall issue ccw 2002 & has the highest violent crime rate & murder rate (or nearly so), so it's been 10 years, how long they have to wait, cloud?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)plus the cause and effect link?
Lacking those, there is no compelling state interest to allow may issue. Besides, giving a police functionary arbitrary control over anything, which is how may issue works, has no place in a liberal democracy.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)gejohnston: where is the blood bath?
.. a metaphorical question which merits no reply, the violent crime rates in those 5 states rose after passage of shall issue ccw, the ONLY states which saw long term rise in violent crime rates from approx 1990 to now (dakotas enabled shall issue earlier I believe).
plus the cause and effect link?
where's yours? correlation doesn't prove causation anyway, so again no reply needed.
Lacking those, there is no compelling state interest to allow may issue.
You have it backwards, no compelling evidence to ALLOW shall issue. It doesn't affect violent crime rates or murder rates, & makes homes more hazardous for children.
Besides, giving a police functionary arbitrary control over anything, which is how may issue works, has no place in a liberal democracy.
The police would enforce the law, enacted by a state's legislature at it's discretion. That's the way it was in the past, without any whining about disallowing concealed carry:
1 -- Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (enacted 1891).
2 -- Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. enacted 1876.
3 -- Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (enacted 1974).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to .. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3
4 --Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and .. but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
5 -- Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property... but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 1945.
1875: "That the right of ... but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."
6-- Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1889).
7 -- New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen ... but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1971, added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
8 -- North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.1971).
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
9 -- Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.1907).
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I never claimed there to be one either way, so I don't need to.
You have it backwards. There is no demonstrated harm at least no evidence of it.
So in other words, you are not a liberal.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I'm doing it to protect myself and my family in the extremely unlikely chance that I'd ever be in the situation where I would need it.
The local crime rate is the furthest thing from my mind.
The local criminal is the only thing I'm concerned with.
loknar
(33 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)would wish to ban pump-action shotguns but not pump-action rifles?
Clames
(2,038 posts)
