House Bill 1022

[CyberDruid]

Anytime I see someone use the term "assualt Rifle" I know they really don't have a clue. That aren't even informed enough to be involved in the process of deciding what regulations to put in place.

It's that simple. The labeling of a particular weapon based soley on its appearance is nothing more than an emotional tool to leverage the population.

If I paint my rifle pink is it less threatening? Does that make it a non assault weapon? Maybe I should tie a stuffed toy to it too.

The gadgets and accessories people like to put on their rifles should have no bearing on whether or not they can use them. You want a folding stock? Why not. You want a 36" sword on the end...go ahead...

Just because it scares the uninformed non-gun using public is no excuse to prohibit any particular weapon.

If and when someone uses a weapon...any weapon...to commit a crime serious jailtime and fines should be the result.

As expensive as ammunition is the likelyhood of people lining up to buy 100 round drums for their AR-15 is slim. The people that want high capacity magazines should be able to have them in my opinion...they will soon lose the desire to use them after Paying $50-75 to fill them up...

I can kill you just as dead with my single shot .22 rifle as I can with my 30 round .223. It only takes one shot to kill someone if you know what the hell you are doing...so what difference does the magazine capacity have to do with it?

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

Anytime I see someone use the term "assualt Rifle" I know they really don't have a clue. That aren't even informed enough to be involved in the process of deciding what regulations to put in place.

It's that simple. The labeling of a particular weapon based soley on its appearance is nothing more than an emotional tool to leverage the population.

If I paint my rifle pink is it less threatening? Does that make it a non assault weapon? Maybe I should tie a stuffed toy to it too.

The gadgets and accessories people like to put on their rifles should have no bearing on whether or not they can use them. You want a folding stock? Why not. You want a 36" sword on the end...go ahead...

Just because it scares the uninformed non-gun using public is no excuse to prohibit any particular weapon.

If and when someone uses a weapon...any weapon...to commit a crime serious jailtime and fines should be the result.

As expensive as ammunition is the likelyhood of people lining up to buy 100 round drums for their AR-15 is slim. The people that want high capacity magazines should be able to have them in my opinion...they will soon lose the desire to use them after Paying $50-75 to fill them up...

I can kill you just as dead with my single shot .22 rifle as I can with my 30 round .223. It only takes one shot to kill someone if you know what the hell you are doing...so what difference does the magazine capacity have to do with it?

agreeded. I have friend who own 30-06 rifles, they go hunting bear and deer. so explain why it should be illegal for me to take my M1-Garand out hunting? Under the bill my M1 would have to be destroyed, and destroying a peace of history man killer rifle or not is just not fair. yea a 30-06 will kill a human, but as you said so can a .22, or even a shotgun.

[lemonadesoda]

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

+1, unfortunately an anti gun person will not read anything that could be controversial to his way of thinking.

Who is anti gun?

Unfortunately a pro gun libertine will not read anything in the linked article that is different from his fixed opinions, probably because they are too busy repeating themselves in the same thread again and again without anything useful to say. Try reading the link! Try reading the thread! LOL. Try googling a but further. Wow, seriously PWND How embarassing. LOL

[a_ump]

definitely no, that's one of the dumbest bills i've seen. Does the government really think that would make a difference? It's not like "criminals" can't get guns just cause it's against the law, that's like saying because weed is illegal it will cut down on the usage; or since you have to be 21 to drink, underage drinking won't happen as much. One of the worst bills i've seen. All this will do is piss off the people that would use the guns with good intentions or simply collect or have it. Criminals and gangs will still have the same amount of guns. Stupid and pointless bill.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

Who is anti gun?

Unfortunately a pro gun libertine will not read anything in the linked article that is different from his fixed opinions, probably because they are too busy repeating themselves in the same thread again and again without anything useful to say. Try reading the link! Try reading the thread! LOL. Try googling a but further. Wow, seriously PWND How embarassing. LOL

i read your article about the 12 year old who shot his mom over the home chores, but if you read further it says that the boy shot his mother because she was abusing him physically and mentally. Obviously that would change things. Yes if there were no guns he would just have stabbed her to death, what is the difference. Being shot 8 times, or beign stabbed 20 times. I know that if the day came it wouldn't matter how she died she would ahve stilled died regardless. its just like int he UK where they banned guns, and now they are trying to ban knives longer 3.5inches. Next steak knives will be illegal, that can kill someone better then a butter knife.

Originally Posted by a_ump

definitely no, that's one of the dumbest bills i've seen. Does the government really think that would make a difference? It's not like "criminals" can't get guns just cause it's against the law, that's like saying because weed is illegal it will cut down on the usage; or since you have to be 21 to drink, underage drinking won't happen as much. One of the worst bills i've seen. All this will do is piss off the people that would use the guns with good intentions or simply collect or have it. Criminals and gangs will still have the same amount of guns. Stupid and pointless bill.

The way its written up is stupid, it ban's just about every gun in existence. The problem i have with that bill is the government would take my M1-Garand and destroy it, a peace of history molded from iron and wood. A peace of history destroyed in the name of what...?

[lemonadesoda]

That was just one link I gave. It's not anti-gun. But that some regulation is, IMO, arguably a good idea. e.g. lock the gun up if there are kids. Or, kids cant buy guns. Or, etc. etc. I've made previous posts on some "simple" suggestions. I'm pro gun. But I'm against 100% free for all liberty no rules.

The Swiss comments are really annoying though. Most households have a gun because they are required to because of swiss militia. (EVERY male witha few exceptions is part of the swiss militia (army) and must have a gun at home). But in most cantons (states) carrying handguns in public is not allowed. Only at formal shooting ranges/events.

Sadly, gun suicide in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. esp. with kids. If the guns werent readily available in the home perhaps a more gruesome painful method of suicide would deter people. It is terrible to think that spur of the moment (drink, depressed, whatever) suicide is so easily executed.

[CyberDruid]

I've been shooting since before most of you were born. I have a large collection of weapons. Many of the items I own would probably be "illegal" in some states.

I have never been in trouble with the law and have never used a weapon in the comission of a crime.

Why should I have my rights infringed because some uninformed jingo has fixated on a catchphrase based on the appearance of a rifle?

I can't think of any good reason for that.

As stated many times in many ways when you outlaw something only outlaws will have that something...it won't stop the something from being made. sold, stolen or used.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

That was just one link I gave. It's not anti-gun. But that some regulation is, IMO, arguably a good idea. e.g. lock the gun up if there are kids. Or, kids cant buy guns. Or, etc. etc. I've made previous posts on some "simple" suggestions. I'm pro gun. But I'm against 100% free for all liberty no rules.

The Swiss comments are really annoying though. Most households have a gun because they are required to because of swiss militia. (EVERY male witha few exceptions is part of the swiss militia (army) and must have a gun at home). But in most cantons (states) carrying handguns in public is not allowed. Only at formal shooting ranges/events.

Sadly, gun suicide in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. esp. with kids. If the guns werent readily available in the home perhaps a more gruesome painful method of suicide would deter people. It is terrible to think that spur of the moment (drink, depressed, whatever) suicide is so easily executed.

kids buying guns, please tell me where, cuz last i checked you cant buy a pistol unless your 21, and to buy a rifle or shotgun you have to be 18. And i want a link for your suicide statistics. its bull shit, look to Japan they have the highest suicide rates int he world and guess what, guns have been illegal there since the end of WW2.

Originally Posted by CyberDruid

I've been shooting since before most of you were born. I have a large collection of weapons. Many of the items I own would probably be "illegal" in some states.

I have never been in trouble with the law and have never used a weapon in the comission of a crime.

Why should I have my rights infringed because some uninformed jingo has fixated on a catchphrase based on the appearance of a rifle?

I can't think of any good reason for that.

As stated many times in many ways when you outlaw something only outlaws will have that something...it won't stop the something from being made. sold, stolen or used.

I own weapons, and guns, i don't kill people, i don't go comit crimes, the fact that my right to bear arms will be infringed upon just tells me how our government is stepping out side of its boundries.
Once the government take away our guns then the last balance will be removed. Without guns the civilian population cannot defend its self from its government.

[Snipermonkey2]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

That was just one link I gave. It's not anti-gun. But that some regulation is, IMO, arguably a good idea. e.g. lock the gun up if there are kids. Or, kids cant buy guns. Or, etc. etc. I've made previous posts on some "simple" suggestions. I'm pro gun. But I'm against 100% free for all liberty no rules.

The Swiss comments are really annoying though. Most households have a gun because they are required to because of swiss militia. (EVERY male witha few exceptions is part of the swiss militia (army) and must have a gun at home). But in most cantons (states) carrying handguns in public is not allowed. Only at formal shooting ranges/events.

Sadly, gun suicide in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. esp. with kids. If the guns werent readily available in the home perhaps a more gruesome painful method of suicide would deter people. It is terrible to think that spur of the moment (drink, depressed, whatever) suicide is so easily executed.

Yeah but after they leave the militia they have the option to buy the rifle. Also the article states

"Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not. "

It does not state "Most cantons".

I can see you just briefly looked at the article or didn't read it at all because it even goes on to say this.

"The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced."

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

Sadly, gun suicide in Switzerland is the highest in Europe. esp. with kids. If the guns werent readily available in the home perhaps a more gruesome painful method of suicide would deter people. It is terrible to think that spur of the moment (drink, depressed, whatever) suicide is so easily executed.

Around here the highest rate of death is OD, or bad pills. But those are both illegal anyway so..........

[lemonadesoda]

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

And i want a link for your suicide statistics.

GIYF. Do your own homework next time: http://www.google.ch/search?hl=en&q=...=Google+Search

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Yo...01059000&ty=st
http://everything2.com/e2node/Compar...cide%2520rates


Homicide rates are not lower than typical European averages, e.g. Germany, Netherlands, UK although the stats are a bit out of date, and "news" is that things have been much worse in CH in the last few years.

Originally Posted by Snipermonkey2

I can see you just briefly looked at the article or didn't read it at all because it even goes on to say this.

By the way you write, it's clear that it's you that didnt read the full article or only read what you want to, never investigated further than the end of your nose, and probably never even been to CH, and probably couldnt find it on a map.

[Snipermonkey2]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

GIYF. Do your own homework next time: http://www.google.ch/search?hl=en&q=...=Google+Search

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Yo...01059000&ty=st
http://everything2.com/e2node/Compar...cide%2520rates

Woot the USA is winning. Ah but really w/e if people kill themselves its for their own reasons and I don't think others can every understand what drives people to that. Just because people use guns to kill themselves doesn't mean they should have restrictions on them. That is just like me blaming my keyboard for type-o's. If you think guns are bad and cause problems then don't own one but don't go pedaling your believes onto others. Just because one apple is bad doesn't make them all bad.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

GIYF. Do your own homework next time: http://www.google.ch/search?hl=en&q=...=Google+Search

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Yo...01059000&ty=st
http://everything2.com/e2node/Compar...cide%2520rates


Homicide rates are not lower than typical European averages, e.g. Germany, Netherlands, UK although the stats are a bit out of date, and "news" is that things have been much worse in CH in the last few years.

Thats not really true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_suicide_rate
As you can see there are many other countries above the Swiss in this category. Notice where the U.S. is? Not bad considering how "armed" we are.

[lemonadesoda]

Originally Posted by Snipermonkey2

don't go pedaling your believes onto others.

Likewise. I suggest you take some of your own medicine. Stop spouting your own beliefs on others and ridiculing others if they have a different opinion. Go read the thread, and what I said. Guns, ok. Reasonable regulations, reasonable, just like regulations owning and driving a car. I hope the analogy is sufficiently simple for ya. Oh man, stuck record, since nothing useful or informative is being added anymore, I suggest a link-back to the start of the thread. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=80246

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

GIYF. Do your own homework next time: http://www.google.ch/search?hl=en&q=...=Google+Search

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Yo...01059000&ty=st
http://everything2.com/e2node/Compar...cide%2520rates


Homicide rates are not lower than typical European averages, e.g. Germany, Netherlands, UK although the stats are a bit out of date, and "news" is that things have been much worse in CH in the last few years.

By the way you write, it's clear that it's you that didnt read the full article or only read what you want to, never investigated further than the end of your nose, and probably never even been to CH, and probably couldnt find it on a map.

the first website link called "Young Swiss Holds European" It is written from an anti-gun and a optiomistic point of view. Reguardless of weather or not guns are legal people will still kill themselves. I would rather see someone shoot themselves then cut and mutilate their body.

Also, look at the suicide rates for Great Britian compared to that of Swiss, interesting suicide rates haven't gone down, nor have things changed, instead kids stab themselves with 4 inch knives, that now will also be illegal. So then kids in Britain will have to do what the Japanese do, which is jump off high buildings instead. Because Guns in Japan haven't been legal since 1945, and BTW japan has the highest Suicide death in the westernize world, when compared to other nations with teenagers.

The Everything2 website seems to be a load of pro-optomistic thinking website, with bias towards Gun related deaths, however on the world rank we are very far from number 1 on the list.

Accordint to the listing Switerzland is ranked 21 on the list of top suicides, France is ranked 20, Japan is ranked 11, Russia 3.
So where is the United STates in all of this, wayyyyyyyyyy down the list at spot 44, Canada has higher Deaths then we do.

I am not saying your data is false or wrong, it will be bent towards an anti-gun point of view. Just like CNN and MSNBC are anti-Republican networks and don't show any pro Republican sentiment on them, Conversely, FOX is the only news channel that has balanced news, but they lean towards the Republican side of things. Thus when i want to watch news i watch both FOx and CNN, because between the both i see about everything, outside of that there is the BBC. Now what does this have to do with Gun's and sucidie rates. Well its simple, reguarless of weather we have guns or not, there will be suidice, ther eis no way around it. Just like a pro democrat CNN would say something pro democratic, a anti-gun website will list a greater percentage of suicide rates with guns, and embellish on the figures a little.

For Example, gun Suicide rates are 7.1:1M in the US, while gun suicide rates in Switzerland are 5.8:1M, that is higher only because there are less people in Switzerland. So to tally it all up like about 40 people commit suicide each year in Switzerland from guns. more poeple die from car accidnets then from guns, this is all pointless babble.


Also, if anyone bother to check the consignees they are all Democrat, not a single republican or Independent Cosigned the bill. To be honest, i frankly believe this is the Governments way of trying to seal the gap and eliminate the last check and balance that exists between government check. Without guns the civilians cannot raise up to revolt against an oppressive government, same time the government has nothing to fear since it has the weaponry and the superiority to fight the populace for control.

All and all, i believe that the government might be moving towards automity where they will be feared by the populace, due to a ultimate superiority over that of the populace that it governs.

[erocker]

Can we not all agree that the US needs to get guns out of the hands of criminals first?

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by erocker

Can we not all agree that the US needs to get guns out of the hands of criminals first?

that would be a good start actually.

[Snipermonkey2]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

Likewise. I suggest you take some of your own medicine. Stop spouting your own beliefs on others and ridiculing others if they have a different opinion. Go read the thread, and what I said. Guns, ok. Reasonable regulations, reasonable, just like regulations owning and driving a car. I hope the analogy is sufficiently simple for ya.

It's not only my beliefs it is the founding fathers beliefs. That is why we have the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

[WhiteLotus]

I voted for the first option purely because the other two did not fit my opinion.

I have said it many times, you can have your guns but the way in which they are obtained needs to be revised. I mean, i have seen (not to say it is the norm) banks in Texas giving you a free gun when you open up an account. Now that is just a bit silly in my opinion.

The laws you already have for guns needs to be enforced better, that is all. Illegal guns need to be prevented from getting into the market. And anyway, if the gun is kept legally (that is to say it is registured) then if that gun is used to commit a crime its going to be pretty easy to find out who did it and sentance that person accordingly.

EDIT: And as a side note, i dislike anyone bringing up the second ammendment as reason for it to be ok to own a gun. If the second ammendment actually said "by the time you hit 50 you have to be carted of and executed". Would there be such a defence of that ammendment or would it be changed and/or abolished? Of course that example is an extreme one, but just because it's an ammendment - it doesn't mean its right. Think about it.

[CyberDruid]

That doesn't make sense to me M8.

[WhiteLotus]

which part and i'll try my best to elaborate

[CyberDruid]

The part about amendments not being right. Our whole nation is founded and governed on the assumption that the Constituion is right. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary...the laws of the land flow from the Constitution...if the bills and amendments are wrong then the laws are wrong...

There are already processes in place to review and adjust the amendments...but none of those mechanisms are based on the notion that the amendments are deeply flawed (i.e. wrong).

Other than that I agree: keep the guns out of the hands of criminals...by keeping them in the hands of law abiding citizens

[WhiteLotus]

Well what if the amendment was wrong, but at the time it was created it was considered the right thing to do?

I understand your point about it being treated as right and taken as right though. Was just a point to make you think, that is all.

But yes, take the guns away from criminals (and allow for occasional fool who goes and shoots the cheating partner) and there isn't much wrong with them.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Well what if the amendment was wrong, but at the time it was created it was considered the right thing to do?

I understand your point about it being treated as right and taken as right though. Was just a point to make you think, that is all.

But yes, take the guns away from criminals (and allow for occasional fool who goes and shoots the cheating partner) and there isn't much wrong with them.

The 2nd amendment was written by the founding fathers, with the forethought that someday the government might become oppressive, and in such a case the people should have the right to arm themselves and revolt against the oppression.

While it is not writtin that there should be a check and balance to our government,it was writting with the assumption that in the event that the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches were to become oppressive, or over rule the other without the popularity of the people to back them ie how the Nazi's gain control of the German government, the people as a last resort can have the means to over through the government. This is why the second amendment was written in, because as the colonist and founding fathers knew there had to be a way to guarantee the right against oppression, and that was the last balance to prevent the government from becoming oppressive.

[WhiteLotus]

Aye, i completely understand what you are saying, but just me being the devils advocate(ish).