Posted on 05/13/2003 3:01:15 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Delay Sees Assault Gun Ban Expiring in Congress
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Majority Leader Tom Delay, a proudly pro-gun Texas Republican, predicted on Tuesday the House will allow a 1994 assault weapons ban to expire next year.
"The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize (renew) it," DeLay told reporters.
DeLay's opposition to the ban puts him at odds with President Bush, who wants it to be extended although he generally opposes the expansion of gun laws.
The ban, approved during the Clinton administration, applies to military-style semi-automatic assault weapons like the Uzi and the AK-47 that have high ammunition capacity and are capable of rapid fire at close range.
A group of mostly Democratic senators last week opened a drive to get the extension passed in the U.S. Senate, and called on Bush to help, particularly in the House where pro-gun sentiments are stronger and DeLay wields considerable control over the agenda.
After the 1999 Columbine high school shootings in Colorado, the Senate passed several tough new gun measures. DeLay was instrumental in blocking them in the House.
Senate Democrats want to renew the current ban with only one change -- a ban on importing large-capacity ammunition clips. Their manufacture is already prohibited in the United States. Some House Democrats have outlined more far-reaching legislation that would expand the ban to other guns.
"The House Republicans are so out of touch that they are to the right of even President Bush on guns. Most Americans want fewer assault weapons on the streets, but the House Republicans want to bring banned assault weapons back," said New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
Bush's support for the ban puts him at odds with the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobby that is usually his ally.
Another top NRA priority, a bill giving gun makers and sellers sweeping protection against lawsuits, recently passed the House and is pending in the Senate.
Several Senate Democrats Tuesday said they were determined to do everything they could to block the lawsuit bill, or at least amend it to narrow its scope
And that 50, 100, 150, 200 etc year old rifle is scrap metal. Just look at England. Even the fake stuff is outlawed.
(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
That is also 180 degrees from the SCOTUS Miller decision which stated that weapons that have military use are useful to the citizen-militia and are therefore protected by the 2nd Amendment.
So, gun banning freedom-haters should get an amendment passed. Easy enough?
This is the real world, and The NRA members times 1000 could never stop the US military.
You haven't thought this one out too far, have you?
I think the NRA uses this fear of the big bad government to protect their billion dollar industry lobby.
The NRA has nearly 4 million members and receives very little industry support, other than advertising dollars. The firearms and sporting goods industry has its own lobbying organization. The NRA represents its individual members.
Also, in practically every country where guns are tightly controlled, the crime and murder rates are significantly less per capita. Is this not a true fact. I'd like to see some opposing information.
Well, "practically every country" sure leaves you a bit of wiggle room, doesn't it? I'll bet I can come up with quite a few violent hell-holes where legal gun ownership is all but forbidden. More important than that is the fact that, compared to the utopias I'm sure you have in mind, the US has higher rates of non-gun violent crime. So, using your logic, the low crime rate of some European countries must be due to their tight regulation of bricks, knives, baseball bats, human hands, etc.
More important, however, is the general crime rate of those countries you have in mind. Most people will not be the victim of murder, by firearm or other means. One is far more likely to be a victim of a property crime. Check the rates of home invasion burglaries (particularly "hot" break-ins, where the perp knows the home owner is present) in England, for example, and if you're really daring, see how those rates are trending vs. the US.
Suffice it to say, I don't think you really have a grasp on the relationship between restrictions on legal gun ownership and crime. The good thing is, it's never too late to educate yourself, much like I did when, in my early 20's, I went from being a supporter of "common sense gun control" to a "gun nut."
I'll get you started: there is no data anywhere which even suggests that laws which restrict legal gun ownership in the US do anything to reduce crime. Your quaint suppositions, notwithstanding.
Why, indeed. I hope you're right. But I've seen enough BS from politicians over my voting lifetime that I don't have a lot of faith in the bastards to ever do the right thing. DeLay understands that this issue will make or break the Republican Party. I wonder why G. W. doesn't?
How about Uganda?
Like most African leaders of his generation, Obote led an independence movement premised on democratic self-rule, but installed himself as dictator for life. In 1966, he suspended the constitution. On December 19, 1969, Obote used a failed assassination attempt to justify imposing a nationwide ban on the lawful possession of firearms and ammunition. Of course, government officials and other favored individuals were exempt. Accompanying the ban on non-government guns was a ban on all political parties, except Obote's government party, the Uganda Peoples Congress.In 1970, a new Firearms Act replaced the 1955 British Firearms Ordinance. The law imposed national firearm registration and gun-owner licensing under exceedingly stringent requirements. In practice, the law was used to make it illegal for anyone to have a firearm, except persons deemed politically correct by the Obote dictatorship.
A year later, army chief of staff Idi Amin wrested control of the country in a military coup. The ensuing genocide of the Amin regime was perpetrated against a populace whose primitive armaments did not approach the effectiveness of the murderous government. By the time the genocide ended in 1979, the estimated toll was 300,000 slaughtered Ugandans
Anyone know the homicide rate in Uganda vs. the U.S. rate?
sooo.. if they are not capable of rapid fire at close range, only long range, then they are OK??
These idiots just throw in althe buzzwords, the usual tripe, with no regards to accuracy....kinfda like that NYT reporter, only he got caught.
Here's a nice little table. It's from the "Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" web site. Death by "Gun Control" looks like a good book.
| Government | Dates | Targets | Civiliams Killed | "Gun Control" Laws | Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme |
| Ottoman Turkey | 1915-1917 | Armenians (mostly Christians) |
1-1.5 million | Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866 & 1911 Proclamation, 1915 |
• Permits required •Government list of owners •Ban on possession |
| Soviet Union | 1929-1945 | Political opponents; farming communities |
20 million | Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 |
•Licensing of owners •Ban on possession •Severe penalties |
| Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe |
1933-1945 | Political opponents; Jews; Gypsies; critics; "examples" |
20 million | Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928 Weapon Law, March 18, 1938 Regulations against Jews, 1938 |
•Registration & Licensing •Stricter handgun laws •Ban on possession |
| China, Nationalist | 1927-1949 | Political opponents; army conscripts; others |
10 million | Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914 Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 |
•Government permit system •Ban on private ownership |
| China, Red | 1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976 |
Political opponents; Rural populations Enemies of the state |
20-35 million | Act of Feb. 20, 1951 Act of Oct. 22, 1957 |
•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program •Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals" |
| Guatemala | 1960-1981 | Mayans & other Indians; political enemies |
100,000- 200,000 |
Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932 Decree 386, 1947 Decree 283, 1964 |
•Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees •Prohibit carrying guns •Bans on guns, sharp tools •Confiscation powers |
| Uganda | 1971-1979 | Christians Political enemies |
300,000 | Firearms Ordinance, 1955 Firearms Act, 1970 |
•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions •Warrentless searches •Confiscation powers |
| Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) |
1975-1979 | Educated Persons; Political enemies |
2 million | Art. 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 |
•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions •Photo ID with fingerprints •License inspected quarterly |
| Rwanda | 1994 | Tutsi people | 800,000 | Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 | •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers |
Here's the problem though. The SINate Democraps are stopping the gun lawsuit ban. That could leave a bargaining chip open. Then there is Lautenberg's infamous Midnight specials. Columbine II could happen too, and DeLay may be steamrolled.
There's always a snake in the grass there somewhere. We just have to watch for it.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what EXACTLY is an assault weapon??
That is a very good question. One thing the politicians and media do is use confusing, scary-sounding terminology for any type of gun they want banned. Basically, politicians want everyone to think that semi-automatic firearms are machine-guns, which they are not.
With a machine-gun, you pull the trigger and the gun rapidly shoots bullets one right after the other until you let up on the trigger or the gun runs out of ammunition.
With a semi-automatic gun, you pull the trigger and the gun shoots ONE bullet. You pull the trigger a second time, and the gun shoots a SECOND bullet, etc. In other words, if you pulled the trigger and held it down, the gun would still only shoot one bullet -- unlike a machine-gun.
So the media use phrases such as "rapid-fire" and "it shoots as fast as you pull the trigger" to scare people. And the politicians take advantage of this confusion by convincing people that just about every firearm is a machine-gun.
Why would someone want to own a semi-automatic rifle instead of an old-fashioned bolt-action rifle? Well, it is easier to make a second aimed shot with a semi-auto rifle (even though it doesn't "spit bullets" like a machine-gun). With a bolt-action rifle, you have to pull or turn a lever to put a bullet in the firing-chamber, then you can pull the trigger, and then, before you can fire again, you have to pull or turn a lever again to put another cartridge in the firing-chamber, and so on. A semi-auto gun also allows you only one shot per trigger pull, but it does automatically put the next cartridge in the firing-chamber so you don't have to mess with a lever or anything before you can fire the next shot.
Some hunters like semi-autos because if they miss the target, they can more quickly make a second shot without having to take their eyes off the target and fumble with the gun. The mechanism of a semi-auto uses some of the recoil energy, so the shooter feels less recoil.
One thing that makes all this debate really seem silly is that someone very good with a bolt-action rifle can shoot well-aimed shots almost as fast as someone poorly-trained with a semi-auto rifle! Now, to be fair, someone well-trained with a semi-auto rifle will normally shoot quite a bit faster than someone well-trained with a bolt-action rifle. I think new (and not-so-new) technology is great but a lot still depends on how well-trained the shooter is -- and it always will. It is like people who wanted to ban cars by frightening people about automatic transmissions.
So those are the dry, technical details rather than the hysteria the media broadcasts. Every news report is slanted to make it sound like they are talking about machine-guns. Certain politicians know that if they can ban semi-automatic guns, then they can ban just about anything.
This does not mean there is anything wrong with owning a real machine-gun. Many houses in Switzerland have a machine-gun, and many people there, just like many Americans, have semi-auto rifles. They haven't had a crime or safety problem because of that. And the rifles the politicians want to ban are seldom used in crime, either. If politicians really wanted to save lives, they would do difficult things like making sure violent criminals didn't get released from prison early. Unfortunately, it easier to make sound-bites about guns and throw around scare-words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.