Whitehouse.gov already calling for gun ban

[Richard]

"A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show."

A big issue here in Texas is related to guns which are legally owned, but are improperly secured and stolen...with the predictable results under discussion in this thread once they hit the "open" market.

Richard's $.02

[The Reaper]

For those who do not know, the "gun show loophole" is the ability to sell a firearm to someone else face to face.

They do not like the fact that the guys walking around the gun show with a rifle on their shoulder and a "make me an offer" sign sticking out of the muzzle can sell it without papers or going through a dealer, as long as state law allows. The libs like to pose it as being able to just walk up to any dealer at a show and get any firearm with no paperwork. Lotsaluck with that one. Ain't happening.

This will actually result in a total ban on face to face sales, not just at gun shows.

All of these laws are functionally useless to prevent crime, but are another few cuts on the road to total bans.

TR

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by JihadJilson

Since I wasn't exactly clear on what the "LoopHole" on the "Closing the Gun-show Loophole" was I started researching what the real issue was. I found this bit of info while doing so. Granted it is from Wikipedia and no I don't believe everything posted on Wiki, it did come with a reference index, unfortunately when I went to that it required an account to log into. Anyway this is what is posted.

"A 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show.[10] The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show."

[10] http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/S...cjd+02598-0001

The above survey is documented at the Department of Justice website, for once Wiki did get it right but here is the source, there are lots of interesting facts, all of which the left will have to drastically slant or ignore all together to support their arguments.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Bottom line is according to the Dep Of Justice in the 90's at least most criminal homicides were committed with large caliber revolvers, my guess is that has changed to semi automatic handguns based on what I saw in my AO. We typically took 9mm or smaller semi-autos off of the thugs we dealt with, saw a few revolvers but mostly semi-autos in 9mm or 380.

[KClapp]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I hope he makes a good stand.

With more to follow his lead, I pray.

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

It could be me.
What part of "infringed" do the dems(small letters) not understsnd and was this a part of the constitution they have Signed waivers on? Blitzzz

[allester666]

Firearm crimes are up in the UK and Australia, countries that passed gun bans. A large factor in this statistic is best explained by Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

Quoted by Thomas Jefferson:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then
to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater confidence than an armed man."

This I realize is criminal theory, not fact but statistics are leaning on this to be true. It won't ever be realized as fact in our society because crime continues to happen and that opens interpretation of the cause of crime. The atom bomb was a theory, and so is some forms of communication but they look like they work to me.

Laws are meant to set conditions for men to peacefully come together as a society. I certainly don't object that. But what is disturbing is the general lack of interest of American citizens to look into the root of the problem, and of these people who would rather blindly accept the opinions of those appointed to govern our country.

Motivation through appealing to recent events is very effective. 9/11 created stricter security standards in our nation. Good. Purpose and direction are easily assumed to the jist of preventing those who intend to inflect great harm on US citizens or guests in our country from undue harm. AAR, security measures have helped to prevent at least some further terrorism in this fashion.

Objects continually brought up such as the traggic events of Columbine, Virginia Tech and the DC sniper also serve as a motivator in the train of thought that banning the sale of certain weapons will reduce the crimes related in such weapons. In a sense this could be plausible. However, atomic weapons capabilities are already "regulated" yet those with the money, the will and the motivation can still illegally obtain them. Firearms are cheap and easier to transport, and the principle is the same in that a truly dedicated person will be able to obtain them regardless of laws. In this instance the law abiding citizen is at a loss to defend himself (possibly) against a person of ill will who chooses to disregard the law.

Its easier to defend what you have then take back that which is lost. I hope we don't slowly wittle away at our rights as a nation. This a larger impact then being able to own a "assault weapon".

Last one for the night:

"A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance
to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's
liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
George Washington, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785

[grog18b]

Originally Posted by Defender968

... there are lots of interesting facts, all of which the left will have to drastically slant or ignore all together to support their arguments.

They will continue to ignore or slant everything that common sense tells people that have it. They assume everyone else is as dumb as they are.

To assume criminals will obey any laws, especially one that would disarm them, is the pillar of stupidity, and the foundation of the anti-gun argument.

I've attempted to educate several people with anti-gun viewpoints and beliefs. I have confronted them with the truth, facts, Founding Father's writings, the Constitution itself, and several years of personal experience. Every single one of them ignored everything I said. They are incapable of reason, and lack the God given common sense normal men have. They will argue with their skewed facts, and regurgitate HCI banter, until blue in the face, and say with complete conviction that guns, not criminals, kill people and that they are evil (the gun, not the criminal) and only lead to evil destructive things.

They are completely content to ignore the fact that firearms made the US what it is today, and that without the firearm, we would be subjects of those with them. They ignore the fact that firearms save many lives each day, when used by the police and citizens against criminals. They are very comfortable living in the giant fantasy world where no human wants to subjugate another, or kill another, or rape another, or steal from another. In their world, guns are the sole blame for evil doing, and when those evil guns are finally taken away from everyone, we will live in a happy flower filled field, all have long hair, and smoke weed, and sing cum-bye-ya while holding hands and swaying to the music... ...you know... hippies.

Those same people, would have been used, by the Founding Fathers, as "cannon fodder' and described as lacking common sense.

[echoes]

(Admin. approved post)

Well, score one for the "Good Guys!"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...PqRpgD96QIK301

Court turns down NYC case against gun industry
5 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away pleas by New York City and gun violence victims to hold the firearms industry responsible for selling guns that could end up in illegal markets.

The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.

The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.

The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.

The city refiled the lawsuit in January 2004, saying manufacturers let handguns reach illegal markets at gun shows in which non-licensed people can sell to other private citizens; through private sales in which background checks are not required; by oversupplying markets where gun regulations are lax, and by having poor overall security.

The city said a state nuisance law makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly create a condition endangering the safety or health of a considerable number of people. But the appeals court said New York's law does not qualify as an exception to federal law. It agreed with U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, signed by President George W. Bush in 2005, is constitutional.

The cases are City of New York v. Beretta, 08-530, and Lawson v. Beretta, 08-545.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[C0B2A]

What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?
By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

What a load of shit... typical to find it published in the NY times.

[Kyobanim]

Typical of the shit that carter spouses all the time

[Paslode]

The closet Jihadist, Jimmy needs quit smoking his peanuts shells laced with crack.

[BigJimCalhoun]

Originally Posted by Paslode

The closet Jihadist, Jimmy needs quit smoking his peanuts shells laced with crack.

I wonder if Jimmy Carter thinks it is ok for Hamas to have these types of firearms, in addition to the suicide vests, rpgs and rockets?

I read The Case Against Israel's Enemies and there was a whole chapter on Jimmy Carter.

[Retired W4]

On the next go around, his precious scoped hunting rifles will probably be classified as "Sniper Rifles". I wonder what he thinks about that! Jimma Catta is such a waste!

[redleg99]

Contact your legislators, probably Dims, and see if they will buck the Pelosi and Reid agenda.

I strongly suspect that in most cases, they will not.

We are not seen as constituents to them, just rednecks clinging to guns and religion.

Agreed, sir.

Perhaps it might be useful to remind our representatives of the 1994 election following the assault weapons ban?

While many of them were not in office then, they could reference it in Bill Clinton’s autobiography:

The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.

After the election [of 1994] I had to face the fact that the law enforcement groups and other supporters of responsible gun legislation … could not protect their friends in Congress from the NRA. The gun lobby outspent, out-organized, outfought, and out- demagogued them.

Bill Clinton, My Life, p 1007.

It might or might not have an effect, but I don’t think it can hurt.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by redleg99

Agreed, sir.

Perhaps it might be useful to remind our representatives of the 1994 election following the assault weapons ban?

While many of them were not in office then, they could reference it in Bill Clinton’s autobiography:



Bill Clinton, My Life, p 1007.

It might or might not have an effect, but I don’t think it can hurt.

I find it hard to believe that it takes over 1,000 pages to cover Bill's life story, if he leaves out the sex and crime.

TR