What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

this is the reason for my rant..............

yesterday and today on PAK's thread..............add this to the fact that McCarthy got 3 more co-sponsors yesterday for HR 1022....take a look at the date, they sure in the heck are not waiting for things to cool down.

Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1859 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1859
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 16, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Sections 921(a)(31) and 922(w), and the last sentence of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provision Partially Repealed- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), or (w) of section 922;'.

SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (z) the following:

`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(3) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.
 
Wow that crap is confusing! I support maximum freedom so I guess I support gun owners' rights. Or rather the right to own a gun. Then the red tape comes in and they ask "Well... just what is a "gun" lol. Is a Bazooka a gun? I want a tank. Is that a gun? Ok common sense says no. I wonder if there is a law that says you can not have a tank?
 
actually in most places you can own a tank.................however getting the opertunity to own the ammunition for the big guns is another story as they are generally classified as a destructive device just like a pipe bomb..............check out ebay everyonce in awhile its amazing whats for sale at times........
 
check out ebay everyonce in awhile its amazing whats for sale at times........
agreed! crazy stuff on there! used toys(*cough*). bidding on a cut out of homer simpson and you get a car if you win. the ever popular food things. there was even a "lake monster" up on there.

Alex
 
Well now we know what Alex wants for his next birthday.
 
hey! no! :censor: haha
Alex
 
Alex, how about um... You wait with that sort of thing until you become... how should I put this... glider18? Yeah, that'll do. :-))
 
Is that the reason you went around cussing at people and showing us links that actually were only vaguely related to what was really upsetting you?! Its a reason but its no excuse
 
Alex, how about um... You wait with that sort of thing until you become... how should I put this... glider18? Yeah, that'll do. :-))

ok ok guys. lets stop pickin on glider :-)) sheesh! my plants love me better than you all!!

:boogie: Alex :boogie:
 
  • #10
Is that the reason you went around cussing at people and showing us links that actually were only vaguely related to what was really upsetting you?! Its a reason but its no excuse

Finch.....my original post was of a statement by a student who was there and on campus.....i also posted a quote from a college administrator about the safety of the students...........i guess foolishly assumed like every other damn thread on this site that it was allowed to evolve into other things..............most of the other posts of mine were in defence of my original post...............most everyone on there including you told me to not get myself worked up because there wasnt going to be knee jerk reactions insupport of more gun control by those in power to make policies.............what you fail to see Finch is that is exactly what is happening.........this new senate bill proves i am justified in my own knee jerk reaction, cause i was right............i have appologized to PAK as far as im going to and i did so in private after she pm'ed me................put i stand by my statements, my apology was for the way i handled my statements..........
 
  • #11
Well last i checked i wasn’t asking for a apology.

Secondly, that a bill was submitted is not really a big deal. The chances of any submitted bill making it to law as it is submitted is virtually nill, and making it into law in any form is still vanishingly small. It still seems like making a big deal over nothing. the chances of such bills suceeding... are poor. The chances of any submitted bill suceeding are poor, even ones that both parties can agree upon

You never once said there was a bill- you just went on a series of rants that we had no idea what was the cause. I assumed it was because of the data you had given. We were all wondering what the heck you were going on about.
 
  • #12
What exactly do you want, rattler? I see lots of passion for the subject, but to what end? You're going to have to formulate your thoughts into something other than strongarm words if you want people to listen. I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer. We clearly disagreed on some things in the other thread, but I want to hear what you WANT. I won't be provocative. I just want to listen.
 
  • #13
What exactly do you want, rattler? I see lots of passion for the subject, but to what end? You're going to have to formulate your thoughts into something other than strongarm words if you want people to listen. I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer. We clearly disagreed on some things in the other thread, but I want to hear what you WANT. I won't be provocative. I just want to listen.

Yes. We have had alot of debates the past. Your last debate confused me. That’s not like you at all. Passions always ran high but we always stayed civil in the end. Whats different this time? Why the sudden absence of your usual detailed reasoning’s and articulate responses that I have come to expect from you? I want to hear!
 
  • #14
You also don't need to be concerned about gun control legislation. It's not going to go anywhere (most likely).

cnn.com said:
But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers.

Reference: www.cnn.com

xvart.
 
  • #15
xvart.....Finch............a bill quite similar to HB 1022 has passed before, just 12 years ago. i dont believe that its not a serious possibility that it will get passed again. yeah i saw that xvart while there is some truth to it i wouldnt bet money on it..........

basically Finch im getting sick and tired of defending myself when there are millions dead who prove my point that gun control or registration(which historically ALWAYS leads to confiscation) is a VERY, VERY, EXTREAMLY bad idea. ill give yeah all the facts and figures you want, give me till later this evening as im headed off to work.
 
  • #16
Actually, in the Daily News (very anti-gun biased newspaper) theres already numerous anti-gun articles even going so far as "see, that's what you get, you should ban guns now" which was particularly disgusting that someone would say such a thing to further their political agenda.
There was also an editorial stating anti-gun opinions as "facts" to try and dupe the public.

In 1993 Colin Ferguson shot up a commuter train full of passengers.
Law abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals don't follow the laws making those who follow the law easy victims.
I take the LIRR every day to work and there was a day not long ago that someone was reported to have a gun and was acting belegerant. There was streams of people moving from the foward cars back and if this guy opened fire, all hell woulda broke loose.
As much as we like to think it, this Country is not at complete peace and to be defenceless to criminals is just wrong.
 
  • #17
xvart.....Finch............a bill quite similar to HB 1022 has passed before, just 12 years ago. i dont believe that its not a serious possibility that it will get passed again. yeah i saw that xvart while there is some truth to it i wouldnt bet money on it..........

But, after that bill passed, the democrats lost control of congress and have not regained it for 12 years. This, I believe, is one reason they will continue to stay away from it.

As much as we like to think it, this Country is not at complete peace and to be defenceless to criminals is just wrong.

I'm also not sure if our population of crazies (I mean all the normal people) are quite mature enough for just anyone to be carrying a gun. I'm not for gun control, but I know there have been times when I wouldn't have felt safe if I knew the people around might have loaded guns, especially with some of the students I have worked with individually. I can just imagine when I had to remove this girl from student housing who had attempted to overdose on xanax and other antidepressants twice and had told her professor that day if she had a gun she would not hesitate to shoot herself in the head. She also tore apart and practically destroyed a ER facility room when I had her hospitalized the first time. "As the contract you signed and you agreed to states, you will be removed from campus housing if you violate any of the following agreements. Since you violated near all of them, you have no choice but to move out immediately. Hopefully you don't have a gun right now."

Again, I am not for gun control, but safety is an interesting thing. I personally feel safe knowing that everyone around me on a normal basis most likely does not have a gun.

xvart.
 
  • #18
Agreed, the threat of it becoming like the "Wild West" again is a bit much too. A lotta NYers are stressed and snap pretty quickly sometimes. Seen people fight over pretty stupid stuff before...
Although in the yellow form, there's questions like "any meds? any mental history?" and you do go through a federal background check as well.
That is, for the legal ones.
 
  • #19
Agreed, the threat of it becoming like the "Wild West" again is a bit much too. A lotta NYers are stressed and snap pretty quickly sometimes. Seen people fight over pretty stupid stuff before...
Although in the yellow form, there's questions like "any meds? any mental history?" and you do go through a federal background check as well.
That is, for the legal ones.

in all actuality gun crime in the wild west was less than today....most think other wise due to movies, tv shows and paperback westerns(which are a GREAT source of facts right?)..........sure there were fights and all but mostly they were with fists......the shootout in the middle of the street prolly happened often enough to be counted on one hand in any given year..........when everyone is packing a gun ppl tend to be polite to one another......
 
  • #20
BTW Finch.................just spent most of the morning in the hospital with my wife and it looks like ill be hauling her up there once again before the end of the day.....please forgive me if im a tad late in getting my arguement up.....its going to take me a bit of writing in order to get my point across as i will be covering alot of ground........
 
Back
Top