AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
Update, in case I'm accused of plagarism. I wouldn't put it past her.
Gun Control: It's not just for Colored People Anymore
A recurring theme in modern politics is the issue of whether the common citizen is entitled to the right to own and carry arms. Typically, this argument is considered “Gun Control versus Gun Rights.”
Gun rights are, concisely defined, the right to keep and bear arms, often simply stated as “Second Amendment rights”, in name of the Constitutional Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
An oft-touted, and just as often disputed statement, particularly when it comes to the definition of what constitutes “the militia”. For a bit of clarity and definition, we turn to 10 U.S.C. § 311, which reads as follows:
Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
In short, all healthy men age 17 – 45 that or, or say they want to become US citizens, and any women that are signed with the National Guard.
For further consideration is Virginia's state definition of militias. This may be found in VA § 44-1.
Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.
(1930, p. 948; 1942, p. 642; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(1); 1944, p. 24; 1958, c. 393; 1970, c. 662; 1973, c. 401; 1976, c. 399; 1979, c. 647; 1984, c. 765; 1989, c. 414.)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1
A bit more inclusive than the federal standard, with a ten-year increase in the maximum age cap, as well as being non-discriminatory by properly including women in the general militia. Essentially, anyone healthy, 16 to 55, that has declared intent to become a US citizen (being a citizen is a strong declaration of intent) is a member of the militia. If not the Air or National Guard, naval militia, or Virginia State Defense Force, then you are automatically a member. No membership, no sign up required.
Why then, would anyone want to restrict the access of the militia
Fortunately, as with many aspects of modern life, gun control laws have caught up with modern times. Gun control has since moved out of its outdated biases against people based on race or gender.
In December of 1997, a student in what was once a little-known high school in Jefferson County, CO submitted a paper entitled “Guns in Schools” which detailed, presumably some from his own experiences on campus, that “It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator.” The reviewing instructor noted that it was “Thorough + Logical” on the title page, and granted the author a score of 69 / 75, or 92%.
The student author of the paper was Eric Harris, one of the infamous now-deceased duo that was responsible for putting gun violence in schools to the forefront of public news. It is obvious that Mr. Harris, with the aid sought to show just how dangerous uncontested gunmen can be on a campus, and that the only way anyone would take the issue of guns on campus seriously is if people were shown the havoc that could be brought upon the unarmed populace in a school.
After all, Mr. Harris simply wanted to show that 24 minutes is not too long to wait for the police. By that same token, waiting over an hour for a SWAT team is quite reasonable. Anyone expecting more from –cops-- is simply making unreasonable demands.
Indeed, even the courts have ruled, as far back as ?1851? that the police have no duty to protect individuals [Swift vs. Maryland]
--------------------
The subject of interpretation of the Second Amendment (Quote 2A) has been a constant There are some that would argue the right of one to self defense is a bit outdated, and should be repealed in a puff of obsolescence.
Indeed, using the same logic, one could argue for voiding the Third Amendment, and, in keeping with the current trend of Imminent Domain, allowing for members of the military and national guard the use of people's homes for an indeterminate period. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping citizens safe from crime, as armed soldiers would be living in the homes of the American people.
The Fourth Amendment is another troublesome problem that could be done away with as we continue our modernization of the Bill of Rights. Allowing for unreasonable search and seizure by government officials, including local, state, and federal police agencies would ensure that persons harboring now-illegal weapons would be unable to hide them. The benefits of public safety would reach until new levels.
The Fifth Amendment can be disposed of as well, for similar reasons to the Fourth. Allowing people to get away with not admitting to having dangerous items in the midst of an official investigation, and subsequent trial allows an unverified number of potentially dangerous people the ability to escape prosecution at the hands of what can only be considered a just and fair trial.
With the danger of guns gone, the only crime that will be committed will be gun crimes, and if a an officer of the law says you have a dangerous firearm of any type, it should be prima facia evidence of your guilt, thus negating the need for a trial, your rights as an accused person, or the need for a trial by a jury of your peers. Indeed, with these reasons pointing out the glaringly superannuated nature of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, excessive bail would not be an issue, as most, if not all crime will have stopped at this point. With this in mind, one can safely write off the Eighth Amendment as no longer needed.
Unfortunately, at this point, there may become a problem wherein people may insist they have the right to other kinds of dangerous ideas or items, possibly even weapons. For these reasons, the Ninth Amendment will most likely have to be stricken from the books, to ensure continued safety of the populace. With the Tenth Amendment being so closely tied to the Ninth, it only makes logical sense to remove any record of state or individual rights as well, lest there be any dangerous forms of dissent among citizen-subjects.
The First Amendment provides certain problems as well, but, being that it was written into the Bill of Rights prior to any other, it should only be subject to review, and possible revision, for public safety. Hate speech, conspiracy to commit a crime, or instruction in the commission of a crime can be very dangerous. The exact limits of the freedom of speech should be clearly defined to ensure a proper level of freedom that does not go too far.
Such primitive ideas came from the very words of such pro-gun propagandists as James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_jm.htm
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775) http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_paine.htm
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) http://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm
While America's “Founding Fathers”, as they are known, said such things, it was most likely in jest. Sadly, some modern thinkers, leaders, and personalities have unfortunately taken such jests seriously.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalli Lama
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...slug=dalai15m0&date=20010515&query=Dalai+Lama
I am told that my non-violence can be of no avail against the [Hindu–Muslim riots] and, therefore, people should arm themselves for self-defense.
The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas., Louis Fischer, ed., 2002 (reprint edition) p. 311.
John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - When/Where?
Noted Psychoanalyst if often quoted as saying Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud – Page?)
As one can plainly see, men the likes of the Dalli Lama, Mohandas Gandhi, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Sigmund Freud are clearly influenced by stagnant, outdated thoughts of men considered to be political radicals two and a half centuries ago. The fact any of them are held in esteem in modern society is truly a great mystery.
Thankfully, there are some with the sense to know what is truly dangerous in the world, and one of these people is Congressional Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York. In a live television interview, Representative McCarthy stated a need to implement a new and expanded version of the recently at the time expired 1994 Resolution H.R. 4296, often mundanely referred to as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
During the short interview, Tucker Carlson, the interview, noted that the proposed bill would ban weapons that “have pistol grips, a forward grip and something called a barrel shroud.” For the benefit of the members of the audience that would not know what a barrel shroud is, Carlson then asks Representative McCarthy “What is a barrel shroud and why should we regulate it?”
Representative McCarthy, in a need to get other information out, begins to remind Carlson that HR 1022 would ban “large capacity clips”, as she puts it. Carlson then asks her again to clarify the definition of barrel shroud to her audience. Representative McCarthy then goes on to state that the arms in the original ban “were basically the gun that most gangs and criminal were using to kill our police officers.” Still in need of clarification for the less gun-savvy members of the audience, and appearing a bit agitated, Carlson then initiates the following exchange:
Carlson: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
McCarthy: I actually don‘t know what a barrel shroud is.
Carlson: Oh, OK. Because it is in your legislation.
McCarthy: I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.
Carlson: No, it‘s not. I just—here‘s my question.
Truly, this interview was not enough to contain her agenda.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18200226/
Truly, this is a woman with much to say, and is so busy working to keep people safe that she can not be slowed down with pesky details such as what the target of a proposed ban does. If a few people are stepped on in the quest for safety, that is of no concern.
HR1022, for clarification, states in Section 3, Subsection D, that a severe restriction is to be placed on any rifle that has “`(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a pistol grip; `(iv) a forward grip; or`(v) a barrel shroud.”.
The bill essentially ensures that only special, custom-designed rifles are used for hunting, as by their centuries old designs, most hunting rifles include both forward grips and barrel shrouds, to ensure proper accuracy and prevent injury to the user. This bill would ban virtually all long arms, including hunting rifles, and if it were applicable to them, even muzzle loaders. Truly a way to keep people safe.
The overall effect is a further reduction in the trade of arms in the country by ensuring that only the rich and powerful have access to them. Isolating arms to only the upper class, at the expense of the rights of the middle and lower class is an excellent way to cut down on crime, particularly with the common notion is that a majority of crime is committed by people living lower-class or “poorer” lifestyles.
It is also worth noting that Section 3 also bans pipes, tubes, and handles of any kind, as well as C&C machines, computerized machines used in almost all aspects of modern manufacturing, and a vast number of as yet indeterminable articles. Items called “conversion kits” are listed as being banned, and HR 1022 defines them as “any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
Being that a person could produce one of the banned “duplicates thereof” from the extensive list of specifically regulated models in 1022's Section 3, Subsection A, sales of pipe would have to be regulated, requiring that only licensed plumbers be allowed to purchase steel and PVC pipe, to prevent the manufacture of weapons by people in their own homes. Full federal regulation on the sale of metal stock, as well as hand and power tools would also fall under this regulation. Truly, this bill has the foresight to prevent any and all crime.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
HR 1022 has not been before Congress since March 19, 2007, when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. No further actions have been taken on it at the time of this writing.
Keeping in line with this train of thought, some consideration should be given to the possibility of amending HR 1022 to include a law requiring all people conducting illegal gun sales to submit a background check with the National Instant Criminal System (NCIS). One does not know who is buying guns, particularly during illegal gun sales. With this in mind, this regulation makes perfect sense towards curtailing gun violence, particularly when put next to other measures intended to reducing violence in the streets and shopping malls of America.
The District of Columbia has been a common hotbed of political activity, for a multitude of reasons. The fact that Washington DC has been the leader in per capita murders for many years is not a fact that can be quietly ignored.
----------------
It should be noted that this entire work is political satire, and if you find yourself agreeing with it, consider the true implications of what is proposed here.
Senator Orrin Hatch: "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Session., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).
Automobiles must only be licensed for use upon public roads, and license is not required for the purchase of one car or of many cars. There are no waiting periods or background checks on the purchase of cars. People who misuse their cars are punished for their own actions, and particular types of cars aren't banned or taken away from those who use them safely. Unlike driving on public roads, which is a privilege, owning a gun is a right explicitly protected by the United States Constitution, and the right of self-defense is fundamental and inalienable. Licensing of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon is permissible, because, like driving, the State has an interest in maintaining public safety by ensuring as best it can that only the law-abiding carry in public. However, some supporters of the civil right to keep and bear arms oppose requiring a permit for concealed carry, and prefer a permit less system like that of Vermont, which simply punishes misuse of guns, rather than restricting their lawful use. Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms on their own property, and in defense of their homes and families, is unjust, and constitutes prior restraint.
--Closing line? “Don't believe the lie that guns are the great equalizer. A 120 lb. woman should be fully capable of fighting off a 220 lb. man" It is completely sexist to think otherwise.
--Cops – No duty to protect
Many addled minds believe that possession of arms are some form of right
Update, in case I'm accused of plagarism. I wouldn't put it past her.
Gun Control: It's not just for Colored People Anymore
A recurring theme in modern politics is the issue of whether the common citizen is entitled to the right to own and carry arms. Typically, this argument is considered “Gun Control versus Gun Rights.”
Gun rights are, concisely defined, the right to keep and bear arms, often simply stated as “Second Amendment rights”, in name of the Constitutional Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
An oft-touted, and just as often disputed statement, particularly when it comes to the definition of what constitutes “the militia”. For a bit of clarity and definition, we turn to 10 U.S.C. § 311, which reads as follows:
Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
In short, all healthy men age 17 – 45 that or, or say they want to become US citizens, and any women that are signed with the National Guard.
For further consideration is Virginia's state definition of militias. This may be found in VA § 44-1.
Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.
(1930, p. 948; 1942, p. 642; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(1); 1944, p. 24; 1958, c. 393; 1970, c. 662; 1973, c. 401; 1976, c. 399; 1979, c. 647; 1984, c. 765; 1989, c. 414.)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1
A bit more inclusive than the federal standard, with a ten-year increase in the maximum age cap, as well as being non-discriminatory by properly including women in the general militia. Essentially, anyone healthy, 16 to 55, that has declared intent to become a US citizen (being a citizen is a strong declaration of intent) is a member of the militia. If not the Air or National Guard, naval militia, or Virginia State Defense Force, then you are automatically a member. No membership, no sign up required.
Why then, would anyone want to restrict the access of the militia
Fortunately, as with many aspects of modern life, gun control laws have caught up with modern times. Gun control has since moved out of its outdated biases against people based on race or gender.
In December of 1997, a student in what was once a little-known high school in Jefferson County, CO submitted a paper entitled “Guns in Schools” which detailed, presumably some from his own experiences on campus, that “It is just as easy to bring a loaded handgun to school as it is to bring a calculator.” The reviewing instructor noted that it was “Thorough + Logical” on the title page, and granted the author a score of 69 / 75, or 92%.
The student author of the paper was Eric Harris, one of the infamous now-deceased duo that was responsible for putting gun violence in schools to the forefront of public news. It is obvious that Mr. Harris, with the aid sought to show just how dangerous uncontested gunmen can be on a campus, and that the only way anyone would take the issue of guns on campus seriously is if people were shown the havoc that could be brought upon the unarmed populace in a school.
After all, Mr. Harris simply wanted to show that 24 minutes is not too long to wait for the police. By that same token, waiting over an hour for a SWAT team is quite reasonable. Anyone expecting more from –cops-- is simply making unreasonable demands.
Indeed, even the courts have ruled, as far back as ?1851? that the police have no duty to protect individuals [Swift vs. Maryland]
--------------------
The subject of interpretation of the Second Amendment (Quote 2A) has been a constant There are some that would argue the right of one to self defense is a bit outdated, and should be repealed in a puff of obsolescence.
Indeed, using the same logic, one could argue for voiding the Third Amendment, and, in keeping with the current trend of Imminent Domain, allowing for members of the military and national guard the use of people's homes for an indeterminate period. This would have the secondary benefit of keeping citizens safe from crime, as armed soldiers would be living in the homes of the American people.
The Fourth Amendment is another troublesome problem that could be done away with as we continue our modernization of the Bill of Rights. Allowing for unreasonable search and seizure by government officials, including local, state, and federal police agencies would ensure that persons harboring now-illegal weapons would be unable to hide them. The benefits of public safety would reach until new levels.
The Fifth Amendment can be disposed of as well, for similar reasons to the Fourth. Allowing people to get away with not admitting to having dangerous items in the midst of an official investigation, and subsequent trial allows an unverified number of potentially dangerous people the ability to escape prosecution at the hands of what can only be considered a just and fair trial.
With the danger of guns gone, the only crime that will be committed will be gun crimes, and if a an officer of the law says you have a dangerous firearm of any type, it should be prima facia evidence of your guilt, thus negating the need for a trial, your rights as an accused person, or the need for a trial by a jury of your peers. Indeed, with these reasons pointing out the glaringly superannuated nature of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, excessive bail would not be an issue, as most, if not all crime will have stopped at this point. With this in mind, one can safely write off the Eighth Amendment as no longer needed.
Unfortunately, at this point, there may become a problem wherein people may insist they have the right to other kinds of dangerous ideas or items, possibly even weapons. For these reasons, the Ninth Amendment will most likely have to be stricken from the books, to ensure continued safety of the populace. With the Tenth Amendment being so closely tied to the Ninth, it only makes logical sense to remove any record of state or individual rights as well, lest there be any dangerous forms of dissent among citizen-subjects.
The First Amendment provides certain problems as well, but, being that it was written into the Bill of Rights prior to any other, it should only be subject to review, and possible revision, for public safety. Hate speech, conspiracy to commit a crime, or instruction in the commission of a crime can be very dangerous. The exact limits of the freedom of speech should be clearly defined to ensure a proper level of freedom that does not go too far.
Such primitive ideas came from the very words of such pro-gun propagandists as James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_jm.htm
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775) http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_paine.htm
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) http://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm
While America's “Founding Fathers”, as they are known, said such things, it was most likely in jest. Sadly, some modern thinkers, leaders, and personalities have unfortunately taken such jests seriously.
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalli Lama
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...slug=dalai15m0&date=20010515&query=Dalai+Lama
I am told that my non-violence can be of no avail against the [Hindu–Muslim riots] and, therefore, people should arm themselves for self-defense.
The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas., Louis Fischer, ed., 2002 (reprint edition) p. 311.
John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." - When/Where?
Noted Psychoanalyst if often quoted as saying Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud – Page?)
As one can plainly see, men the likes of the Dalli Lama, Mohandas Gandhi, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Sigmund Freud are clearly influenced by stagnant, outdated thoughts of men considered to be political radicals two and a half centuries ago. The fact any of them are held in esteem in modern society is truly a great mystery.
Thankfully, there are some with the sense to know what is truly dangerous in the world, and one of these people is Congressional Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York. In a live television interview, Representative McCarthy stated a need to implement a new and expanded version of the recently at the time expired 1994 Resolution H.R. 4296, often mundanely referred to as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
During the short interview, Tucker Carlson, the interview, noted that the proposed bill would ban weapons that “have pistol grips, a forward grip and something called a barrel shroud.” For the benefit of the members of the audience that would not know what a barrel shroud is, Carlson then asks Representative McCarthy “What is a barrel shroud and why should we regulate it?”
Representative McCarthy, in a need to get other information out, begins to remind Carlson that HR 1022 would ban “large capacity clips”, as she puts it. Carlson then asks her again to clarify the definition of barrel shroud to her audience. Representative McCarthy then goes on to state that the arms in the original ban “were basically the gun that most gangs and criminal were using to kill our police officers.” Still in need of clarification for the less gun-savvy members of the audience, and appearing a bit agitated, Carlson then initiates the following exchange:
Carlson: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?
McCarthy: I actually don‘t know what a barrel shroud is.
Carlson: Oh, OK. Because it is in your legislation.
McCarthy: I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.
Carlson: No, it‘s not. I just—here‘s my question.
Truly, this interview was not enough to contain her agenda.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18200226/
Truly, this is a woman with much to say, and is so busy working to keep people safe that she can not be slowed down with pesky details such as what the target of a proposed ban does. If a few people are stepped on in the quest for safety, that is of no concern.
HR1022, for clarification, states in Section 3, Subsection D, that a severe restriction is to be placed on any rifle that has “`(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a pistol grip; `(iv) a forward grip; or`(v) a barrel shroud.”.
The bill essentially ensures that only special, custom-designed rifles are used for hunting, as by their centuries old designs, most hunting rifles include both forward grips and barrel shrouds, to ensure proper accuracy and prevent injury to the user. This bill would ban virtually all long arms, including hunting rifles, and if it were applicable to them, even muzzle loaders. Truly a way to keep people safe.
The overall effect is a further reduction in the trade of arms in the country by ensuring that only the rich and powerful have access to them. Isolating arms to only the upper class, at the expense of the rights of the middle and lower class is an excellent way to cut down on crime, particularly with the common notion is that a majority of crime is committed by people living lower-class or “poorer” lifestyles.
It is also worth noting that Section 3 also bans pipes, tubes, and handles of any kind, as well as C&C machines, computerized machines used in almost all aspects of modern manufacturing, and a vast number of as yet indeterminable articles. Items called “conversion kits” are listed as being banned, and HR 1022 defines them as “any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
Being that a person could produce one of the banned “duplicates thereof” from the extensive list of specifically regulated models in 1022's Section 3, Subsection A, sales of pipe would have to be regulated, requiring that only licensed plumbers be allowed to purchase steel and PVC pipe, to prevent the manufacture of weapons by people in their own homes. Full federal regulation on the sale of metal stock, as well as hand and power tools would also fall under this regulation. Truly, this bill has the foresight to prevent any and all crime.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
HR 1022 has not been before Congress since March 19, 2007, when it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. No further actions have been taken on it at the time of this writing.
Keeping in line with this train of thought, some consideration should be given to the possibility of amending HR 1022 to include a law requiring all people conducting illegal gun sales to submit a background check with the National Instant Criminal System (NCIS). One does not know who is buying guns, particularly during illegal gun sales. With this in mind, this regulation makes perfect sense towards curtailing gun violence, particularly when put next to other measures intended to reducing violence in the streets and shopping malls of America.
The District of Columbia has been a common hotbed of political activity, for a multitude of reasons. The fact that Washington DC has been the leader in per capita murders for many years is not a fact that can be quietly ignored.
----------------
It should be noted that this entire work is political satire, and if you find yourself agreeing with it, consider the true implications of what is proposed here.
Senator Orrin Hatch: "If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Session., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).
Automobiles must only be licensed for use upon public roads, and license is not required for the purchase of one car or of many cars. There are no waiting periods or background checks on the purchase of cars. People who misuse their cars are punished for their own actions, and particular types of cars aren't banned or taken away from those who use them safely. Unlike driving on public roads, which is a privilege, owning a gun is a right explicitly protected by the United States Constitution, and the right of self-defense is fundamental and inalienable. Licensing of law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon is permissible, because, like driving, the State has an interest in maintaining public safety by ensuring as best it can that only the law-abiding carry in public. However, some supporters of the civil right to keep and bear arms oppose requiring a permit for concealed carry, and prefer a permit less system like that of Vermont, which simply punishes misuse of guns, rather than restricting their lawful use. Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms on their own property, and in defense of their homes and families, is unjust, and constitutes prior restraint.
--Closing line? “Don't believe the lie that guns are the great equalizer. A 120 lb. woman should be fully capable of fighting off a 220 lb. man" It is completely sexist to think otherwise.
--Cops – No duty to protect
Many addled minds believe that possession of arms are some form of right
