Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

[Suudy]

My point was that I think the mindset of our founding fathers was in this regard. While we may have a standing army, gun owning civilians can be added when necessary. It was effective then (not all the revolutionaries were professional soldiers), hence their desire to keep the populace armed. This is what I think the 2nd amendment groups are appealing to.

Further to this point, from Federalist #46: The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Indeed, it would seem that Madison is actually a proponent, not only of state militias but privately armed citizens as well, for the express purpose of keeping the federal government in check.

 

[bbarrick8383]

It seems like some are completely ignoring what our military is going through right now with people who are making home made bombs and small arms.

Imagine, with the ingenuity and technology that American civilians have, what they could come up with.

I think we could hold our own.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Gun control fails because it just doesn’t work:

chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0113-chapman-20110112,0,1074928.column

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What you say is true, but only to a degree. Laws cannot prevent criminals from obtaining anything. They can, under the right circumstances, make it difficult enough to put things out of reach of the 95% of criminals who are either just lunatics or criminal because they’re too stupid to hold a job as a Wal-Mart greeter. Those are the guys who commit the vast majority of murders. I go back to my examples of full-auto weapons or grenade launchers.

There are criminals who can lay their hands on those things, even in countries with much stronger gun control regimes than ours. Hell, criminals have traded nuclear materials!. However, it’s a rare breed of criminal who can do so. The manufacturing and distribution channels of these things are very closely watched. Getting around those laws involves things like international smuggling, obtaining the equipment and technical expertise to manufacture or modify weapons, heavy bribery and break-ins to some VERY high security facilities. It takes much more money and sophistication than most criminals possess, and it brings more law enforcement heat than it’s worth in most instances. If high-capacity semi-autos were limited to military and law enforcement (or some highly restricted licensing) from the start of the manufacturing and distribution center, you would still have guys like drug lords buying them. You would not, however, see nutcakes like Laughner or 15-year old punks selling dope carrying them in their waistbands.

It’s largely an academic pipe dream at this point anyway. So many of these things are now in circulation that they’re easier to find than bottled water in some areas. Even if we clamped down going forward, it would take most of a century for that supply chain to dry up.

It is the very criminal that you discuss, the sane, rational, organized, manipulative, convincing, and resourceful one that we need to worry about. While the Tuscon, AZ shooter was indeed a menace and the event a tragedy, one can make the case that the criminals of 9/11, who used airplanes to kill thousands and cause billions of dollars of damage, and scar the nation for years, are really the ones that we need to spend our time and efforts worrying about. If more people were armed at this event, then Jared Loughner would not have been able to kill as many as he did, and he would just be a bad memory right now. We could be praying for the repose of his soul, rather than discussing his prosecution strategy.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Not in the same sense that the pro-2nd amendment people advocate. The National Guard owns the weapons, not the people.

The National Guard is now a subset of the US Army. It doesn’t qualify as militia. If the NG was indeed the “modern militia” with the express purpose of defending the liberties of the state, why are the assigned to combat operations in Afganistan and Iraq?

Are you sure? Private citizens of the time did own state of the art weapons.

Yup. The Hawkins and Kentuky rifles were as state of the art as you could get back then. The American militia sharpshooter invented the concept of the sniper. While the British like to make pretty lines of soldiers armed with heavy, smooth bored Brown Bess muskets, the Americans had whole companies of “skirmishers” who fought in open formations, or from cover, armed with rifles that were accurate out to 250 yards (well beyond the effective 75 yard range of the smooth-bore musket). Furthermore, many states had statutes that declared EVERY able bodied man between the ages of 16 and 60 to own a weapon, ammunition and powder and be ready to be called for duty as necessary by the governor. In fact, before the so-called Civil War, companies were formed by state, and these companies were formed of men who were friends, family, and neighbors. For example:

1st Pennsylvania Regiment
6th Maryland Regiment
15th Virginia Regiment.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

While the British like to make pretty lines of soldiers armed with heavy, smooth bored Brown Bess muskets, the Americans had whole companies of “skirmishers” who fought in open formations, or from cover, armed with rifles that were accurate out to 250 yards (well beyond the effective 75 yard range of the smooth-bore musket).

The bulk of the American Army then made equally pretty lines as most battles were fought in two line formations by both sides. It was important that the Americans learned to fight in formation so as to have the unit cohesion to withstand a British attack. The Brits were masters of the use of cold steel in close combat and numerous foreign officers helped whip American recruits into a force that would not run at the sight of British bayonets (Von Steuben is one of the most known of those). The Brits were no slouches either as they wasted no time establishing their own skirmisher companies, particularly for combat in the South.

A lovely war where battles never involved more than a few thousand men on either side, compared with the monster formations of the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

An unregulated, unsupervised, and unaccountable “militia” is not what our founders had in mind and it is itself a domestic threat.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about an unregulated militia. It quite specifically says “A well-regulated (meaning trained) militia…” IT does not mean regulated as the term has come to be defined today, as in, burdened by excessive regulation.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The bulk of the American Army then made equally pretty lines as most battles were fought in two line formations by both sides. It was important that the Americans learned to fight in formation so as to have the unit cohesion to withstand a British attack. The Brits were masters of the use of cold steel in close combat and numerous foreign officers helped whip American recruits into a force that would not run at the sight of British bayonets (Von Steuben is one of the most known of those). The Brits were no slouches either as they wasted no time establishing their own skirmisher companies, particularly for combat in the South.

A lovely war where battles never involved more than a few thousand men on either side, compared with the monster formations of the Napoleonic Wars.

Ya, well, for all his value, George Washington was enamoured with the concept of fighting a European style war, rather than fight with the strengths of the American pioneer riflemen at his disposal. We won anyway.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Ya, well, for all his value, George Washington was enamoured with the concept of fighting a European style war, rather than fight with the strengths of the American pioneer riflemen at his disposal. We won anyway.

What happened to the image in your sig?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What happened to the image in your sig?

Its in the quarterly rotation. :thumbsup:

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Ya, well, for all his value, George Washington was enamoured with the concept of fighting a European style war, rather than fight with the strengths of the American pioneer riflemen at his disposal. We won anyway.

There were only so many men capable of being independent skirmishers and irregulars and who had the weapons to do so. The bulk of the recruits had to be trained to fight in line with guns not much different than those of the Brits - smooth bores, not rifles.

A bit of a near thing as you implied. Had the French Fleet not been been there to “greet” the British fleet that had sailed down from New York to take Cornwallis’s troops off the peninsula, the Brtish would have been around to fight another day.

Interestingly, the American forces at Yorktown amounted to only three divisions; the French Army had ten divisions at Yorktown. No wonder the British general - not Cornwallis - tried to surrender to the French general, the Comte de Rochambeau. He sharply told the surrendering officer, pointing at Washington, “Mon général est là.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=589387

 

[KyivAndrew]

Could you explain why that plan has not worked in Mexico? Their laws are much more stringent and the punishment much more sever that the US’s but they are overrun with weapons and shootings.

Hmm…jumping in to add a different angle:

*"A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and recovered and capable of being traced can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S. The numbers bolster complaints by Mexican officials that the country’s unprecedented bloodshed – 28,000 people have died in drug-cartel violence since 2006 – is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons

“We can say that there is enormous violence in Mexico and most of the killing is done with guns and most of the guns used in the killing are originally from gun dealers in the United States,” said Arkado Gerney, one of the report’s authors.

The study, based on Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) data and prepared by the advocacy group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, shows that three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing were sold in the four U.S. states that border Mexico.

In April Mexican President Felipe Calderón, speaking to a joint session of Congress, pleaded to US lawmakers for more help in limiting the flow of weapons to Mexico. “I understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee good American citizens the ability to defend themselves and their nation,” he said. “But believe me, many of these guns are not going to honest American hands.” *.

source: abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mexican-crime-american-guns/story?id=11574583

 

[KyivAndrew]

It is my understanding that had an Anti-Assault Weapon ban still been on the books, the killer would not have been able to purchase the Glock in question with its voluminous magazine, at least at a gun store like that. Less rounds, less shots, more time for others to grab the killer instead of having to wait for him to reload (so many rounds) before one could move on the killer. Had the store the killer went to been forbidden from selling those Glocks with extended magazines (how many rounds does one need for self-defense; should a 33 round magazine be legal?), there would have been less rounds. Less rounds shot, more chance innocent people like the poor child who died in the shooting may have been missed. Just a thought. (and yes I did read the post on how someone trained well can quickly speed-reload but it appears people such as the shooter in question appear like many bent on mass killing, just get off as many rounds as possible to do the most damage in a short amount of time before going down.)

I am kind of like the other Canadian poster Gift From God on here who posted on this thread; I guess some Canadians have a different viewpoint on gun culture or what are ideal limits for gun ownership. Not looking to start a big argument; but it is interesting to read others points of view.

 

[gamewell45]

I think her bill stands a good chance of making it through Congress. Most of the members of the House of Representatives are already fearing for their lives as it is and if they feel that this bill can even slightly lower their chances of attacked by someone with a gun, then it wouldn’t surprise me if they go for it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

It is my understanding that had an Anti-Assault Weapon ban still been on the books, the killer would not have been able to purchase the Glock in question with its voluminous magazine, at least at a gun store like that. Less rounds, less shots, more time for others to grab the killer instead of having to wait for him to reload (so many rounds) before one could move on the killer. Had the store the killer went to been forbidden from selling those Glocks with extended magazines (how many rounds does one need for self-defense; should a 33 round magazine be legal?), there would have been less rounds. Less rounds shot, more chance innocent people like the poor child who died in the shooting may have been missed. Just a thought. (and yes I did read the post on how someone trained well can quickly speed-reload but it appears people such as the shooter in question appear like many bent on mass killing, just get off as many rounds as possible to do the most damage in a short amount of time before going down.)

I am kind of like the other Canadian poster Gift From God on here who posted on this thread; I guess some Canadians have a different viewpoint on gun culture or what are ideal limits for gun ownership. Not looking to start a big argument; but it is interesting to read others points of view.

I’m going off the top of my head, but if I remember correctly the DC sniper and the kids at columbine practiced before doing what they did. I don’t have enough knowledge on the average killer to know whether they go out to practice or not.

We know the Ft. Hood shooter had experience with weapons.

The thing is, the existing clip can be dropped with the push of a button with one hand while the other is waiting to put the second clip in. It’s not like it takes a whole lot of firing time to do this. It can be done in your underwear in the living room.

As it has been said before as well, take away gun right and you punish the responsible gun owner. The criminal will find one way or another to kill the number of people he wants to kill.

I can tell you this, if my FIL had been within range of this guy with his pistol holstered he wouldn’t have gotten more than 5 rounds off before he was eating one himself. He’s an expert marksman, one of the top in the nation.

There are many guys he competes against that are nearly as good. I think they should be allowed to test for a special permit to carry wherever and whenever. You want to feel safe in the event of a shootout, have one of these guys next to you. They don’t miss.

Although I’m no stranger to a gun, I’m nowhere near his level. I would not fire into a crowd in this case though I’d have to find a clear angle before I pulled the trigger.

 

[davy39]

Your right, it probably won’t keep criminals from getting guns, but it will make it a lot tougher to get them.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of banning guns altogether; just the hand guns. You should be able to arm yourself with a shotgun or non-automatic rifle. That way you can still protect your life and property.

OK, so in the middle of the night, you run to your gun safe where you keep your shotgun, load it, and tell the robber, “just a minute, while I get my shotgun or rifle to shoot you with”"… By the way, FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons are already illegal… Evidently you don’t know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic…The anti-gun people are always ready to shove through some anti firearm bill at a moments notice, to capitalize on public opinion when something like this happens…This is just another effort to disarm the public, and it ain’t gonna work…

 

[Hastrman]

Sigh…lesson time.

Fully automatic (and selective fire, which can usually be put into full-auto) firearms have been illegal to civilian ownership since the Firearms Act of 1934. The only way a civilian can own one is to buy a special tax stamp; doing so entails letting the BATF search your property virtually at-will, more or less relinquishing the right to refuse searches.

A lot of people don’t seem to know what semi-auto means. Semi-auto, also known as autoloading, means that every shot chambers another round from the magazine. The trigger must still be pulled each time.

A magazine is not a clip. A magazine is the thing that holds rounds; many guns have detachable magazines, so an empty one can be conveniently replaced with a full one. A clip is used to load a magazine, especially on guns like the Mauser Broomhandle or the M1 Garand that have fixed magazines. They’re also sometimes used to load certain revolvers all at once—a revolver speedloader is a type of clip.

Putting a ban on semi-auto rifles would be ludicrous; they’re used in nearly zero crimes (well, assuming that every hunting accident really is one ). Rifles aren’t used in many crimes, and those famous “lone gunman” shootings, like Texas Tech, usually involve bolt-action rifles (which are nearly always more accurate than semi-auto, due in part to the nature of the mechanism). Besides, a trained shooter can actually get off more shots with a bolt action (or a pump-action shotgun) than is mechanically possible with a semi-auto.

Handguns’ purpose is, overwhelmingly, self-defense (though high-powered revolvers are often used for hunting, as well). A high-capacity magazine is an advantage to a criminal, true—but it’s also an advantage for a law-abiding citizen. More of one, if anything; many citizens don’t have much time to practice, and a bigger mag means they can keep shooting till they hit their attacker.

 

[kenofken]

…
A high-capacity magazine is an advantage to a criminal, true—but it’s also an advantage for a law-abiding citizen. More of one, if anything; many citizens don’t have much time to practice, and a bigger mag means they can keep shooting till they hit their attacker.

And any innocent bystanders who happen to be in a roughly 60-degree radius a quarter mile or so in front of the self defense shooter…

As I’ve said earlier, I’m all for the right to self defense and the Second Amendment and all that. I just can’t get my head around two issues with this:

Why is it that 8-round stripper clips were good enough to free Europe from the Nazi army but four times that is considered just adequate for defending one’s home on the 1 in 10,000 chance of a forced entry against some mope who is often (though not always) armed with a screwdriver? Is suburban America having a problem with werewolves or rogue elephants that I’m not aware of?

Why do we balk at the idea of giving kids and other bystanders the same sporting chance to survive that we grant game animals? We (PETA folks aside), consider hunting to be the legitimate taking of life with a firearm, but we don’t let hunters pack 30-round magazines, or anything near that.

The idea that giving all the good guys 30-round rapid fire to save the day is a tempting (if twisted) bit of logic, but the track record sucks. Very few of these massacres are being stopped or even mitigated by armed citizens, and they’re happening in right to carry states just as much as anywhere else.

 

[He_Man]

I think her bill stands a good chance of making it through Congress. Most of the members of the House of Representatives are already fearing for their lives as it is and if they feel that this bill can even slightly lower their chances of attacked by someone with a gun, then it wouldn’t surprise me if they go for it.

I missed your stint in office; which district did you represent again?