A [U.S.] bill has been proposed that severely restricts and bans many types of guns:

[size=14px][color=#ffffcc]110TH CONGRESS
H. R. 1022
1ST SESSION


To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York
introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007’’

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS

10 (a) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISIONS WHOLLY REPEALED.â€â€

Well, you should see the gun laws here in South Africa. they've made it so difficult to obtain a license for a firearm as well as expensive, yet our criminals generaly have more firepower then our police (or the average citizen)

Looking at the list above, it seems to be the type of weapons no law abidding citizen should have anyway...none of those could really be classified as a "self defense" or "sporting" type of firearm...all of those above would definetly be on the "banned" list (and I know for sure some of them are) here in South Africa.

As far as I can see, the only nasty one, is the section about semi-automtic pistols with magazines that can carry more than 10 rounds....there are some out there that carry 11 or 13 rounds, and people should be allowed to have them...

This is ridiculous. . .There's an old roman saying I really like. . ."When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults."

Government needs to really shrink down to a shadow of it's currently pervasive being.

I'm not one of those people that parade around the 2nd amendment, and I'm not really too crazy about the NRA either, but damn it, this is a major encroachment on rights. (As if this current administation hasn't done that before...)

Guns don't really do a lot for me one way or another, but that doesn't mean I think we should have guns banned...

Semi-automatic weapons like those described baanned? I have a couple already, and they're just .22s!

Ultimately, this will solve hardly any gun crimes. If that many.

Rifles, all of the named ones, are not something that would be any more dangerous than any other type of gun, all of them being semi-auto or single fire.

Also, casual gun collectors who pretty much just have the military guns for them being a piece of history will almost definitely have their collection reduced largely.

The passing of this bill would not accomplish anything good...

It is not the guns that are the takers of life, it is the people that pull the trigger.

By the way, getting an English translation of that bill would be great.

Absolutely. Clueless lefty politicians trying to ban "evil" looking "assault" weapons in order to appear "tough on crime" or whatever. It's pretty sickening.



Incidentally, it's equally sickening that in the USA "convicted felons" (many of whom are non-violent offenders and/or innocent victims of the fascist drug war) are routinely stripped of their voting, self-defense & various other rights, essentially becoming non-persons. WTF?! If you've done your time, you should be able to start over with a clean slate instead of being punished indefinitely.



Indeed. Also, as this classic article shows, an armed society doesn't necessarily have to be a violent society.



1) First of all, before trying to ban anything, they should prove --beyond a shadow of a doubt-- that such weapons are indeed as dangerous as they claim they are. Cold hard statistics instead of hysteria. 2) If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. First they come for the "assault" weapons, then they come for the rest. Most politicians, especially leftsists (i.e. Democrats in the USA) hate private gun ownership, and everything it stands for (individualism, independence, personal empowerment). Make no mistake, their ultimate goal is always complete disarmament of the people. Sheep are easier to subjugate than wolves.



Figures. The more you need them, the more likely they are to be banned.



Yes, or guns with with 17 or 30 rounds for that matter... The 10 round law is a completely idiotic, neither fish nor fowl political "compromise". It is abomination.

Btw, I highly recommend this site Self-defense: a basic human right, pretty powerful anti-gun ctrl stuff.

Should all of us pick a RPG launcher and use the private RS shuttle to fly to the US congress? And then let the missiles fly and show them how fun powerful guns are.

kind of a gist of it pulled off of thehighroad.org

1) There is a sunset clause
2) Possession of large capacity magazines is grandfathered as of enactment of HR1022
3) Possession of semi-autos is grandfathered as of enactment of HR1022
4) Section saying that any semi-auto that only takes five rounds cannot be an AW has been removed
5) Section allowing retired law enforcement officers to keep large cap mags has been removed
6) Appendix A of the original ban (listing firearms by name that are definitely not AWs) has been neutered. They revived Appendix A (oddly enough) but then struck out the language that exempted those firearms. So we now have a lengthy appendix to Title 18 that serves no purpose and in fact lists firearms as "protected" that are banned by name in Title 18 Sec. 921(a). Extreme goofiness.
7) Basically if you own a semi-auto rifle manufactured after 1898, it is an assault weapon or can easily be interpreted to be one. Pistol and shotgun owners have an easier time of it; but still a lot of restrictions.

Dude, you're generalizing there.



I think if they are violent felons they shouldn't be allowed to own guns. I can't say the same for the non-violent ones though.



Again, you are generalizing. Its not true for one. Second, my whole family and most of the surrounding area are democrats who hunt. Do you think they want guns taken away? I don't think so.
But I agree, more research and numbers to prove what they are doing would be for the best (which it isn't) should be shown.

While I am (was) a democrat, that Independant group is looking pretty promising...

But Canada is close by and looks more promising.

Hope you don't mind having a psychological interview just to own a gun.

Fine by me.

Seems like a good idea, we don't want psychos to carry loaded guns.

I really don't have the energy for this argument.

Prove it?

Why do you think that a *law abiding* citizen shouldn't have one?

Man, you Americans and your guns, really sad.

We Americans are guaranteed the right to Bare arms and the right to assemble a militia

Tis a gay and stupid right. Do they allow you to bare arms becuase they (government) knows that deep inside you (populace) are sacred little boys who think that in this time of trouble (which it isn't) that terriosts will come attack you at ANY time and you HAVE to be prepared to fight against them? Thats stupid

Self defense is a stupid right?

What makes the second amendment stupid?




and you say gay like it's a bad thing.

Self defense is a basic right, anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.

And it makes sense to be allowed the tools to defend ourselves, right?

Of course.
How would you be able to defend yourself from an armed dude otherwise?

Well if you think that your government is gonna protect each and every person then you are sadly mistaken. They can say they will they might try but in reality they cant. So that responsiblity has to fall into the individual or individuals to defend themselves. Plus what about the people that collect weapons for the history or the enjoyment of getting a rare or beautiful gun. Im a gun collector and I hope I never ever have to even point a gun at another person no matter what happens. Plus terroists dont have the ability to come toour contry on a large scale unless the have inside agents that are building up a military but that would be noticed.

Supreme court has even ruled that police have no responsibility to protect the individual.

Dude, no one bothers with Canada, we have Maple syrup.

I never said that your basic right is stupid. I just think its stupid how you all feel totally insecure and need to hold a gun to make you feel better. That is what i think is stupid, not your right, i'm fine with that, thats why you learn to punch and kick, for defense.

To me if you have a gun and your not a policeman or in the military, it seems that your just screaming to the world that you think everyone wants to kill you and you NEED to protect yourself. Isn't the US the only democratic country that has made guns legal for civilans?

I don't hold a gun to make me feel better. I keep a gun to defend myself in the rare event that someone should attack me. Keeps me from even having to touch them, not too mention that often, feet and hands just won't do in defense.


I don't think everyone wants to kill me. I do think I should be able to easily stop the one silly sod who does, though.

you see thats why canada doesnt win wars.

but you said it is a gay and stupid right, hmmm...seems like your calling the right stupid.

Isnt Russia capitalist? they own guns. America has had guns for over 200 years and were not dead yet. You dont see huge mobs in the streets saying the government and the world is trying to kill them, and if you look at it americas murder rate is fairly low. and many of the guns listed in the last gun ban were barely even used in crimes.

UP, are you afraid of people owning guns?

Guns make you feel more secure because they can get rid of threats.
But you are right about the next paragraph, civilians that carry guns are just advertising paranoia. Nothing wrong with keeping one in a closet in your bedroom, but carrying it in public like you have the feeling an attack is under way, is just plain nuts.

I'm afraid of morons who will shoot first ask questions later.

How high a percentage of attacks do you think happen away from home? How about 77% of all violent crime occurs away from the home? So, you support being unarmed 77% of the time?