H.R.1808 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

Well if anyone actually thought the protests over abortion were heated, they haven't seen nothing yet.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

They are trying to pass it quietly even though it likely won't make it.

If they made it a bigger deal, it would shake the normies.

a reply to: JinMI

They also passed it just before a month long recess to try to give us time to forget about it before they come back. A whole month before the Senate gets to have a look at it.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
a reply to: LordAhriman

cdn.locals.com...

US is not number one. Norway Sweden Finland all score above is.

fee.org...

Those sites seem totally credible lol. And I'm talking about schools.

The same dirt bags who just passed this illegal bill are guilty of making schools the "go to" place for a mass murder when they declared schools "gun free zones" and a class C felony to have a gun in those areas. How "Stu- stu- STOOPID" is that. So a murdering criminal is going to be deterred by the law against having a gun on school grounds when they are there to murder kids? Obviously not.

The people voting yes on this are hypocrites and liars, and deceivers. Yep, the very people you adore. They promote and blatantly support school shootings by their own actions and voting record.

originally posted by: just4fun
The next time someone asks why you need more than 7 shots

Say the guy who killed the Indiana Mall shooter took ten shots.

Star for you.
Snd line with bump.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I am a gun owner (norhing that would qualify as an "assault rifle"), but I don't get all of the doom porn. Most of the rest of the developed world survives just fine without them. You know what else they don't have? Frequent school shootings.

I'm not aware of any country in the developed world that does not have guns, including "assault rifles."

But if the aim of this legislation is to cut down on school shootings, would it make more sense to ban school shootings?

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: beyondknowledge

It looks like my "battle rifle" is on the exempted list.

here is how you beat this law. make pistol grips modifiable to make them non pistol grip with attachments,like the AR-15 people who have made a piece that makes it unable to be held there.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

It make more sense to harden schools and execute shooters as soon as they pop up. Shoot people for no good reason? you give up all rights such as trial by jury if you are caught red handed and public executed.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I am a gun owner (norhing that would qualify as an "assault rifle"), but I don't get all of the doom porn. Most of the rest of the developed world survives just fine without them. You know what else they don't have? Frequent school shootings.

Less that 40 per year average school shooting victims for over the last 50 years. Yet 151 are killed in school bus accidents yearly. When are we going to eliminate school buses?

There are plenty of decent arguements for your 2nd amendments rights. This aint one of them.
Ban cars - 40,000+ deaths per year
Ban swimming pools - more backyard drownings than shootings
Ban batteries, kids swallow them you know
ban stairs - i heard about some poor kid who fell down a flight of stairs and broke his neck
Hell lets ban eating, lots of people are dying of cholesterol and heart and other eating related deaths.

Guns arent built to transport people from point a to point b
Guns are built to kill. ONLY to kill
Bus/car ACCIDENTS cannot be compared to school shootings. Ramos wasnt hunting and ACCIDENTALLY wound up in a school and thought the kids were deer because he has bad eyesight. He planned to use the gun to kill other people. Your 2nd amendment protected his 'right' to purchase that weapon without any checks and balances to ensure it was in fact being purchased to help him rise up against your tyrannical government.

a reply to: IxTheReaper

Your argument does nothing for your point, other than to show your lack of logic.

All of those things you listed off are issues and they are usually handle fairly well. Mainly because instead of blaming cars for accidents, pools for drownings, stairs for people falling down them, or even forks for people getting fat, we blame the individual using them. But yet anytime some mentally ill person takes a gun and kills people it's the guns fault, why do we have such a horrendous double standard here?

Not all guns are built to kill, yes all guns CAN kill, but not all are built for such. I could name you dozens of guns built solely for competition use. COULD they be used for other things, yes, but that is not what they were built for.

There are checks and balances to ensure people are legally buying guns. Yes, there are ways around that but at the same time how many legal drug dealers do you know? Ramos was being watched by several agencies, so he should not have been able to get those firearms, I will give you that.

But let me revert to the point here, guns are not the problem, people are and will always be the problem. Until we start addressing the real issue at hand we will continue to see a rise in the mentally ill doing the same thing over and over again and wondering why nothing is changing. If someone wants a gun that bad, they will find a way. No amount of new laws and background checks are going to stop that.

originally posted by: JinMI
Yes, we know...braggart!!

It'd be bragging if someone said they had the .50AE Desert Eagle.

a reply to: IxTheReaper

I think you are entirely missing the point. If someone decides to kill not in defence, they have already decided to break the law and therefore the laws don't matter to them.

It is ofter brought up that guns kill. Many things kill more people per year than guns do. Most ofter the incidents of people being saved by guns are not even mentioned.

When someone decides to ignore laws and just shoot up the place, how is anyone to stop them without a gun. The one breaking the law doesn't care how they get it but they will somehow get a gun.

The ones that follow the law are hindered in saving their own life and the lives of others by the very same laws that the lawbreaking shooter is ignoring.

Now it would be nice if the police were able to handle all these situations but we all know it takes a while for them to respond in most cases.

Gun laws only apply to the good guys and not the robbers, home invaders, rioters, random shooters, etc... so why are they making more laws to make the people less safe. It is all about power. They want you to be dependant on only the government to save you.

I have no wish to shoot anyone but I also don't want the tools for protecting society taken away because some think they are scary. The very fact that some are armed with guns dentures some criminals form acting. Some actually don't want to be shot. Gun free zones attract criminals because of this.

Some criminals will stop when they see another with a gun. A lot of these incidents don't end up in the stastics because they are not reported. It is a statistical fact that more gun laws cause more chriminals to act because they are not as likely to get shot at. See New York and Chicago as examples.

Most guns are designed to kill. I would love to have a phaser to stun but they just don't exist yet.

For now, we need some good people with guns for the times they are needed to stop the criminals with guns and not more laws that stop the people from protecting themselves. We need to work on why someone decided to shoot up the place or commit a crime with a gun first. Most don't consider that important.

a reply to: PorkChop96

Hi Porkchop96 - I think you missed my sarcasm, I so often on here see people equating gun deaths to vehicle deaths (admittedly this was the first one I saw using school buses specifically) so I was being stupid to make essentially the same point you are, that gun deaths are totally different to 'accidents'

I am an Aussie, I used to blindly advocate for gun control in the US. I have been educated a lot on this site, but (sorry TheRedneck and Xcathdra) I still believe that gun access is still waaaaaaay too easy for Americans. But, I do understand now the purpose of your 2A, and I understand the principles behind the concepts of guns for self-defense, and yes, a gun cannot kill anybody without someone pulling the trigger, and yes, it takes an individual who is CLEARLY a few sandwiches short of a picnic to do that - especially in a school.

BUT, if your checks and balances that are meant to stop those sorts of people from obtaining weapons were worth a damn, then Uvaldi wouldn't have happened. The 4th July shooting wouldnt have happened. A 4-year-old couldn't have shot at police because his D$@khead father had essentially trained him to, and had a handgun just lying around in the car. (Where was the 'good-4-year-old-with-a-gun' when you needed him?!)

The only way for an Aussie to obtain any sort of gun and be able to carry it into a school is through the black market, and I don't know how it is in the US, but the Australian black market doesn't advertise or put signs up, and a depressed, disturbed loner EMO nutjob 18-year-old would have a really hard time finding someone to sell a semi-auto rifle to him!!!!

I didn't realize Ramos was being watched by multiple agencies, but to me, that should be where 'good' use of red flag laws could have been used. I agree red flag laws are a scary prospect if improperly created and enforced, ie your ex has a grudge and dobs you in - shouldn't be a reason to get red flagged. But for MULTIPLE agencies to have had their attention drawn to an 18-year-old - I think they should be able to put him at the top of a "probably shouldn't let them have guns" list!

The US is in a perfect storm of ease of gun access as well as being one of the more heavily medicated societies in the world. Yes, you need to look at the mental health issues facing your country, (so do we) but PROPERLY limiting access to weapons designed to kill would also be a great help!

We got plenty of nutcases here in AUS too, but they just plain and simply cannot get a gun and sit on top of a shop shooting at random people. Yeah, they can jump in a car and drive like a maniac through our most populated main street, they can grab a knife, a bat, an axe, a toilet brush, or whatever weapon they can find and go on a killing spree but that's unlikely to get anywhere near the casualty rate of a gun. (The bloke who drove his car through the crowds on Bourke St did a pretty good job of it, but that was once, a few years ago, not something we deal with on a monthly basis)

Just saying

(But fair point on 'competition guns' etc)

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Hi Beyond knowledge - please see above, although I think I may have missed YOUR sarcasm too. Ive been in a number of threads here where people have actually attempted the 'there are more vehicle deaths than gun deaths so why arent we banning cars' as a valid argument for the 2A. It just isn't!

You need to go through lessons and training before you're legally allowed to drive a car in public. As long as you have no criminal record, seems you can just go buy a gun!

a reply to: IxTheReaper

I see your point of view but our sad reality here in the US is that, even with stricter rules and what not, the Uvaldi shooting MIGHT not have happened, but if someone here wants a gun that bad they will find one. If he was that dead set on doing what he did it would have happened regardless, it might not have been exactly when it did but it would have taken place either way. The problem was that all of his prior transgressions and such were sealed from the scope of the checks due to them being in the time of his minor status.

I go back to my previous point on mental health. There is such an issue in the Us of mental health, mainly in young men, not being taken seriously. Case in point: I grew up being told "buck up, get over it, deal with it, you're not allowed to cry, be strong". That is not how young adults should be handled and we need to address the main issue, not just an all out attack on the tools these people choose to use. And yes I do know that it is not just young men or males in general that take these sort of actions but it is predominantly male. But a to what I said earlier, we can't sit here and blame the tool when it is not it's fault. Take Europe for example, they have very strict gun laws, but yet had to ban knives over a certain length due to hundreds of people getting stabbed to death. To sum up, if someone has ill intentions and wants to harm people, like you mentioned, they will find a way to do so regardless of rules, regulations, laws, or anyone standing in their way.

The dems will sit here and tell you all day long that the guns are the problem, but would refuse to give up their armed security. They have such a corrupt way about them that we want to disarm those that we are threatened by while still keeping in place the protection we have for ourselves. 99.99999% of all LEGAL US gun owners have them for that same purpose, to defend us, our family, and our property. Yes, we do have other guns for different uses but they don't care, they want to take away every single gun from every single US citizen just to make them feel better in their little hidey holes and don't have to worry about the Us citizen overthrowing them for their wrongful doings.

a reply to: PorkChop96

I dont believe there needs to be an 'all out attack on the tools' either. But on the other hand, while I understand that its the wielder that pulls the trigger, not the gun (or tool) think of it like this
If a welder wants to make a nice steel cage, and he has access to an arc, acetalyne and mig welder he is going to do a pretty good job.
If,on the other hand, you give him a sock.... your cage isn't going to turn out too well!

So if you give a suicidal teen a knife, a bat, a toilet plunger (I'm putting it in again because you didn't seem to laugh the first time!!) then yes, he could do a bit of damage in a school before being taken down. However, in America, you give them the BEST tool for killing that is possible!!!!!

On a serious note though you're right. Mental health is a huge issue, and if you had no nutjobs, you'd be pretty unlikely to have any mass shootings. It seriously needs to be addressed, here is a big part of the problem in my humble opinion.

While I agree with you that 'Harden the F$#K up' isn't the right way to treat all mental illnesses, I worry that society is heading too far the other way now.
From a personal experience: Umpteen years ago I went through a bad breakup (at the time she was obviously the only woman I would ever love!!!) and I went to the doctors with 'trouble sleeping'. I explained everything that I was going through and he diagnosed me as depressed. Which in a way was true. But I did NOT need the anti-depressants he prescribed me. I had a bad reaction and went from being 'sad' to being suicidal, with no real understanding WTF was happening in my brain. I didn't need a 'harden the f%$k up', but I also shouldn't have been given a pill that 'masked' or dulled those feelings, I needed someone with the time, patience and compassion to explain to me that what I was going through was normal, and give me tips on how to best handle, move on, and most importantly GROW from my 'condition'.

Anyway the point is, that nowadays, it seems there is a 'condition' to cover everything, and there is a pill to fix every condition, and that prescription pad is reached for waaaay too quickly.

Nowadays I think that this is why the mental health issues have gotten out of hand. Its not necessarily as much that more people are suffering from real mental health issues than before, but more we have gone from not giving enough credence to real mental health issues, to now having a mental health 'condition' to suit every occasion. And its not treated as much as something that someone needs help to work through and grow from, but more as an excuse for them to behave in non-civilised ways.

Dont get me wrong, there is definitely real mental health issues out there.

Real changes are needed in the way the world deals with mental health or we are all going to be in big trouble soon

a reply to: PorkChop96

Oh, also wanted to make a point of this. While earlier I said that I was a blind gun control advocate, I want to stress that I believe there is a giant difference between gun control and gun abolishment. I don't think many Americans make the same distinction. Most of the arguments I get into on ATS my adversaries treats gun control and total gun abolishment as one and the same, which in my mind it is not.

ie. I have no issues with the idea of the people of New York being able to carry a concealed weapon. I have HUGE concerns that they can do that based on like 3 stipulations
1. Of age
2. Not a convicted felon
3. A person

Thats pretty much it?! It is unfathomable to me that there isn't maybe a compulsory gun safety course before they're allowed to go out with a handgun shoved down their pants!!!!!!!!

a reply to: IxTheReaper

I did find humor in your suicidal teen anecdote, it is very true as well.

That is the major issue nowadays, these doctors get paid so much to prescribe these pills to people who don't need them. The don't sit back and think of the actual issue or try non medication based treatment most of the time, they just want to make their money form you, and the person selling them the meds.

Society has become so hyper-fixated on "Diversity and Inclusion" of everything that somebody thinks they are special for that you get people that just make things up so they can be a part of the "solution". This is where you get people who identify as a "minor attracted person" or how I refer to them, PEDOPHILES, that just get to run around in society because they are different so they are special and deserve to be themselves. I have no issue with someone wanting to be different or outside the norms of society but at what point do we draw the line? There has to come a time where people realize that, If everyone is special, then nobody is special.

Back on point here. I agree whole heartedly that there needs to be a few more standards for who can own a gun, but the issue you run into there is who decides who gets to make that call? For instance, if you want to put mental health on that list of qualifications, if they decide that a psychiatrist that sits in Biden's back pocket 99% of the time, then nobody will ever qualify to get a gun. But if you take a psych who is pro 2a, then everybody gets one if you want it. The checks and balances are never going to be equal on something as divided as gun control.

originally posted by: IxTheReaper
a reply to: beyondknowledge

You need to go through lessons and training before you're legally allowed to drive a car in public. As long as you have no criminal record, seems you can just go buy a gun!

Who told you that? There had not been any driving classes in over 20 years. All you need it to pass a written test and a driving test. The written test is mainly memorizing road signs you will most likely never see. The driving test is just common driving but you must not make too many mistakes.

Oh, there is supposed to be proof of identity at the time of application also.