Posted on 1/7/2008, 12:40:35 AM by Graybeard58
With the support of the National Rifle Association, Congress has sent to President Bush legislation that purports to prevent the mentally ill from committing mass murder.
The bill was drafted after Cho Seung-Hui, once deemed by a judge to be a danger to society, killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University in April, but it languished in the Senate for months. However, it gained critical momentum after Robert Hawkins, distraught over losing his job and girlfriend, blew away eight people at a Omaha, Neb., shopping mall in December.
Mainly, the measure would affect people judged after a battery of tests to be dangerous to themselves or others. It also appropriates $250 million to pay states to provide mental-health and criminal records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the database used for federal background checks on gun buyers.
The bill has its merits, and people naturally are sympathetic to the movement to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals. But this one leaves us uneasy. The 1968 Gun Control Act already prohibits, albeit ineffectively, anyone found by a court to be "a mental defective" from owning guns.
It's doubtful the new legislation would prevent a single homicide. The vast majority of mass murderers are more like Mr. Hawkins than Mr. Cho. Their madness is relatively new and born of their deranged response to unpredictable circumstances, and they can buy guns legally up to the moment their rampage begins.
Ultimately, this gun-control bill, like so many others before it, is doomed to fail. But we fear it sets a precedent that future Congresses could exploit to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights, starting with people who government operatives capriciously suspect one day might be a danger to themselves or others.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
This measure is subject to immense abuse. It essentially places Constitutional Rights at the mercy of Star Chambers who may or may not have to answer to the rule of law.
In those jurisdictions firmly in the hands of one political party or one idealogical faction, this measure could be used to systematically deprive their political opponents of firearms. Many have poo pooed the notion that veterans could be denied firearm ownership by virtue of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or the mere fact of their presence in a combat environment. But, The nay sayers might note recent reports that will make mandatory a mental evaluation of anyone involved in a violent combat engagement.
Be wary, be very wary.
Do you have a link to the actual Bill?
Not going along with what he believes about evil black rifles, but do manufacturers make 5 round mags specifically for hunting?
Just a piece of information I’d like to know.
I know that. It’s because most states limit capacity of “hunting rifles” to five rounds. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Not yet anyway. :-)
If this keeps up, it won’t be just duck season and wabbit season.
HA! Oh man! You took the words right out of my mouth! :-) AGREED!
Please try this one:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640&show-changes=0
Ping!
Ping!
The 5 round magazine can be traced back to the days when most assault rifles were bolt action. Historically most rifle competitions use military rifles. The 5 rounds as the basis for testing your ability to reload in a short period of time. The rapid fire stage of a national match requires the competitor to fire the five rounds and then reload and continue firing until a total of ten rounds have been expended or the time limit has been reached.
When I rebuilt my target rifle a few years ago, I put a ten round detachable magazine in it. The rifle is probably one of the few bolt action assault rifles you will ever see.
Hold tight and keep em in the black.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Sorry, I couldn’t help you with a link but it looks like someone else did.
Time to make more ammunition for when the fit hits the shan.
Good link in post #10. Open questions always seem to get answered when Freepers are involved. :)
My own advice is that members that are eligible to vote for the board in the upcoming board election should vote only for people that you are sure truly support the Second Amendment.
You do not have to fill in a full slate, and I don't think you should if you aren't confident in each and every person that you vote for. In the last election, I only voted for a very few folks.
This is insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.