Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/26/2002 10:52:34 PM EDT
Can anyone tell me the difference between these two??? I am about to get into an arguement with my Senator (Maria Cantwell) via e-mail and I don't want to screw it up by being less educated on the issues than her. Does the Brady Bill have anything to do with the 1994 Crime Bill? Are they the same? What's the major points of each? And does anyone have any good links to follow this up with? Any help at all will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. [sniper]
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 11:09:05 PM EDT
By the way, here's the letter she wrote me. Dear Mr. XXXXXXX: (Me) Thank you for contacting me regarding HR 1762, the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2001. I appreciate hearing from you. As you know, HR 1762 was introduced by Representative Ron Paul in June 2001. This bill would repeal the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act and the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. HR 1762 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime for further consideration. You should know that I take our Constitution very seriously. It is a most fundamental goal for me as your Senator to work to uphold the rights guaranteed by our founding document. Furthermore, I know that recreational use and collection of guns for hunting, sport, and other activities is extremely important to you and many other law-abiding Washingtonians. Just as I am committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, I believe you would agree with my long-standing conviction that we must keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. I believe that our first step in preventing further criminal and youth gun violence should be stricter enforcement of responsible gun laws that punish criminal use of firearms and that make access to guns harder for children and criminals. To this end, I would not support repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, one of the most effective tools for reducing illegal gun purchases by criminals. Last year, the Justice Department reported that the Brady Bill prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999. As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. I encourage you to keep in touch in the future on the issues that are important to you. Sincerely, Maria Cantwell United States Senator
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 11:35:14 PM EDT
Last year, the Justice Department reported that the Brady Bill prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999
View Quote
Very interesting, you may want to ask if any of those half million people are a risk to society - if so then why are they not in prison? You may also want to mention that the Brady bill and other bills like it are costing use [b] law-abiding citizens[/b] lots of money. We are spending more because we can’t buy direct. I’m not to sure what exactly we got out of the Brady bill, waiting periods for handguns and that stupid DROS form? Would a fugitive really say, “yes I am a fugitive running from justice” on the form? I’m getting sick and tired of our legislators hiding “gun control” as “crime control”. - Sulaco
Link Posted: 3/26/2002 11:35:19 PM EDT
I think they are two separate animals. [url]http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/94bill.htm[/url] Tate
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 5:18:34 AM EDT
Last year, the Justice Department reported that the Brady Bill prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999.
View Quote
Note she doesn't say "prevented from obtaining a gun" but "prevented... from legally buying a gun". I guess all those bank robbers just said "well fooie, I can't buy a gun, guess I'll just go get a job at MacDonalds"
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:22:31 AM EDT
[i]I know that recreational use and collection of guns for hunting, sport, and other activities is extremely important to you and many other law-abiding Washingtonians.[/i]
View Quote
"Other activities"??? What, so now these people can't even bring themselves to utter the words "self-defense"?!
I believe that our first step in preventing further criminal and youth gun violence should be stricter enforcement of responsible gun laws that punish criminal use of firearms and that make access to guns harder for children and criminals. To this end, I would not support repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, one of the most effective tools for reducing illegal gun purchases by criminals. Last year, the Justice Department reported that the Brady Bill prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999.
View Quote
Gee, how conVEEEENient that she ONLY focuses on the background checks (the very least offensive aspect of these laws) and completely skips the "assault weapon" ban and the hi-cap mag ban. She still supports to the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" of 1994 which has done [b]NOTHING[/b] to reduce crime. Ask the good Sinator the following questions: Just how does a making it illegal for me to add a collapsable stock to my semiautomatic rifle (that I ALREADY own) prevent children from getting guns? How many drive-by bayonetings have been prevented by this law which bans addition of bayonete lugs to my guns? How does limiting magazines to no more than 10-rounds stop criminals from getting and using guns illegally? Is there something "magical" about the 10-round magazine that makes bullets fired from it "safer" than if they were fired from a 20-round magazine? There has NEVER been an accidental shooting of a child where the child was shot more than 10 times out of a 20round magazine. [b]MANY more innocent men, women and children die from high-speed automobile accidents each year than from gunshots. Yet we make the [u]act of speeding[/u] a crime, NOT simply owning a high-speed car. We don't ban the cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, we make [u]speeding[/u] unlawful.[/b]
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 6:31:17 AM EDT
The Brady Bill is NOT the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. And the AW ban of 1994 is not the Brady Bill. They are two separate animals. Brady concerns only background checks and waiting periods, and that's all. That's it, in a nutshell. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and is a very rational man. I would be very likely to support any bill that he introduces. CJ
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 7:25:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and is a very rational man. I would be very likely to support any bill that he introduces.
View Quote
What sort of kick-back do you think Ron Paul got for voting for the Campaign Finance Reform Bill? Or was that a reasonable, rational and Constitutional Bill?
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:07:29 AM EDT
Brady already sunsetted and was replaced with the NICS. So any reference to "Brady" at this point is wrong. Gun owners regularly confuse NFA, GCA68, Brady, and OCB94. Please try to refer to the correct law when lobbying.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 8:12:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]MANY more innocent men, women and children die from high-speed automobile accidents each year than from gunshots. Yet we make the [u]act of speeding[/u] a crime, NOT simply owning a high-speed car. We don't ban the cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, we make [u]speeding[/u] unlawful.[/b]
View Quote
This is because a few reasons… [b]First/[b], they believe that all firearms are inherently evil and cause people to do evil things. [b]Second[/b], People believe that if you remove the firearms that suicides, [b]stabbings[/b], gangs and many more negative things will go away. [/b]Third[/b], they are not exposed enough to the shooting community to see that we are not criminals but regular upstanding citizens for the most part. They believe that removing firearms will decrease the amount of slaying at [b]no consequence[/b], they fail to realize that there are consequences and someone needs to pay for there actions, us. What’s the difference between me buying a gun, or me buying a bottle of jack from the liqueur store? There’s no forms or waiting period on the jack, plus I can buy as much as I like. Both have the capability of killing others or myself. The only thing that keeps either of these things from slaying anyone is me, the government has no influence on that and that’s something they fail to realize. - Sulaco
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 9:10:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2002 9:13:33 AM EDT by trickshot]
Good luck arguing with those idiots. Might as well piss up a rope for all the good it's going to do. I've got a drawer full of double-talk form letters, want some? Fuck them, I wouldn't give our Congress the time of day if they all came over to my house to see me personally at this point. Each has an agenda of their own. No US Senator has any respect for the Constitution, it is null and void for the most part, a quaint relic that people like to argue about because it gives them a perceived moral high ground. Witness the doubletalk:
Just as I am committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, I believe you would agree with my long-standing conviction that we must keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
View Quote
Once cannot be committed to the Second Amendment and hten have a strong "conviction" (interesting word choice) that we must keep guns away from some particular class of people. The Second imposes no such restrictions, the two notions are diametrically opposed. Yet, here they a appear in the very same sentence. Clearly, she knows little about firearms or the Constitution and is just trying to blow more smoke up your already smoke-filled ass. And now, coup de grace--the real departure from reality:
As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.
View Quote
So rest assured, as your Senator, she will work hard to take away your rights in the name of safety and feel-good soundbites. While she may "believe" that it is possible to accomplish two conflicting goals, it isn't. This is exactly the problem we have in this country in a nutshell--too many assholes "believing" that impossible realities can be created if only they are allowed to tinker enough with our system of laws. Here's my advice, take it or leave it: Instead of wasting your time formulating an articulate response that no one is going to read, why don't you just take a dump in a paper bag and send that to her instead? Better yet, have a whole truckload of manure delivered right to her door. This is the actual content equivalent of what she sent to you. We gun owners have been too nice for too long.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 10:00:25 AM EDT
Thanks everyone. I fired off a reply. Heregoes- Dear Ms. Cantwell I have noticed a few flaws in your argument. ---------------------------------- Just as I am committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, I believe you would agree with my long-standing conviction that we must keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. ---------------------------------- Once cannot be committed to the Second Amendment and then have a strong "conviction" (interesting word choice) that we must keep guns away from some particular class of people. The Second imposes no such restrictions, so the two notions are diametrically opposed. Yet, here they a appear in the very same sentence. Clearly, you know little about firearms or the Constitution and are just trying to appease my feelings of discontent. -------------------------------------- Last year, the Justice Department reported that the Brady Bill prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999. -------------------------------------- If these half a million people are such a risk to society, why are they not in prison? What happened to hard time for hard crime? I notice you don't say "prevented from obtaining a gun" you say "prevented... from legally buying a gun". Just how many criminals intent on committing a crime stopped because of the fact that they couldn't "legally buy a gun". The "Common Sense" answer is none. If a criminal is intent on committing a crime with a gun of some kind, then he/she will do whatever it takes to get a gun legally or illegally. Would a fugitive really say "Yes" to the question of "Are you a fugitive running from justice" on the form? How convenient that you ONLY focuses on the background checks (the very least offensive aspect of these laws, one that I am in completely in support of) and completely skip the "assault weapon" ban and the hi-cap magazine ban. You still support to the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" of 1994 which has done NOTHING to reduce crime. Just how does a making it illegal for me to add a collapsible stock to my semiautomatic rifle (that I ALREADY own) prevent children from getting guns? How many drive-by bayonetings have been prevented by this law which bans addition of bayonet lugs to my guns? How does limiting magazines to no more than 10-rounds stop criminals from getting and using guns illegally? Is there something "magical" about the 10-round magazine that makes bullets fired from it "safer" than if they were fired from a 20-round magazine? There has NEVER been an accidental shooting of a child where the child was shot more than 10 times out of a 20round magazine. MANY more innocent men, women and children die from high-speed automobile accidents each year than from gunshots. Yet we make the act of speeding a crime, NOT simply owning a high-speed car. We don't ban the cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, we make speeding unlawful.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 10:01:11 AM EDT
(Cont.) In "Armed" (2001, Prometheus Books), Kleck & Kates estimate there are 700,000 defensive firearms uses annually, which doubtless save thousands of innocent lives. In "More Guns, Less Crime" (1998, University of Chicago Press), esteemed researcher John Lott found passage of right-to-carry concealed handgun laws brought an 84 percent drop in multiple-victim public shootings (deaths from such shootings plummeting by 90 percent), and that women who behave passively when confronted by a criminal are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who defend themselves with a gun. Do you have any idea how violent crime rates have soared in England since the ban on defensive firearms there? Are you willing to be held personally responsible for the thousands more innocent victims who will be killed by criminal assailants if your "gun-control" dreams ever come completely true. It is painfully obvious that you do not understand, nor do you care to understand, the difference between "Gun Control" and "Crime Control". After serving my country in the Armed Forces, and now working in law enforcement, it is appalling to witness the blatant ignorance of my elected officials in office. At this time I am ashamed to have you as my Senator. I want my Senator to understand the consequences of her actions on the people she represents. It is clear you do not. Thank you for your time, XXXXX XXXXXX P.S. Here's a few people you should listen to a bit more, they are the ones you owe your livelyhood to, afterall. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom ... go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams It was Richard Henry Lee who stood in the Virginia ratification debates and declared, in 1788, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them" It was Patrick Henry who responded, "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able must have a gun"? ... "That government is best which governs least." Thomas Jefferson ____________________________________________ Thanks to everyone who helped me out on this. It means a great deal to me. [sniper]
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 11:41:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
[i]I know that recreational use and collection of guns for hunting, sport, and other activities is extremely important to you and many other law-abiding Washingtonians.[/i]
View Quote
"Other activities"??? What, so now these people can't even bring themselves to utter the words "self-defense"?!
I believe that our first step in preventing further criminal and youth gun violence should be stricter enforcement of responsible gun laws that punish criminal use of firearms and that make access to guns harder for children and criminals. To this end, I would not support repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, one of the most effective tools for reducing illegal gun purchases by criminals. Last year, the Justice Department reported that the Brady Bill prevented more than half a million people with criminal records from legally buying a gun between 1994 and 1999.
View Quote
Gee, how conVEEEENient that she ONLY focuses on the background checks (the very least offensive aspect of these laws) and completely skips the "assault weapon" ban and the hi-cap mag ban. She still supports to the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" of 1994 which has done [b]NOTHING[/b] to reduce crime. Ask the good Sinator the following questions: Just how does a making it illegal for me to add a collapsable stock to my semiautomatic rifle (that I ALREADY own) prevent children from getting guns? How many drive-by bayonetings have been prevented by this law which bans addition of bayonete lugs to my guns? How does limiting magazines to no more than 10-rounds stop criminals from getting and using guns illegally? Is there something "magical" about the 10-round magazine that makes bullets fired from it "safer" than if they were fired from a 20-round magazine? There has NEVER been an accidental shooting of a child where the child was shot more than 10 times out of a 20round magazine. [b]MANY more innocent men, women and children die from high-speed automobile accidents each year than from gunshots. Yet we make the [u]act of speeding[/u] a crime, NOT simply owning a high-speed car. We don't ban the cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, we make [u]speeding[/u] unlawful.[/b]
View Quote
All I know is that countless deaf people have been saved from certain death with the ban on flash suppressors. Why don't you ask her "If gun laws are so effective, then why is there a strong correlation between areas with very restrictive gun laws and high violent crime rates?"
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 2:39:27 PM EDT
Your new letter sounds good. Please post the senator's reply when you get it. I'm sure everyone here wants to see how she's going to dodge your very good points.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 3:08:02 PM EDT
It was actually called "The Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994" or something close to that. Cantwell is a total piece of shit. You can tell her I said that (again), too.
Link Posted: 3/27/2002 11:48:16 PM EDT
As soon as I get a response from her I'll post it here, but it may take a while. I originally contacted her Feb 18, and just got this, so we'll see. But I will post it.
Top Top