Is the Brady Bill based on a Nazi Gun Control Law?
84035
Ridiculous.  Is the law requiring cars to stop at a stop sign based on a Nazi law?  Because the laws are remarkably similar to laws in Nazi Germany requiring cars to stop at stop signs.\n\n(One group has claimed that the origin of the distinction between guns suitable for sporting use and other guns comes from Nazi Germany.  And the group further claims that when the Brady Bill attempts to outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic weapons (which are only good for killing large numbers of people quickly, in war or otherwise, or practising to do so) it is applying this distinction first developed in Nazi law.  But 1) that is a far cry from the Brady Bill being a "translation" of Nazi legislation, 2) the Brady Bill ban on selected semi-automatic weapons is not the same as a ban on private ownership of any weapon not suitable for sporting use, and 3) the concept of a ban on such weapons in private hands goes back way before the Nazis, and existed throughout Europe, back into the days of Kings and nobility.  It was not invented by the Nazis.\n\nOppose gun control if you like.  But this is not a reason to do so.
1125154
The real scandal is Stephen Hitler and his mob of jack-booted thugs doing everything he can to destroy this beautiful country. Fortunately he will be out of power soon. Not soon enough.....but soon.\n\n(By the way, it's not the gun registry that needs to be eliminated. GUNS need to be eliminated.)
359233
gun control is using both hands!\n\nseriously though, I see no problem with a waiting period. I think guns should be registered, and I think parents should be held accountable if their gun ends up in their child's hands. The laws we have are good laws, they are just not enforced enough. New laws won't help if we can't enforce the old ones.
779301
Ironically, yes patriotism could imply that depending on what your country believes in. For instance, in Nazi Germany it was quite patriotic to turn in Jews.\n\nHowever, what our country is supposed to believe in means that we stand up to those who propogate injustice. True patriots of this country are willing to die for what they believe in.\n\nA true patriot would not be intimidated by acts of terrorism. They wouldn't act like frightened sheep running to the proverbial sheperd hoping that he/she could protect them.\n\nA true patriot of this country doesn't suspend basic rights for people, citizen or not. A true patriot does not condone torture, as it is against everything that we stand for.\n\nA true patriot does not take away the rights of the many in the name of security.\n\nTrue patriots of this country have an event like 9-11 happen and say, "Is that all you got?!". True patriots don't let fear change the way they live.\n\nIn this day and age, our country is lacking in true patriots.\n\n~X~
618568
After the dragging death of a black man in Jasper Texas by three white racists, the Texas legislature passed a hate crimes bill.  Then “Governor” Bush refused to sign the bill into law and allowed the bill to expire on his desk.  You tell me.\n\nHis “fight” to legalize immigrants is strictly politics based on economics and votes. If you were from Texas you would understand this.
279423
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm\nCONCEALED CARRY\nFacts & Statistics\n \nToday, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.  \n\nStates with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports) \n\nRight-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:  \n\n• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.  \n\n• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.  \n\n• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.  \n\n• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.  \n\n• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.  \n\n• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.  \n\n• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.  \n\n• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.  \n\n• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
135392
No--1st amendment.  If the radical group breaks the law, then the lawbreakers should be prosecuted according to the law.  It is not against the law to hate--it is against the law to discriminate or hurt people.
100296
An article titled, "The 7 Myths of Gun Control" addresses this topic. It's in the magazine, "America's Freedom 1st", put out by the NRA. The issue of the article is December 2001, written by Richard Poe.\n\nThe myths addressed in this article are as follows:\n1- "guns increase violent crime"\n\n2- "pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal"\n3- "guns pose a special threat to children"\n4- "the 2nd Amendment applies only to militiamen"\n5- "the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era"\n6- "we should treat guns the same way we treat cars, requiring licenses for all users"\n7- "reasonable gun control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners".\n\nAbout myth #7, all one has to do is check out how home invasion robberies have sky-rocketed in England & Australia, since the implentation of their respctive gun control policies.  In England, a citizen is required to flee the house during a break in, rather than defend the home, or face criminal charges if the burglar is harmed. How messed up is that?\n\nAnd, in states that have passed 'right-to-carry' laws, the spokespeople for the Brady bill, and other anti-gun entities have predicted there would be "blood in the streets" after these laws are passed.  Each time, they've been proven wrong.\nAfter Florida had passed their own "right to defend yourself" law, again, these people predicted that motorists will be shooting each other in mass road-rage incidents.  Again, they've been wrong.
1131329
I am a patriot.  A patriot loves and fights for the ideals upon which this nation was founded.  A loyalist supports the current regime in power.\nPay no attention to the detractors.  Your question was a fair one.\n\nHow can this man be accused of being patriotic to Nazi Germany?  Nowhere in his question does he claim to support any fashion of tyranny or Fascism?  At the very least, read the question properly before you attack someone.
287436
There's two\n Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989\n.50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004
250255
You know, one of the first things the Nazis did in coming to power was to ban the private possession of firearms.  There's a reason; when they wanted to knock the door down and carry people away without due process of law, they didn't want anyone to be able to fight back.  \n\nIt is also true that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  Now, some would say no, outlaws and cops.  I argue that at that point, those two groups become indistinguishable.  Do you honestly believe that every cop in your town is honorable and trustworthy?
514168
Bill put up the bill against firearms taking away high cap mags and assult weapon characteristics.  It was retarded because you can get shot by a handgun with a 10 shot mag just as easy as a 14 shot high cap mag.  Plus like all pro gun people will tell you the ones that break the laws will have whatever they want and only the law abiding citizens will be effected by any anit-gun attacks.\nHillary can go to hell and get ass raped by Hitler.  Hillary will probably attack porn and guns...*sob*
775923
Depends on where you are. \n\nSo far, most areas have not gone to that totalitarian extreme, at least not yet. \n\n\nBest idea is not to register it at all. Depends on the law in your area.\n\n If you are talking about a permit to carry concealed that is issued by a local law enforcement agency and is usually specific to the weapon.
385805
That kind of weaponry, to be sure, is no joke. That gun can stop any beast in its tracks!\n\nI've never fired one myself- the closest thing may have been an old .45 revolver that my uncle Bob owned. It was, evidently, from WWI or WWII. It was a very solid and formidable gun. It used unique shells- rim-fire .45 shells. Anyone who would have dared to enter his castle in a hostile manner would be in for .45 caliber brain surgery!!!!!!!!!!!!\n\nIt sucks that the government is taking away our rights to bear arms. The second amendment hardly matters anymore. Have you noticed that guns are becoming very scarce? I used to shop at lots of sporting goods stores, and guns were available just about anywhere. But apparently, the government mistrusts its own people. Wal-Mart is going to stop selling guns (but will continue to sell ammunition, for now, at least), too. I want to get a few long guns soon, before they become contraband in the "land of the free"!
625698
No, its not true.\n\nFully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Before that they were perfectly legal.\n\nThe Thompson submachine gun was developed in 1915 and went into production in 1920.
125915
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Dick Cheney was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Wyoming. In 1989, he left to become President Bush's Secretary of Defense. During his time in the House, his record was not only pro-gun, it was extremely pro-gun. He was one of only four members to vote against the ban on plastic guns, and one of only 21 members to vote against the ban on cop-killer bullets. Here is a quick look at his record: \n\n"On December 17, 1985, the House voted to ban cop killer bullets, HR 3132, 'The Law Officers Protection Act.' It passed 400-21. Cheney was one of the 21 to oppose the legislation. \n\n"In 1986, Cheney cast a series of votes on the McClure/Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act and its amendments. McClure/Volkmer was an effort to gut the Gun Control Act of 1968, and to prevent the ATF from effectively investigating rogue gun dealers and traffickers. Cheney voted against all HCI positions on McClure/Volkmer and its amendments, and voted for final passage of McClure/Volkmer on April 10, 1986. The measure passed by a margin of 292-130. He voted against an amendment (Transportation amendment, 4/9/86) that would have allowed localities to regulate the transportation of handguns within their jurisdiction; and he voted against an amendment (Sales, 4/9/86) that would maintain current law prohibiting the interstate sale of handguns. \n\n"On May 10, 1988, the House voted on HR 4445, 'The Terrorist Firearms Detection Act.' It passed 413-4. This legislation banned the production, importation, sale or delivery of non-detectable firearms made mostly of plastic. Cheney was one of the four votes against this measure. President Reagan signed this bill into law on November 10, 1988. \n\n"On September 15, 1988, the House voted on an amendment by Rep. McCollum to strip the national seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases from the Omnibus Drug Initiative Act of 1988 (HR 5210). Cheney voted for the amendment, which was essentially a vote against an early version of the Brady Bill. It would take five more years, and hundreds of lives lost needlessly, for Congress and a new president to pass the Brady Bill. \n\n"Clearly, the NRA had signoff on Governor Bush's choice of a running mate; there is no other way to account for the choice of one of the most extreme pro-gun legislators of the last twenty years. The NRA has already promised its members that, if Governor Bush is elected, they will be able to 'work right out of [his] office.' Certainly, if they get there, they'll find Vice-President Cheney welcoming them with open arms."
244736
definitely no. i believe that politicians have every right to pass and execute a law that protects the interests of their people for their people only, even in a very authoritarian way. it is one way of being nationalistic.\nin an emergency in an airplane, who are you going to put an oxygen mask on first: yourself or your child? in this case, who do you serve first... citizens of your country or foreigners?