Are Current Gun Laws Sufficient For Are Current Gun Laws Sufficient For A Safe Society? This question can be easily answered with a resounding? no? . No gun background check, weapon ban, or gun buyback will ever prevent weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. Even with the hundreds if not thousands of gun laws already on the books, gun crime is still prevalent in our society. Why? Simple, all you have to do is look at our lax laws regarding punishment for criminals.
Prison should be hard work, not sitting in a cell working out and eating well. Criminals should be forced to work for their food and board. If we continue to allow criminals to sit back, relax, and wait for probation, whom are we really protecting? Legally owned guns account for two percent (2%) of all gun crimes. This should show you as it shows me that gun laws can only prevent two-percent of all gun crimes in the first place. Is a two-percent decrease worth the loss of our freedoms? This tells me that instead of trying to create new laws, we should try and enforce the hundreds (if not thousands) we already have. This also leads to what I would like to focus on- pointless gun laws.
As I pointed out earlier, we already have too many gun laws and to try and add more restrictions will not reduce crime. Take the following proposal to the House Committee of Ways and Means. Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999 Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999 (Introduced in the House) HR 2127 IH 106 th CONGRESS 1 st Session H. R.
2127 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 10, 1999 Mr. BLAGOJEVICH (for himself, Mr. WAXMAN, and Ms.
NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999′ . SEC. 2.
FINDINGS. The Congress finds that– (1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market; What relevance does this have to anything? Almost all military gear and equipment is available to civilians. De-milled Cobra Attack Helicopters have been purchased and are currently in use by civilians. In the last ten years we have sold our F-16 Falcon fighters to Israel, licensed the F-15 Eagle to Mitsubishi for manufacture in Japan, and gave our Abrams main battle tank to Britain. This tells me that liberals think we can trust other countries, but not our own people. Maybe because? our people? is all of the illegal immigrants that should be kicked out but stay as long as they vote liberal.
(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices; First off, there is no record anywhere of anyone committing a crime with a 50-caliber rifle. Why? The reasons are endless! First, the cheapest 50-caliber rifle available is the AR-50. This? cheap? weapon rings in at $3, 300. The most popular 50-caliber rifle, the Barret M-82 A 1, costs $7, 300! Which criminal is going to spend this much to rob a liquor store or a bank? Second 50-caliber weapons are big. They weigh a lot and kick harder then a 10-gauge shotgun. The only effective way to fire them is from the prone (laying on your stomach).
Third, to fire a weapon with this kind of kick in an accurate manner, you must be well trained. Not many criminals would deal with 50-calibers when they? d have better luck pulling off their robbery with a butter knife. According to these liberals on Ways and Means, the 50-caliber can be used to take out armored vehicles. Do they consider Humvees to be armored? The only armored vehicle a 50-caliber could penetrate is a lightly armored limousine. Now I see what they mean by national security. They consider themselves to be national security.
A 50-caliber BMG rifle cannot penetrate U. S. military armored vehicles. A Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle has two inches of armor. Yet, even that s enough to stop projectiles up to 30 mm, including Light Rockets. The Abrams Main Battle Tank has fourteen inches of armor.
That will stop everything except 100 mm+ SABOT rounds. I won? t even talk about the stupidity of shooting at microwaves and radar dishes but wouldn? t a sledge hammer work just as well if not better? Besides who would shoot at radar towers- Middle Eastern terrorists? (3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use; Wrong? there are multiple 50-caliber shooting clubs and 50-caliber rifles are not clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting or hunting use. If they are designed for killing people as these liberals state. What does that mean the Remington 700 was designed for? That is the hunting rifle that the Army M-24 Sniper Rifle and the Marines M-40 Sniper rifle are based on. (4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; and Armour piercing ammo is available for all types of weapons including pistols. It is usually not meant for piercing armor such as tanks due to the fact that tanks armor is too thick.
It is meant for piercing body armor. Armor piercing means that the point of the round is sharp and hard. Modern body armor (such as KM 2) with rifle and stab plates would stop Armor Piercing (AP) rounds as well as normal rounds. Normal police forces still use level II Kevlar without stab plates. (This is called soft body armor). (5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.
The use intended of any weapon depends on who? s using it. While a Marine Corp or Army sniper may use it for killing the enemy and protecting national security, I may use it for sport and the badass bark that the rifle screams when you squeeze the trigger. SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking ' (6) a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.' and inserting ' (6) a 50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.' (b) 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPON- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 5845 of such Code is amended by re designating subsections (d) through (m) as subsections (e) through (n), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection: ' (d) 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPON- The term '50 caliber sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in 50 caliber, .
50 BMG caliber, any other variant of 50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.' (2) MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF RIFLE- Subsection (c) of section 5845 of such Code is amended by inserting 'or from a bipod or other support' after 'shoulder'. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. In conclusion, it must be pointed out that gun control doesn? t work. We have more gun laws now than ever before yet our crime rate is at an all time high. Instead of trying to control weapons, safety and respect for weapons should be taught.
Why should everyone lose their rights and privileges because a select few abuse them?