Louisiana assault weapons ban in committee

[Hoopla Phil]

http://www.wwl.com/Proposed-assault-weapons-ban-in-committee/4379336

New Orleans Representative Cedric Richmond sponsors the measure. Similar bills have failed each of the past two years.

"I went in this year and listed 11 weapons that my police chief has talked about as being the most serious threat to public safety," Richmond told the WWL State Capitol Bureau. "I hunt and I fish. I have a rifle and I have a handgun, but I don't need an AK-47. I can't go buy a bazooka, so why should I be able to go buy and AK-47. I think we are just taking it too far."

The National Rifle Association's Alexa Fritts says they oppose Richmond's bill. She says the federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004 because it basically made no measurable difference.

"There's not a single study... that shows that banning so-called assault weapons has any effect on crime," Fritts said. "Criminals don't pay attention to the laws. By definition, they don't follow the laws. So... a law like this would affect law abiding citizens."

[villager]

1. By the NRA's logic, there shouldn't be a law against murder, either

...since murderers, by definition, won't follow it. So why bother?

[konnichi wa]

2. Cedric appears to be an idiot since he apparently thinks his hunting rifle is less

powerful than an AK47.

Fuck him and fuck anyone else who wants to trash the Bill of Rights.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. You might find this interesting about him.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/rep_cedric_richmond_suspended.html

[konnichi wa]

7. Interesting, yes. Surprising?...not really.

Thanks for the info.

[Hoopla Phil]

3. LOL. That is all.

[Caliman73]

6. bad analogy

We have laws that prohibit certain behaviors that society deems unacceptable. Murder is a behavior that is destructive to the fabric of society. A firearm in the possession of a person who has a respect for the lives and the rights of others is not destructive to the fabric of society. If the person misuses the firearm then they become a danger. Any item can be misused and become dangerous. If we make laws based solely on the potential misuse of items then there are a great many more freedoms that we have to give up to make sure we are safe.

[Euromutt]

15. I'd put it slightly differently

It's not so much that we criminalize behavior because it is destructive to the fabric of society, but rather, because it infringes upon another's freedom of self-determination. When you kill another person, you deprive in the most drastic way possible of the ability to make their own choices; but when you possess a semi-automatic rifle (like a "civilianized" Kalashnikov variant), that action in and of itself, to paraphrase Jefferson, "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Of course, you could use that rifle to harm me, or threaten to harm if I don't let you take my material possessions, but that being the case, the issue is not that you're using a semi-automatic rifle, it's that you're infringing upon my freedom of self-determination; the gun is simply a means to an end, and the end result would be the same if you used a double-barreled shotgun, a Civil War-era cap-and-ball revolver, a baseball bat, a 10" chef's knife, or several large, burly friends.

[Tim01]

18. More "feel good" laws that don't fix problems.

I expect as much from uneducated people.

[jody]

4. Rather than banning assault weapons states should ban stupidity, that's the logic prohibition groups

use when they try to pass laws banning pre-existing or inalienable/unalienable rights.

[benEzra]

8. He very, very badly needs to purchase a clue.

Actual AK-47's are controlled by the same laws that restrict "bazookas." Possession of either outside of military/police/government duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony.

The "assault weapon" fraud isn't about banning military infantry rifles; it is about banning the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in America.

[JonQ]

9. Odd that emphatic support for "assualt weapon" bans

and a general ignorance of firearms and current laws concerning them seem to go hand in hand.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. You'd sooner see a creationist crack open a paleontology text....

...than you would see people like the fool in the OP or Carolyn McCarthy
educate themselves on the relevant technology and laws.

[JonQ]

13. Actually those two groups have alot in common

making judgements (and too often policy) based not on observed facts but more on faith, a gut feeling of what they know to not only be right but moral as well. Meaning anyone who opposes them isn't doing so out of genuine disagreement based on facts, but because they are downright evil.

[bossy22]

10. hmmm

and i guess the Steyr Aug is high on that list....even though only nationally the gun has been traced for use in a crime somewhere in the vicinity of 5-10 times over the last 20 years (that means only been used in a 5-10 crimes)

yes this horrible weapon is killing our police officers ever day...nevermind the statistic which shows that these weapons have never once been used against an officer...trust us

[yay]

12. Statistics, who needs 'em

[Pullo]

14. *UPDATE* Louisiana bill banning assault weapons dies in Legislature

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/45441197.html

[Clarence Birdseye]

16. You can't buy an AK-47 and they aren't "Assult Weapons"

The Second Amendment does not refer to "need".

What exactly is the overwhelming public safety issue that banning these weapons will remedy? If it is that big a problem, showing the stats should not be a problem. And then, if the law proposed does not remedy the problem, there should be a sunset provision. If people pushing this sort of legislation were honest, such things would be done as a matter of course. They aren't which should tell us something.

[virginia mountainman]

17. All they do, when someone proposes such a law. Especially one that is DOOMED to fail

Is "remind" folks that "Democrats want to take their guns"

And raise money for the NRA..