Source: Office of Rep. Salud Carbajal
[On Friday], the U.S. House of Representatives voted to advance legislation co-sponsored by Congressman Salud Carbajal that would ban the sale, import, manufacture, or transfer of certain semi-automatic weapons.
“As a Marine Corps veteran, I’ve seen firsthand the destruction that assault rifles are capable of. They are weapons of war. They’re designed to do more harm, faster. And they have no place in our communities or on our streets,” said Rep. Carbajal. “But tragically, the vast majority of the deadliest mass shootings that we have seen in recent years have been carried out with one of these deadly weapons. It was wrong of Congress to let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004, and I’ve been fighting to revive it since my first day in office. If we want to end gun violence, we have to crack down on the weapons that mass shooters and criminals prefer.”
The passage of the measure [on Friday] marks the first time either chamber of Congress has approved an assault weapons ban since 1994. The 1994 assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
Eight of the ten deadliest mass shootings in recent U.S. history involved an assault weapon that would have been banned for purchase under the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Researchers estimate that if a federal assault weapons ban was still in place, we would see 70 percent fewer mass shooting deaths.
The House [Friday] approved the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 (H.R. 1808), which would make it unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or transfer the following:
The measure approved [on Friday] would allow for the sale, transfer, or possession of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2021.
It would also specify that its restrictions do not apply to antique firearms, manually-operated firearms, and more than 2,000 specified models of hunting and sporting firearms.
This measure passed today builds on the recent enactment of the first federal gun safety law since the 1994 assault weapons ban: the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
That landmark breakthrough approved earlier this summer included a provision long-championed by Congressman Carbajal to expand the use of ‘red flag’ laws.
The new law includes $750 million set aside for states to create and administer ‘red flag’ laws and other measures that can keep guns out of the hands of those who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, something Rep. Carbajal originally proposed in his Extreme Risk Protection Order Act.
Rep. Salud Carbajal represents California’s 24th congressional district, encompassing Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and part of Ventura County. He sits on the House Armed Services Committee, Agriculture Committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he serves as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Why do you need any of the guns/attachments/accessories that they're trying to ban? "Second Amendment" is not an answer. What, specifically, to civilians need these types of weapons for? Answers please, no deflections, non sequiturs, whatabouts or any other illogical responses. Truth only please.
Why do you need any of the guns/attachments/accessories that they're trying to ban? "Second Amendment" is not an answer. What, specifically, to civilians need these types of weapons for? Answers please, no deflections, non sequiturs, whatabouts or any other illogical responses. Truth only please.
Sac, I will start by first saying that I do not believe it is appropriate to evaluate a constitutionally recognized right based on need. Second, the proposed law is written by people with little knowledge and experience with firearms and there are aspects of it that make little sense. To get to the thrust of your question, it boils down to the old saying “sic vis pacem, para bellum” which means “if you seek peace, prepare for war.” The idea is for the population to be empowered by being heavily armed. A heavily armed population makes a country less susceptible to foreign invasion. The swiss provide a great example of how effective this philosophy can be, having managed to avoid fighting in two world wars despite being located between the warring powers. Being armed also empowers people to protect themselves rather than depending on law enforcement. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an armed population is empowered to protect itself against its own government. The government remains subordinate to the people, as it should be. That is the real reason for the second amendment. Before a population can be persecuted, they must first be disarmed. Based on these reasons, I believe every responsible adult should equip themselves with the most advanced modern firearms and accessories they can afford and should undergo at least a basic level of training in their use. The purpose is to maintain peace and freedom for our population.
Sac, I will start by first saying that I do not believe it is appropriate to evaluate a constitutionally recognized right based on need. Second, the proposed law is written by people with little knowledge and experience with firearms and there are aspects of it that make little sense. To get to the thrust of your question, it boils down to the old saying “sic vis pacem, para bellum” which means “if you seek peace, prepare for war.” The idea is for the population to be empowered by being heavily armed. A heavily armed population makes a country less susceptible to foreign invasion. The swiss provide a great example of how effective this philosophy can be, having managed to avoid fighting in two world wars despite being located between the warring powers. Being armed also empowers people to protect themselves rather than depending on law enforcement. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, an armed population is empowered to protect itself against its own government. The government remains subordinate to the people, as it should be. That is the real reason for the second amendment. Before a population can be persecuted, they must first be disarmed. Based on these reasons, I believe every responsible adult should equip themselves with the most advanced modern firearms and accessories they can afford and should undergo at least a basic level of training in their use. The purpose is to maintain peace and freedom for our population.
Wow. Just wow. Such opinions belong in an asylum. Once again ignoring the relevant text of the second amendment: "A well-regulated militia..."
Wow. Just wow. Such opinions belong in an asylum.
Once again ignoring the relevant text of the second amendment: "A well-regulated militia..."
Ok, respectable answers I suppose. So, defense against what? How many home invasions or assaults are carried out by large groups of people? Sport? Haha, some smoke crack for "sport," so hardly a reason to keep producing and selling something with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. I just feel the "need" for these types of firearms isn't pressing enough to continue to allow them to be LEGALLY purchased by unstable young men for the purpose of mass shootings. These guns are DESIGNED, MARKETED and SOLD for the sole purpose of shooting many people quickly..... mass shootings. Yeah, they're fun as heck to shoot but Joe six pack doesn't need them.
Ok, respectable answers I suppose. So, defense against what? How many home invasions or assaults are carried out by large groups of people? Sport? Haha, some smoke crack for "sport," so hardly a reason to keep producing and selling something with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
I just feel the "need" for these types of firearms isn't pressing enough to continue to allow them to be LEGALLY purchased by unstable young men for the purpose of mass shootings. These guns are DESIGNED, MARKETED and SOLD for the sole purpose of shooting many people quickly..... mass shootings. Yeah, they're fun as heck to shoot but Joe six pack doesn't need them.
CHIP - oh I forgot, "fighting our own government" isn't a reason either. We've never needed to. It's the United States, not Venezuela or 1930s Europe.
CHIP - oh I forgot, "fighting our own government" isn't a reason either. We've never needed to. It's the United States, not Venezuela or 1930s Europe.
CHIP - I really am here for answers, not to argue. I quit all that with you guys. So, I apologize, I won't engage much further, but I'm curious now. You think we should be even more armed than we are? Will more availability of military style weapons (you know, so we can fight the US military when it comes for us), be beneficial? How does having more machine guns (yes, we'll need fully auto to fight our own military) make our children safer?
CHIP - I really am here for answers, not to argue. I quit all that with you guys. So, I apologize, I won't engage much further, but I'm curious now. You think we should be even more armed than we are? Will more availability of military style weapons (you know, so we can fight the US military when it comes for us), be beneficial?
How does having more machine guns (yes, we'll need fully auto to fight our own military) make our children safer?
FYI, the largest mass shooting in US History took place on December 29, 1890. The US Army confiscated the guns of the Sioux Indians "for their own protection", and then proceeded to slaughter 297 people, including 200 women and children. Don't let the Govt and criminals be the only ones with guns
FYI, the largest mass shooting in US History took place on December 29, 1890. The US Army confiscated the guns of the Sioux Indians "for their own protection", and then proceeded to slaughter 297 people, including 200 women and children.
Don't let the Govt and criminals be the only ones with guns
VOICE - Indian massacres in the 1800s aren't analogous to the constant mass shootings of today. Like I said, not going to engage and argue, but come on man..... that's just a bit far out.
VOICE - Indian massacres in the 1800s aren't analogous to the constant mass shootings of today. Like I said, not going to engage and argue, but come on man..... that's just a bit far out.
Sacjon "man..... that's just a bit far out"!!! got that right
Sacjon "man..... that's just a bit far out"!!! got that right
Sure, they make the firearm safer and more accurate
Sure, they make the firearm safer and more accurate
I think most anti government people are not about fighting the US military, but about possibly resisting entities like FBI SWAT. Like in Waco or Ruby Ridge The military is contitutionally prohibited from fighting US citizens on US soil and even the dumbest of "militia" men are aware of that
I think most anti government people are not about fighting the US military, but about possibly resisting entities like FBI SWAT. Like in Waco or Ruby Ridge The military is contitutionally prohibited from fighting US citizens on US soil and even the dumbest of "militia" men are aware of that
Umm you can shoot a lot of people quickly, decisively with other rifles as well. Those rifles do not have the Hollywood, Black Rifle panache, and will not be banned, but are equally as deadly
Umm you can shoot a lot of people quickly, decisively with other rifles as well. Those rifles do not have the Hollywood, Black Rifle panache, and will not be banned, but are equally as deadly
Idiots can deflect from the issue by citing the lethality of individual ammunition types, but the real issue here is the overall firepower of the weapons involved, and that has a time dimension - how rapidly they can send projectiles downrange. That is the real reason military-style weapons have no place in a civilized society. Of course, the gun-worship proponents have done a lot in the past couple of decades to erode civil society, but we shouldn't let that continue. Enough is enough.
Idiots can deflect from the issue by citing the lethality of individual ammunition types, but the real issue here is the overall firepower of the weapons involved, and that has a time dimension - how rapidly they can send projectiles downrange. That is the real reason military-style weapons have no place in a civilized society. Of course, the gun-worship proponents have done a lot in the past couple of decades to erode civil society, but we shouldn't let that continue. Enough is enough.
Non military style rifles shoot ammunition of the same caliber and velocities and are not banned.. which is why I was talking about ammunition. Why ban "assault rifles" if the problem is the velocity of the ammunition? Most rifles of WWII quality and vintage can handle high velocity ammunition.
Non military style rifles shoot ammunition of the same caliber and velocities and are not banned.. which is why I was talking about ammunition. Why ban "assault rifles" if the problem is the velocity of the ammunition? Most rifles of WWII quality and vintage can handle high velocity ammunition.
SacJon: You ask: "Why do you need any of the guns/attachments/accessories that they're trying to ban?" We need the guns/attachments because there's talk about banning them. When you try to "ban" something, it's human nature to need it even more. Try telling a teenager to not date someone....said teen is now even more K-rAz-eD for the banned undesirable. Nothing wrong with asking about why someone needs something. But, the bottom line is that it really is no one's business for anyone else to know why someone else needs something. My dad would ask my brother why he needed another surfboard (because he wanted another stick). My grandmother asking my father why he needed another bottle of fine Scotch whisky (because he like that kind of sauce). My friend asking me why I needed to go back to travel in New Zealand for the fourth time (because I wanted to). Talk of ammo and gun bans = huge gun sales. No doubt.
SacJon: You ask: "Why do you need any of the guns/attachments/accessories that they're trying to ban?"
We need the guns/attachments because there's talk about banning them. When you try to "ban" something, it's human nature to need it even more. Try telling a teenager to not date someone....said teen is now even more K-rAz-eD for the banned undesirable.
Nothing wrong with asking about why someone needs something. But, the bottom line is that it really is no one's business for anyone else to know why someone else needs something. My dad would ask my brother why he needed another surfboard (because he wanted another stick). My grandmother asking my father why he needed another bottle of fine Scotch whisky (because he like that kind of sauce). My friend asking me why I needed to go back to travel in New Zealand for the fourth time (because I wanted to).
Talk of ammo and gun bans = huge gun sales. No doubt.
Voted Santa Barbara's Best Website for 10 years in a row, edhat is local news from your community