SemiAutoSam
Banned
D
D
D
Last edited:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes
- Thread starter SemiAutoSam
- Start date
F
Finalygotabeltfed
I wonder what these cocksucker's first thoughts are going to be when the real shooting starts in this country?
I'll tell you one thing......"ooops" aint going to cut it. If they think they have a potential problem with a few foreign terrorists in our midst, just wait until a few million well armed American citizens get pushed too far and just say f*** YOU CONGRESS!!!
I'll tell you one thing......"ooops" aint going to cut it. If they think they have a potential problem with a few foreign terrorists in our midst, just wait until a few million well armed American citizens get pushed too far and just say f*** YOU CONGRESS!!!
Actually, McCarthys version of the AWB doesn't worry me that much.
I think it's unlikely to be brought to a floor vote (at least as stand alone legislation), let alone passed in this session (2008 and beyond... all bets are off).
However, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an attempt by her to tack it on as an amendment to some pro-RKBA legislation.
I would be more concerned if it was a straight reauthorization of the 94 ban.
It'll be interesting to see if Fineswine reintroduces her AWB in the Senate (and I'm betting that she will![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
).
I think it's unlikely to be brought to a floor vote (at least as stand alone legislation), let alone passed in this session (2008 and beyond... all bets are off).
However, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an attempt by her to tack it on as an amendment to some pro-RKBA legislation.
I would be more concerned if it was a straight reauthorization of the 94 ban.
It'll be interesting to see if Fineswine reintroduces her AWB in the Senate (and I'm betting that she will
).
The way they head off such a response is with the grandfather clause. I imagine an armed uprising would be substantially more likely if they attempted confiscation. Personally, I would rather they attack RKBA head-on, because some combination of armed uprising and SCOTUS decision would end the discussion once and for all... which is precisely why they don't go for a UK-style ban.
Kyle
Last edited:
these people are nut cases, the m1 carbine on the list??? I sure hope cmp gets theye're act together before this hits
I wrote to my Congresscritter today asking her to vote against this.
Unfortunately, my CC is Carol Shea-Porter. I expect her to vote for it.
Unfortunately, my CC is Carol Shea-Porter. I expect her to vote for it.
You are not worried about McCarthy's version, You must be joking.
In my opinion the most significant proposed change to the language is section (L).....or phrased another way the "Whatever we decide section"
-------------
"(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
-------------
How many semiautomatic rifles would that leave out of the ban...........
Don't bet that it won't be brought for a vote at which the timing would be most inopportune for the republicans.
God help our country if the Dems control everything in 08. (Which by the way will probably be an illegal thing for me to say or write as any reference to a devine diety will be a capital crime by then.)
In my opinion the most significant proposed change to the language is section (L).....or phrased another way the "Whatever we decide section"
-------------
"(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
-------------
How many semiautomatic rifles would that leave out of the ban...........
Don't bet that it won't be brought for a vote at which the timing would be most inopportune for the republicans.
God help our country if the Dems control everything in 08. (Which by the way will probably be an illegal thing for me to say or write as any reference to a devine diety will be a capital crime by then.)
That's very true. It takes more effort to call or to write long hand. I forget what the breakdown was, but it went something like - for every 1 call, they assume there's around 50 more out there who feel the same way and for every 1 handwritten letter they get, there's 100 more out there who feel the same. The numbers might be a little high, but IIRC, not by much.
This tells me to write my congressperson AND buy lots of assault weapons to hedge my bets against it passing.
I would be incredibly impressed if there was an armed uprising. I think most people are committed enough to write an angry letter, but not resort to physical actions to oppose something. Ban television and that might shed the apathy of the majority.
I would be incredibly impressed if there was an armed uprising. I think most people are committed enough to write an angry letter, but not resort to physical actions to oppose something. Ban television and that might shed the apathy of the majority.
Neither am I. McCarthy does this sort of thing at the start of every legislative session. It never goes anywhere. This won't either, at least not until the 2008 election.
If the Dems win an overwhelming majority in the 2008 election, then I'll worry. But right now, they don't have the votes in the Senate to get past a filibuster. Bush would veto it if it got to his desk. And the Dems don't have the votes to override the veto in either the house or senate.
Every session there a bunch of these sorts of bills introduced. The vast majority don't go anywhere. This one won't either.
kevin9
NES Member
I do hope you're right, and you probably are, but I would not assume anything at the moment. Better to write and it not have been necessary then not to and seeing this sneak in.
I think this is the most likely scenario if (when?) it makes the Senate. In the recent past these kinds of bills have died in committee because the GOP was in charge. Note that Rep. Conyers, the new chair of the Judiciary Committee where this bill has been submitted, has co-sponsored this bill in the past. Therefore, it almost certainly will make it to the House floor, and given the virulent anti-gun leadership of the House it most likely will get a vote. Whether it passes on to the Senate depends upon the Blue Dog Democrats who so far IMNSHO have done more whimpering than growling. Bottom line is I think it quite possible this bill could make it to the Senate.
I would not bet on this. I generally support George Bush, but remember he said he would sign an AWB reauthorization if it made it his desk. He did not push for it's passage, but I don't plan to bet my rights on his vetoing an new AWB. If he signs it, then no veto override is necessary.
I suggest people write early and write often. FYI, here is the list of House Judiciary Committee members.
He said...
. He said nothing about supporting a stricter ban.
Which is why I'd be more concerned if Feinstein simply refiled the same legislation from a couple of years ago that passed as an amendment in
a Republican controlled Senate.
If there's any real danger to McCarthys version, it's that it could be used as a bargaining chip for passing a straight reauthorization of the 94 AWB.
No. It is, however, worth the effort to support candidates who will protect our Second Amendment rights. You have in your Congressional District, Rick Barton beginning his 2008 challenge of John Tierney. Rick is an Endowment Life Member of the NRA, Sustaining Member of Goal, and VP of the Hamilton Wenham Rod and Gun Club. How much support did you give him and the others who ran last year? And by support, don't think that mentioning his name to a few friends will cut it and get rid of the MA Socialist Delegation in DC. It takes lots of $$$$$$$$. Check out the campaign finances on OpenSecrets.com and see who keeps funding the anti RKBA politicians.
kevin9
NES Member
Loginname, I know what GWB said ![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
: "extend the AWB" and "reauthorize the AWB" mean the same thing. I think it reasonable to expect that he would sign a new ban that is substantially the same as the old AWB. The bet is then whether he would view this bill as substantially the same as the old AWB. I think he might so I'm not willing to take that bet.
av8r,
We had a good conservative, pro-2A candidate this past year, Billy Szych, to replace John Olver, but he got pushed aside in the whole anti-war backlash. [sad2]
: "extend the AWB" and "reauthorize the AWB" mean the same thing. I think it reasonable to expect that he would sign a new ban that is substantially the same as the old AWB. The bet is then whether he would view this bill as substantially the same as the old AWB. I think he might so I'm not willing to take that bet.av8r,
+1
We had a good conservative, pro-2A candidate this past year, Billy Szych, to replace John Olver, but he got pushed aside in the whole anti-war backlash. [sad2]
I think it was more that he really did not have any name recognition. How on earth do Republicans think that they can take an unknown and put that person in a race against an established incumbent and have any chance to win? Syych got my vote but really, how much chance did he have from the beginning?
What we need to do is start growing Republican candidates from scratch and have them start taking the smaller races, build their reputation, then take on the big boys.
SemiAutoSam
Banned
I agree I have a feeling he would sign what ever was placed before him when it comes to a AWB.
He is a LAME DUCK and look at his talk about the constitution being just a piece of paper.
He is not an honorable man IMHO and does not GID about the Peasants (US)
He is a LAME DUCK and look at his talk about the constitution being just a piece of paper.
He is not an honorable man IMHO and does not GID about the Peasants (US)
Loginname, I know what GWB said
I think nationally a lot of Democrats are starting to fear taking an anti-gun stance. Too many of them have fallen in past years after voting anti-gun.
Doesn't help us here at all, but I don't think this will go anywhere.
Doesn't help us here at all, but I don't think this will go anywhere.
I didn't even know that Tierney had an opponent never saw sings or got fliers
and as far as I can remember his name never came up in the Cape Ann SC newsletter
SemiAutoSam
Banned
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
40 reasons to ban guns..... Flawed anti logic
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -
give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban
and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to
that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because
they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,
anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun
is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority
of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use
of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with
cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
40 reasons to ban guns..... Flawed anti logic
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -
give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.
14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban
and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to
that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because
they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,
anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun
is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority
of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use
of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with
cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands
SemiAutoSam
Banned
This is an interesting loophole.
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
Using this logic a HK41 should be legal as its not a copy if the HK91 that is listed the HK91 is a copy of the HK41.
Is my logic flawed or on the mark ?
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
Using this logic a HK41 should be legal as its not a copy if the HK91 that is listed the HK91 is a copy of the HK41.
Is my logic flawed or on the mark ?
+1... .while I don't want to encourage complacency, I think federallly
speaking anti gunners are pretty much dead in the water, at least until
another cycle or two goes through, depending on who ends up president,
and how many more seats end up flipping. Pelosi and friends realize that
getting into an anti gun funhouse will end up compromising most of the rest
of their agenda is.
-Mike
IANAL, but...
These two clauses alone could cover just about anything...
If I'm reading the "frame or receiver" thing correctly, that could mean no more FAB-10s and similar work-arounds you Cali guys have created.
Excuse my ignorance, but...
I'd like to write a letter but I'm not exactly sure who to write to.
I see that it says in the House Of Representatives, so I check on project vote smart and I see that in my area:
William Delahunt is the rep for the US House
and
Shirley Gomes is the rep for the MA House.
So who do I write to??
I'd like to write a letter but I'm not exactly sure who to write to.
I see that it says in the House Of Representatives, so I check on project vote smart and I see that in my area:
William Delahunt is the rep for the US House
and
Shirley Gomes is the rep for the MA House.
So who do I write to??
