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***
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.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!!!
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
Now is the time to write and call our polititions and let them know our stance. Don't bother with email, calls and snail mail carry a ton more weight.
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.You are not worried about McCarthy's version, You must be joking.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Bush would veto it if it got to his desk.
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.
. He said nothing about supporting a stricter ban.I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban
Is it worth the effort to call our Senators and Reps in Ma? We already know how they will vote the bunch of Marxists.
+1No. It is, however, worth the effort to support candidates who will protect our Second Amendment rights.
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.
Loginname, I know what GWB said : "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.
I didn't even know that Tierney had an opponent never saw sings or got fliersNo. 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.
Does anyone know how this bill will effect those of us who have stripped ar lowers?
Apparently Rep. Boehner's office believes this bill will pass the house.
(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
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.
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 ?
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(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.'.