Bill introduced by Repub to outlaw semiauto weapons

[Elegy]

Has anybody else heard about this? Time to start stocking up ladies and gents. The next thing I can see happening is a ban on large caliber ammo.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

H.R. 6257: To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Introduced: Jun 12, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Status: Introduced

Text of Legislation
HR 6257 IH


110th CONGRESS


2d Session


H. R. 6257

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



June 12, 2008


Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

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 ‘Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008’.


SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:

‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

‘(B) any firearm that--

‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

‘(iii) is an antique firearm;

‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

‘(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

‘(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States (including the United States Armed Forces and, under regulations pursuant to title 50, United States Code, the National Guard and Reserve), or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

‘(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

‘(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.’.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (29) the following:

‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means--

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

‘(iv) Colt AR-15;

‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

‘(vii) Steyr AUG;

‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;

‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’.

.................................................. .can read rest of bill from link.

[pcosmar]

And some will still say that a vote for "R" would save us from this crap.:mad:

[Cowlesy]

WTF is this shit??????????

God damn our idiot politicians........ :(

[newyearsrevolution08]

Fuck "parties", it never had to do with parties but the actual candidates who hold those positions in those parties that matters.

nothing over 5 rounds, fuck you!
lol

I was shocked to see ALL republicans on this one BUT not really since odds are those republicans are democrats in red clothing. One agenda people, we don't have a chance unless it is "we the people" vs. "the powers that be"....

This bill is going TOO FAR, limit it to 5 rounds and that eliminates the most common 10 round clips and who makes a 5 round clip anyways?

Leave us with bolt guns only, then they will say they are sniper rifles and need to be removed as well.


They WILL NOT take our guns. It is our right and anyone who gives into this bullshit is doing the same thing as voting for obama or mccain or one of the "usuals".

Keep your rifles, hide them if need be but do not get rid of them. Stockpile NOW and focus on the state level efforts. We will remove the feds hold over us then it will be left up to the states, we need our people there when it happens.

Fuck these bullshit bans on our liberties.

[Cowlesy]

This thing better not even get off the ground.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I can see how people can vote for no "full auto assault rifles" or even buying an uzi and not using it for hunting or whatever. Not saying it is right but I can see how people could get swayed into voting to remove SOME weapons from our hands(still not fucking right) BUT to try and remove a semi auto rifle with a 10 round clip as a fucking assault rifle and trying to reduce us to 5 round clips?

fuck that....

In a dream I had the other day I had a few 50 round drums among other high cap magazines at my disposal.

Good luck disarming all of us.

------------

Also try and remember why this is happening, they usually disarm or reduce rights RIGHT before something big happens. They remove weapons from us when something bad is about to happen so we don't STOP IT from happening. We need to keep an eye out for any "save the children" policy or "remove the gang violence initiatives" that always have a GREAT name like the patriot act for instance BUT are nothing more then a catchy name to grab votes.

Hell look at its catchy name "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use" Protection Act", doesn't it sound like it is FOR public safety and FOR recreational shooting? Evil and tricky people we are up against.

Our government is going too far and we are letting it happen

[Mattsa]

This thing better not even get off the ground.

The thin end of the wedge ladies and gentlemen

They will do whatever is necessary to disarm America

They know the NAU and a totalitarian state is a lot harder to achieve if the people are still armed.

[newyearsrevolution08]

The thin end of the wedge ladies and gentlemen

They will do whatever is necessary to disarm America

They know the NAU and a totalitarian state is a lot harder to achieve if the people are still armed.

they will push until we push back, why stop when we give no resistance?

[pcosmar]

This is the first time I have seen this.
A thread moved from a sub forum to the front page.
This is however one of my pet issues. So,
I have heard over and over again that we have to vote for McCain (or any "R") because they will protect the 2nd Amendment. I don't believe it.
They had been in power and we got more anti-gun crap shoved down our throats.

This will be an issue.
The "plans" can not go through till Americans are disarmed.

[pcosmar]

Ya all better get real good at making every shot count.
Make up for quantity with quality.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[angelatc]

I would like to point out that this is the candidate that Allan Stevo is opposing. Kirk is a horrid example of a Republican.

[Cowlesy]

I sent a note to my Congressman:


Representative Weiner,

I was recently made aware of H.R. 6257: To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act introduced by Rep. Mark Kirk and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on which you serve as a member.

Beyond being an affront to our cherished civil liberties, this bill is a direct attack on the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution to which you swore an oath to uphold. As a citizen of New York, I am well aware of the dangers faced by the illegal use of any firearms for which New York City has extremely strict legislation in place. During the past few years we have not had an assault weapons ban in place.

Please provide evidence that the lifting of the ban has caused a rise in assault weapons violence in New York City, or the United States in general.

As you well know as a Congressman, gun crime almost always involved illegally purchased and sold firearms, NOT firearms, especially "assault weapons", acquired by legal means.

I urge you to kill this bill before it ever gets to General Debate.

Stand up for your constituents and our fellow citizens, Congressman Weiner. Don't let the Brady lobby OR the NRA lobby influence your opinions. Listen to those that matter, your constituents.

Take Action Now -- If you are represented in your district by a House Judiciary Committee member, take 5 minutes, alter my note above to fit your views (or write a better one all together) and let's make it clear that this bill is unacceptable.

John Conyers (D) - Michigan
Lamar Smith (R) - Texas
Tammy Baldwin (D) - Wisconsin
Howard Berman (D) - California
Fred Boucher (D) - Virginia
Chris Cannon (R) - Utah
Steve Chabot (R) - Ohio
Howard Coble (R) - N.C.
Steve Cohen (D) - Tennessee
Artur Davis (D) - Alabama
William Delahunt (D) - Massachusetts
Keith Ellison (D) - Minnesota
Tom Feeney (R) - Florida
James Forbes (R) - Virginia
Trent Franks (R) - Arizona
Elton Gallegly (R) - California
Louis Gohmert (R) - Texas
Robert Goodlatte (R) - VA
Darrell Issa (R) - California
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) - Texas
Henry Johnson (D) - GA
Jim Jordan (R) - Ohio
Ric Keller (R) - Florida
Steve King (R) - Iowa
Zoe Lofgren (D) - California
Dan Lungren (R) - California
Jerry Nadler (D) - New York
Mike Pence (R) - Indiana
Linda Sanchez (D) - California
Adam Schiff (D) - California
Robert Scott (D) - Virginia
James Sensenbrenner (R) - Wisconsin
Brad Sherman (D) - California
Betty Sutton (D) - Ohio
Debby Wasserman (D) - Florida
Maxine Water (D) - Florida
Melvin Watt (D) - NC
Anthony Weiner (D) - NY

[JosephTheLibertarian]

lol. uzis should definitely be legal. citizens should have access to every weapon the military has access to.

[devil21]

Im surprised it's not even more restrictive since it doesnt mention handguns. With a Democrat soon living in the white house and a Dem controlled congress, the gun control bills will get bigger and bolder.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Im surprised it's not even more restrictive since it doesnt mention handguns. With a Democrat soon living in the white house and a Dem controlled congress, the gun control bills will get bigger and bolder.

I'm inclined to agree.

obama - antigun

congress - democrat dominated, most (if not all) are antigun

it's only a matter of time

[devil21]

I'm inclined to agree.

obama - antigun

congress - democrat dominated, most (if not all) are antigun

it's only a matter of time

Plus, the bill is sponsored by a bunch of "Republicans" so even if McCain was elected I'd expect similar results. Gun owners are going to get hit HARD over the next presidential term.

[pcosmar]

Reality sucks.

Infringed has been my reality for some time.
I was hoping that would change, but it seems that more will be joining my condition.

[Cowlesy]

Plus, the bill is sponsored by a bunch of "Republicans" so even if McCain was elected I'd expect similar results. Gun owners are going to get hit HARD over the next presidential term.

You can count on it.

[sluggo]

Expect more and more anti-gun bills to come down the pike. Neither McPain or the Obamanation cares about the Second Amendment.

If you haven't joined a gun rights group, do it now. We need to make some noise about these bills. Light up their phones, fill their inboxes, and make their fax machines run out of paper.

[Cowlesy]

Expect more and more anti-gun bills to come down the pike. Neither McPain or the Obamanation cares about the Second Amendment.

If you haven't joined a gun rights group, do it now. We need to make some noise about these bills. Light up their phones, fill their inboxes, and make their fax machines run out of paper.

Already sent mail to the GOA and the NRA. No matter what people think of either, we need them to fight this ridiculous bill if it goes anywhere.

[sluggo]

Not meaning to start the NRA vs. GOA argument, but this video makes me wonder which side of the argument the NRA will come down on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

One thing is for certain, if this bill makes it through the Congress, we WILL have a president that will happily sign it into law.

This could be the most depressing election I have seen in my life.

[Cowlesy]

Not meaning to start the NRA vs. GOA argument, but this video makes me wonder which side of the argument the NRA will come down on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

One thing is for certain, if this bill makes it through the Congress, we WILL have a president that will happily sign it into law.

This could be the most depressing election I have seen in my life.

Wow --- I had not seen that video until now.

Let's keep this thread on topic, but thanks for that very enlightening video.

[Cowlesy]

Well I've forwarded this information to 260 people on my worthy-forward list, I hope others will consider doing the same.

[Dieseler]

Has anyone read the entire bill yet?
Can you tell me if it passes will I have to turn my AK in or is it grandfathered please.
Thanks.
Anyone put up a digg on this yet?

[Cowlesy]

Has anyone read the entire bill yet?
Can you tell me if it passes will I have to turn my AK in or is it grandfathered please.
Thanks.
Anyone put up a digg on this yet?

‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

My interpretation is that you can purchase/own/transfer them prior to the date, but afterwards, nope.

[Uriel999]

Looks like it is about finally time I figure out how to get the funds for an AR-15 and M1A as well as a shitload of hi-caps. LOL, although, ya know what I did not see on their list...if this went through we could still all get 1919s!

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/admin/images/content/1919combo2008.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvEq3o0umYA


.308 chain guns for everybody!

[devil21]

‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

My interpretation is that you can purchase/own/transfer them prior to the date, but afterwards, nope.

I read it to say that any AKs and ARs and the like that are currently owned are not banned but future sales, new possessions and manufacture would be illegal. Essentially your current AK/AR is grandfathered in. BUT you better have a sales receipt to show when it was purchased if you tangle with LEO over it after this bill is signed into law.

[Cowlesy]

I read it to say that any AKs and ARs and the like that are currently owned are not banned but future sales, new possessions and manufacture would be illegal. Essentially your current AK/AR is grandfathered in. BUT you better have a sales receipt to show when it was purchased if you tangle with LEO over it after this bill is signed into law.

Either way we need to fight it. I still can't get over Sluggo's post of that NRA Board Member essentially saying what was okay that's actually in this exact bill (5 bullet clip acceptability)

[Anti Federalist]

Tricky bastards, those Republicans.

They introduce a gun ban bill, knowing that it (probably) will go nowhere, so that they can all scream, "See, See, you'd better vote for McPain or you're gonna lose your guns!!".

Fuck them all, Molon Labe!!!

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and By The Way, everybody and I mean everybody needs to click on Cowlesy's "Appleseed Link"

[James Madison]

Well, first automatic weapons, now semiautomatic...all we can buy now is bolt-action rifles, some shotguns, and old revolvers. Did anyone notice the misleading wording in the bill when it said something like "semiautomatic assualt weapons"? By definition an assault rifle must be both semiautomatic and fully-automatic thus meaning it would already be illegal without extensive hoop jumping.

[armstrong]

Do we Have 4 more years to wait? Maybe we all just need to open our eyes even more!!but we all know what that would look like.............

[Joseph Hart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFORs1HpKLY

[Anti Federalist]

Well, first automatic weapons, now semiautomatic...all we can buy now is bolt-action rifles, some shotguns, and old revolvers. Did anyone notice the misleading wording in the bill when it said something like "semiautomatic assualt weapons"? By definition an assault rifle must be both semiautomatic and fully-automatic thus meaning it would already be illegal without extensive hoop jumping.

Bolt actions banned as "sniper weapons".

I have seen gun grabbers call 12 gauges "weapons of mass destruction".

Old revolvers? 1000% tax on ammo takes care of that.

[armstrong]

I need to go buy some more soap

[Time for Change]

please bear with my ignorance...
is appendix "A" supposed to outline the BANNED firearms?

If so, this IS the beginning of the disarming of the citizens.
The rifles listed there are standard hunting rifles too.

OOHH BOY...

[Cowlesy]

please bear with my ignorance...
is appendix "A" supposed to outline the BANNED firearms?

If so, this IS the beginning of the disarming of the citizens.
The rifles listed there are standard hunting rifles too.

OOHH BOY...

EVIL GUNS, like: ‘Ruger 10/22 Autoloading Carbine (w/o folding stock)

The 10/22...nice knowin' ya

Not to mention my pheasant gun: ‘Benelli Super Black Eagle Shotgun

[James Madison]

Bolt actions banned as "sniper weapons".

I have seen gun grabbers call 12 gauges "weapons of mass destruction".

Old revolvers? 1000% tax on ammo takes care of that.

Are you serious about bolt actions? When did that happen? Now shotguns, seriously, are one of the most ineffective weapons around unless youre at point-blank range. Hate 'em. Except in the Resident Evil series.:D

[Time for Change]

Who exactly are these idiots representing??

Land of the free...as long as you:

never question the "elected representatives"
work 2 jobs (4 if married),
buy lots of gas
and pay your taxes.

Having any additional activities, including hunting for food because you cannot afford the grocery store, is strictly prohibited

[armstrong]

If this goes anywhere we are doomed.....it will take time ,,but we are doomed if this goes anywhere.,......with all the other problems we now face...this just fits right in

[Anti Federalist]

Are you serious about bolt actions? When did that happen? Now shotguns, seriously, are one of the most ineffective weapons around unless youre at point-blank range. Hate 'em. Except in the Resident Evil series.:D

Yes, I have seen states (the usual suspects) introduce bills to ban scoped, bolt action rifles as "sniper weapons".

NJ tried this last year, I'll try to find a link, their argument: "Well rifles are banned for hunting in New Jersey anyway, so what do need these for?"

[ihsv]

Isn't Mark Kirk the traitor who is trying to establish the "Secure Social Security Card" as a way around various state's rejection of the National ID?

[Anti Federalist]

Also be ready, it's likely that the SCROTUS's DC v Heller decision will be announced sometime today.

[fr33domfightr]

The people in the congressional district of the guy sponsoring this bill should be made well aware of what their representative is doing. What big cities does this include? We need to make sure the people are aware!!

The NRA has been a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, so joining the NRA would be helpful.

Old Assault Rifle bans were even for Rifles that "looked" like an assault rifle. This one does the same thing!! Who gives a rat what something looks like??? If it shoots a 9mm, it shoots a 9mm!!

These bills are bad because it could turn you into a criminal. Once charged with a Felony, you aren't allowed to own a gun any longer.

Those talking about UZI's should know this, what they're talking about are semi-automatic versions of UZI's. And what does an UZI shoot? A 9mm, same as any 9mm gun.

Everyone should be against this!!


FF

[Elegy]

Keep your rifles, hide them if need be but do not get rid of them. Stockpile NOW and focus on the state level efforts. We will remove the feds hold over us then it will be left up to the states, we need our people there when it happens.



Absolutely, stock up and bury them if need be, especially stockpile lots of ammo, it's the next thing I see getting targeted.

[devil21]

Bolt actions banned as "sniper weapons".

I have seen gun grabbers call 12 gauges "weapons of mass destruction".

Old revolvers? 1000% tax on ammo takes care of that.

Under most state laws, sawed off shotguns (12ga or not) are "weapons of mass destruction". I shit you not. Look it up.

[asgardshill]

Also be ready, it's likely that the SCROTUS's DC v Heller decision will be announced sometime today.

Damn it, I just splooged a mouthful of coffee into the keyboard. Again. And I'm on the laptop, so its damned hard to clean. Bastard. ;)

Seriously, I'm still holding out for the last day of the term for DC v Heller to come back. I'm also still praying that the RKBA will be affirmed as an individual right.

[kombayn]

Man. It sucks, just buy whatever weapons you can and like people said stockpile them into a firesafe. It's your right to own gun.

[Cowlesy]

//

[Rhys]

"The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting" - Ron Paul

they want our guns so we can't shoot back. We'll be left with bb guns to defend ourself. They want us to shoot muskets at them while they shoot A-1 Abrams tanks at us!!! (if it actually comes to that, which is seems to be. sad)

[SeanEdwards]

Under most state laws, sawed off shotguns (12ga or not) are "weapons of mass destruction". I shit you not. Look it up.

What's even funnier than that is the fact that encryption schemes like PGP are considered munitions. Privacy of your communications is threatening to somebody.

[JRegs85]

I'm really hoping for a strong Heller decision to come out today.

I've seen the AR-type bans, but bolt-action rifles? I honestly never thought it would happen so soon.

[Grandson of Liberty]

Oh and By The Way, everybody and I mean everybody needs to click on Cowlesy's "Appleseed Link"

+1775 :)

[JRegs85]

Potentially good news:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

"It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."

[asgardshill]

Potentially good news:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

"It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."

Fascinating.

That same source advises that DC v. Heller should be on the street on Wednesday or Thursday of this week, probably Thursday.

[SeanEdwards]

Scalia writes some freakin hilarious stuff on occasion. I can't agree with him on everything, but I do respect his acerbic sarcastic style. It's quite entertaining. I would not be surprised if his decision on this case is something like:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/kayaus/PicardWtf.jpg

LOL

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

WTF is this shit??????????

God damn our idiot politicians........ :(

They aren't idiots, they know exactly what they're doing. The goal is to disarm us. They are achieving their goal.

[Anti Federalist]

Damn it, I just splooged a mouthful of coffee into the keyboard. Again. And I'm on the laptop, so its damned hard to clean. Bastard. ;)

Seriously, I'm still holding out for the last day of the term for DC v Heller to come back. I'm also still praying that the RKBA will be affirmed as an individual right.

Shilly gets a cigar!! I've been writing that as SCROTUS for a over a year now and you're the first to pick up on it, or at least comment.:D:D:D

And also seriously, I'm looking for the Heller decision to be a "punt".

Yes, you have an "individual right" but subject to "reasonable restrictions", which is, of course, no right.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

lastnight I was patted down by a police officer walking down the street. didn't even do anything.

[Anti Federalist]

+1775 :)

I have a good friend down in Louisiana that is local coordinator for Appleseed.

I'm looking to start one here in NH.

It is HIGHLY recommended.


Welcome to the Appleseed Project

What the RWVA (Revolutionary War Veterans Association) is all about:
The Appleseed Program is designed to take you from being a simple rifle owner to being a true rifleman. All throughout American history, the rifleman has been defined as a marksman capable of hitting a man-sized target from 500 yards away — no ifs, ands or buts about it. This 500-yard range is traditionally known as "the rifleman's quarter-mile;" a rifleman can hit just about any target he can see. This skill was particulary evident in the birth of our country, and was the difference in winning the Revolutionary War.

We invite all interested marksmen to learn the skills and techniques necessary to shoot proficiently; and then hope you'll participate in teaching and practicing with others so that together we can save this great land. Why you? Well, that's simple: if you're on this page we're betting you're a patriot, and we hope you answer the call.

What's a rifleman?
In short, a rifleman is an armed American, trained in the tradition of American Liberty. It's a man who has learned to shoot a rifle accurately — accurate enough to score "expert" on the Army Qualification Course. Until you can do that, you're considered a "Cook," unprepared and unqualified to carry a rifle on the firing line of freedom. But after attending an Appleseed AQT shoot, you'll have the credentials necessary to be a true rifleman, and will understand the critical need for defending freedom in this country.

The RWVA is dedicated to the Appleseed Program and encourages every American to learn to shoot.

http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

[SeanEdwards]

Qualifying expert in the army is not easy. I think they let you miss 2 out of 20 shots, on targets that popup from 50 - 300 meters. Hitting those 300 meter targets with iron sights from an unsupported position is no joke. I could barely see the damn thing, much less hit it.

[asgardshill]

I'm looking for the Heller decision to be a "punt".

Yes, you have an "individual right" but subject to "reasonable restrictions", which is, of course, no right.

At this point, I'd settle for 7/10ths of a cake over no cake at all.

I'm going to keep my sunshiny, bunny-rabbit optimism for now and predict that RKBA is found subject to only reasonable restrictions. And sorry but I do believe they exist.

What is "reasonable" to me?

- No drooling mental cases get to pack heat. And the drool would have to be that bona-fide gloppy foamy kind of drool, and the mental case would have to be hearing Jesus Christ Himself speaking from his bowl of cornflakes every morning telling him to kill everybody on his block.

- No illegal immigrants get to pack heat. Self-explanatory - no citizen no gun.

- No basement nuclear weapons. They're an attractive nuisance and play hell with property values.

That's pretty much it. I don't see SCOTUS flinging RKBA that widely open though - I'm optimistic but not deluded.

[Primbs]

Potentially good news:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

"It does look exceptionally likely that Justice Scalia is writing the principal opinion for the Court in Heller – the D.C. guns case. That is the only opinion remaining from the sitting and he is the only member of the Court not to have written a majority opinion from the sitting. There is no indication that he lost a majority from March. His only dissent from the sitting is for two Justices in Indiana v. Edwards. So, that’s a good sign for advocates of a strong individual rights conception of the Second Amendment and a bad sign for D.C."

I hope that is the case.

[Anti Federalist]

At this point, I'd settle for 7/10ths of a cake over no cake at all.

I'm going to keep my sunshiny, bunny-rabbit optimism for now and predict that RKBA is found subject to only reasonable restrictions. And sorry but I do believe they exist.

What is "reasonable" to me?

- No drooling mental cases get to pack heat. And the drool would have to be that bona-fide gloppy foamy kind of drool, and the mental case would have to be hearing Jesus Christ Himself speaking from his bowl of cornflakes every morning telling him to kill everybody on his block.

- No illegal immigrants get to pack heat. Self-explanatory - no citizen no gun.

- No basement nuclear weapons. They're an attractive nuisance and play hell with property values.

That's pretty much it. I don't see SCOTUS flinging RKBA that widely open though - I'm optimistic but not deluded.

Yeah, I'm not looking to parse RKBA right now either or argue over the "reasonable restrictions" you listed, because as a practical matter there's no point to it.

I would consider a "deal breaker" to be the continuation of the NFA and Reagan restrictions and outright bans on full auto weapons.

This needs to be lifted, an American citizen, free from the disqualifications you mentioned, has the right to arm and train with every weapon available to the standard US military infantryman.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Qualifying expert in the army is not easy. I think they let you miss 2 out of 20 shots, on targets that popup from 50 - 300 meters. Hitting those 300 meter targets with iron sights from an unsupported position is no joke. I could barely see the damn thing, much less hit it.

you get beaten if you miss any shots in North Korea ;)

[NotACrook]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

commie

[asgardshill]

Yeah, I'm not looking to parse RKBA right now either or argue over the "reasonable restrictions" you listed, because as a practical matter there's no point to it.

I would consider a "deal breaker" to be the continuation of the NFA and Reagan restrictions and outright bans on full auto weapons.

This needs to be lifted, an American citizen, free from the disqualifications you mentioned, has the right to arm and train with every weapon available to the standard US military infantryman.

Applause. We DO agree.

[jkm1864]

Doesn't matter soon We will be in WW3 and then civil war will erupt in this country. You know people will really wake up to the lies when they are STARVING due to the economy taking a dump. Our fearless leaders have been pushing to hard lately I can't wait till I see the stupid sheeple push back really hard. I also can't wait till the Lord comes back and I am praying for it on a daily basis.

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

Nice first post.

BTW Could you define what an assault weapon is? Black and evil looking? Those that are carried by evildoers? Imported? What the bad guys carry in movies?

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

And the butter knife in your kitchen. Someone could get assaulted with it......

[asgardshill]

Nice first post.

BTW Could you define what an assault weapon is? Black and evil looking? Those that are carried by evildoers? Imported? What the bad guys carry in movies?

I'm all for banning any weapon that jumps up off the table all by itself and assaults me.

Mean people suck, but mean inanimate objects suck worse.

[NotACrook]

Nice first post.

BTW Could you define what an assault weapon is? Black and evil looking? Those that are carried by evildoers? Imported? What the bad guys carry in movies?

Thanks.

I think it's defined rather well in the bill.

EDIT: Although the "evildoer" part sounds good too.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Thanks.

I think it's defined rather well in the bill.

EDIT: Although the "evildoer" part sounds good too.

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." - Aristotle

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.

[pcosmar]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

I would be interested in your definition also.
If you could explain why they should be Got rid of, and how it would be accomplished.

In the mean time you could join in this study.
http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

[NotACrook]

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." - Aristotle

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - George Washington

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Also, your Brady quote is falsely attributed, I only tell you because you might look foolish using it before someone who cares.

[SWATH]

"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson


Alright tell us what YOU know Nixon.

[NotACrook]

Alright tell us what YOU know Nixon.

I thought I already did that.

Although, if I were being more careful, I would have said "assault rifles" as defined by the bill instead of the more open "assault weapons" because, really, what weapon isn't an assault weapon?

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

I thought I already did that.

Although, if I were being more careful, I would have said "assault rifles" as defined by the bill instead of the more open "assault weapons" because, really, what weapon isn't an assault weapon?

Assault is an unmitigated attack on someone.

Weapons dont do that. People do. Is a Colt AR-15 bad if citizen has it, but somehow good if a police officer has it?

What exactly is the difference? Most police arent that great of shots. There are more citizens. And police have this bad habit of doing nothing when things get really weird.

And plus Australia outlawed guns. Gathered up 650,000 guns at a cost of $500 million. And crime increased.... a lot. Especially assault with a weapon and crimes agasint the elderly.

[pcosmar]

I thought I already did that.

Although, if I were being more careful, I would have said "assault rifles" as defined by the bill instead of the more open "assault weapons" because, really, what weapon isn't an assault weapon?

No you did not.
I asked because there IS an actual definition of "Assault Weapon" and NONE of the guns on that list meets the true definition.
The term assault weapon has been taken and misused by those that wish to ban ALL weapons.
I will take from your refusal to answer that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just repeating an irrational emotional argument.

[NotACrook]

Assault is an unmitigated attack on someone.

Weapons dont do that. People do. Is a Colt AR-15 bad if citizen has it, but somehow good if a police officer has it?

What exactly is the difference? Most police arent that great of shots. There are more citizens. And police have this bad habit of doing nothing when things get really weird.

And plus Australia outlawed guns. Gathered up 650,000 guns at a cost of $500 million. And crime increased.... a lot. Especially assault with a weapon and crimes agasint the elderly.

I think you're taking it from the wrong perspective. People can assault each other with teddy bears if they want to bad enough. The question is not whether people can assault without guns, but rather if firearms have any other purpose besides assault.

I didn't say police officers should be running around with AR-15's either, you're putting words in my mouth.

[newyearsrevolution08]

People need to STOP telling their "politicians" and start telling their friends, family, neighbors and EVERYONE who can THEN all contact politicians.

Why do the work of 1 when you can have 1k+ doing it from your one effort.

[Anti Federalist]

I think you're taking it from the wrong perspective. People can assault each other with teddy bears if they want to bad enough. The question is not whether people can assault without guns, but rather if firearms have any other purpose besides assault.
I didn't say police officers should be running around with AR-15's either, you're putting words in my mouth.

Yes, as a "force multiplier".

I'm 6'4" and 300 lbs.

If I wished to do physical harm against a, say, 120 lb. woman with a club, there's not much doubt about that outcome.

Armed with a firearm, then that changes that equation substantially.

[pcosmar]

The question is not whether people can assault without guns, but rather if firearms have any other purpose besides assault.



Ahh. But they do.
The term assault weapon is chosen to give a false negative impression. That is why gun ban enthusiasts use it.
Fire arms are for defense, whether personal defense, home defense, or national defense.
To assault someone is illegal regardless of the tool used.
You see they are really trying to ban defense weapons by using a negative term.

[NotACrook]

No you did not.
I asked because there IS an actual definition of "Assault Weapon" and NONE of the guns on that list meets the true definition.
The term assault weapon has been taken and misused by those that wish to ban ALL weapons.
I will take from your refusal to answer that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just repeating an irrational emotional argument.

I haven't refused to answer anything and I don't want to ban all weapons. That would be silly, defining what is actually a weapon would start getting fuzzy around the edges and most weapons aren't used anymore anyways.

Personally, I fall pretty much in line with the guidelines laid out in the bill.

One thing I haven't really understood about this forum in the time I've been reading it, what prompted me to register to state my opinion, is that for all the talk about personal liberty and true freedom, about people are squelching your right to speak out or whatever, but if anyone has a view that deviates even slightly from the platform, they are painted as extremist in some way or another. This post I'm replying to is a case in point. I've said nothing emotional, I've made no refusals and I don't want to ban all weapons. Those are all assumptions you placed on me, rather unfairly.

[pcosmar]

Yes, as a "force multiplier".

I'm 6'4" and 300 lbs.

If I wished to do physical harm against a, say, 120 lb. woman with a club, there's not much doubt about that outcome.

Armed with a firearm, then that changes that equation substantially.

Cool. You want to be my friend. :)
I'm 5'8" and 140 lbs. and infringed.:(

[fr33domfightr]

If you read the proposal, retired Police are exempt. Why????

And since it includes all firearms with 5 or more rounds in a clip, that would pretty much ban all firearms. That's Ridiculous!!

I like guns for what they can do, protect me and my family! They can be used for other purposes like, hunting, plinking, or killing.

You can't have one without the other, sorry.

I would encourage all of you reading this to buy yourself a firearm. Learn how to take care of it and shoot it. Take a class if you want, they are available at local ranges. I've gone to both indoor and outdoor ranges.

FF

[NotACrook]

If you read the proposal, retired Police are exempt. Why????

And since it includes all firearms with 5 or more rounds in a clip, that would pretty much ban all firearms. That's Ridiculous!!

I like guns for what they can do, protect me and my family! They can be used for other purposes like, hunting, plinking, or killing.

You can't have one without the other, sorry.

I would encourage all of you reading this to buy yourself a firearm. Learn how to take care of it and shoot it. Take a class if you want, they are available at local ranges. I've gone to both indoor and outdoor ranges.

FF

Because the government can certify that retired police have been trained on safe gun handling, would be my thought.

[pcosmar]

I haven't refused to answer anything and I don't want to ban all weapons. That would be silly, defining what is actually a weapon would start getting fuzzy around the edges and most weapons aren't used anymore anyways.

Personally, I fall pretty much in line with the guidelines laid out in the bill.

One thing I haven't really understood about this forum in the time I've been reading it, what prompted me to register to state my opinion, is that for all the talk about personal liberty and true freedom, about people are squelching your right to speak out or whatever, but if anyone has a view that deviates even slightly from the platform, they are painted as extremist in some way or another. This post I'm replying to is a case in point. I've said nothing emotional, I've made no refusals and I don't want to ban all weapons. Those are all assumptions you placed on me, rather unfairly.

No one is Squelching your right to speak or your opinion. We( or at least I) disagree and am willing to debate the issue.

Although, if I were being more careful, I would have said "assault rifles" as defined by the bill instead of the more open "assault weapons" because, really, what weapon isn't an assault weapon?
This is where it is an emotional argument. That some how the tool is an evil or bad thing.

Logic would say that it is a mindless chunk of metal wood and plastic and no more Bad/evil than a desk a hammer.
The fact that it is a very effective defensive weapon is the reason that some who wish for more control over the population are opposed to them. However they can not tell those they wish to enslave that, so they use the emotional argument that it is for safety or guns are bad/evil.

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was that the People should be better armed than the Government. Those who want more power want to change that.

[Cowlesy]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

Thanks for the alternative view and welcome to the board.

Alternative views fuel debate, and serve the purpose of keeping this thread bumped up, so thanks for that!

[LibertyEagle]

It's about time we started getting rid of the assault weapons.

Why? Do you not believe in being able to protect yourself? Would you also tell me what you think the 2nd Amendment means and why it was included in the Bill of Rights.

Thanks.

[fr33domfightr]

Because the government can certify that retired police have been trained on safe gun handling, would be my thought.


The retired police will be allowed to keep Assault Weapons, others folks won't. Isn't that a little discriminatory??? I think it is. It would be best to not have any bans at all.


FF

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I want to walk around with an RPG

[pcosmar]

Because the government can certify that retired police have been trained on safe gun handling, would be my thought.

What right do they(the government) have for certifying anything.
I can attest as can others that this is not necessarily so. In fact there are numerous examples of unsafe gun handling and poor shooting skills by police in many news stories and web forums.
Of the few LE that I have shot with, well, I'm not impressed.

[NotACrook]

No one is Squelching your right to speak or your opinion. We( or at least I) disagree and am willing to debate the issue.

This is where it is an emotional argument. That some how the tool is an evil or bad thing.

Logic would say that it is a mindless chunk of metal wood and plastic and no more Bad/evil than a desk a hammer.
The fact that it is a very effective defensive weapon is the reason that some who wish for more control over the population are opposed to them. However they can not tell those they wish to enslave that, so they use the emotional argument that it is for safety or guns are bad/evil.

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was that the People should be better armed than the Government. Those who want more power want to change that.

No, I don't think they are evil. Guns are tools, they aren't capable of being good or evil. It is absolutely true that the "good" or "bad" lies in their use. That's true. My point is just that guns, specifically weapons that are typically classified as assault rifles (by laws or the military) and handguns are designed for killing people. That's their purpose. Offensively or defensively, and I think having them in society is counter-productive to an evolving civilization.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Guns are good at cutting down trees.

[NotACrook]

Thanks for the alternative view and welcome to the board.

Alternative views fuel debate, and serve the purpose of keeping this thread bumped up, so thanks for that!

Thanks for the welcome. I am always happy to do what I can to raise the level of debate.

[Cowlesy]

Thanks for the welcome. I am always happy to do what I can to raise the level of debate.

My happiness comes from the fact that more viewers of RPFs will see this thread because of your posts, and will hopefully encourage more users to write their congresspeople as requested in the first posts on this board, and to spread this bill to friends/family. You're indirectly helping us spread the message, which is a good thing!

[pcosmar]

Offensively or defensively, and I think having them in society is counter-productive to an evolving civilization.

History shows the folly of this statement.
The banning of weapons is counter-productive. In every case it leads to tyranny.
Every government that has banned weapons from the hands of citizens has gone on to slaughter them.

This is a Historical fact.

[pcosmar]

Thanks for the welcome. I am always happy to do what I can to raise the level of debate.

Making an anti-gun statement on a Pro Liberty Forum and in a pro gun thread is like throwing meat to a shark feeding frenzy. :D

[Anti Federalist]

NotACrook wrote:


My point is just that guns, specifically weapons that are typically classified as assault rifles (by laws or the military) and handguns are designed for killing people. That's their purpose. Offensively or defensively, and I think having them in society is counter-productive to an evolving civilization.

So don't own any.

That has no effect on mine. Until, of course, you send your proxies with guns and badges to take mine away. Now, we have a big problem.

I'll lay down my arms, when government lays down theirs.

And they have to drop theirs first.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We don't just need gun rights. We need nuke rights. We need tank rights. We need everything rights.

YEAH!

You see, there is an illusion that we need any military is for "national defense." Trust me, if the people were really free to own all of these things, no one would be able to invade. There would be tanks coming from all over the place. Voluntary militias, planes, modified tanks, you name it, you'll see it. A standing army isn't needed. If there is a gov, the people would donate huge sums so that it can buy military stuff and kick ass.

[Anti Federalist]

Cool. You want to be my friend. :)
I'm 5'8" and 140 lbs. and infringed.:(

Based on all your posts over the last year, I already am.

Gotcher six.:cool:

But I'm down with a bum ankle right now, so both of us are sidelined I suppose.

I hope this whole mess lights off soon before I get to that point not unlike the fellow in the tavern scene in The Patriot:

"Aw hell, with all my ailments, I wouldn't last through the first skirmish".:rolleyes:

[Cowlesy]

We don't just need gun rights. We need nuke rights. We need tank rights. We need everything rights.

YEAH!

You see, there is an illusion that we need any military is for "national defense." Trust me, if the people were really free to own all of these things, no one would be able to invade. There would be tanks coming from all over the place. Voluntary militias, planes, modified tanks, you name it, you'll see it. A standing army isn't needed. If there is a gov, the people would donate huge sums so that it can buy military stuff and kick ass.

Try and stay on topic. This bill is serious and is in committee with the House Judiciary.

Thanks.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Try and stay on topic. This bill is serious and is in committee with the House Judiciary.

Thanks.

ok. bad bill. what more is there to say?

[Anti Federalist]

We don't just need gun rights. We need nuke rights. We need tank rights. We need everything rights.

YEAH!

You see, there is an illusion that we need any military is for "national defense." Trust me, if the people were really free to own all of these things, no one would be able to invade. There would be tanks coming from all over the place. Voluntary militias, planes, modified tanks, you name it, you'll see it. A standing army isn't needed.

Letters of Marque are constitutional.

Bill Gates with an aircraft carrier.:cool:

[SeanEdwards]

If you read the proposal, retired Police are exempt. Why????


Seems to me that the equal protection clause would automatically make such a distinction illegal. That's essentially the equivalent of a law that said only white people could own certain controlled weapons. How can that possibly pass judicial scrutiny?

My 2 cents:

The second amendment should be understood to protect the right of citizens to privately arm themselves with weaponry equivalent to a basic combat infantryman. The people can not act as effective militia if they are restricted to using pitchforks. On the other hand, letting people privately own nukes and tanks is just typical anarchist navel-gazing, a pointless journey to a utopian fantasyland.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I think we need to have a national "go out and shoot" day where we ALL get everyone in our cities amped up and excited to go to the local shooting range.

Let's bring the FUN back in shooting at gun ranges and around town. We need to make guns NORMAL again and not just for criminals and cops.

Let's get the next generation of kids shooting .22 rifles with their mom and dad and THEN will grow up to respect, understand and REALIZE why we should and WILL keep these liberties no matter what they put on paper.

I am starting to realize that I need to look at the government just like our paper dollar, it really isn't worth anything and does nothing but HARM our country and ourselves.

For us to get our guns back we need to get the PEOPLE on our side.... Get local and get people excited to shoot and own guns. Help local gun shops and ranges get more customers that will help generate more income for PRO GUN supporters and possibly activists.

Print out the bill and give a stack to each gun shop and shooting range you know of as well as a list of who they can contact and what they can do to STOP this.

[devil21]

No, I don't think they are evil. Guns are tools, they aren't capable of being good or evil. It is absolutely true that the "good" or "bad" lies in their use. That's true. My point is just that guns, specifically weapons that are typically classified as assault rifles (by laws or the military) and handguns are designed for killing people. That's their purpose. Offensively or defensively, and I think having them in society is counter-productive to an evolving civilization.

The term "assault weapon" is a purposely misleading term to scare people with no firearms knowledge into thinking anything that looks like something they saw in Rambo is an "assault weapon". Mind you, people think "automatic machine gun" when they hear "assault weapon". Here's a little test for you. Tell me which weapons are automatic machine guns, just by looking at them, below. Also, which are "assault weapons" according to this bill?

A.
http://www.dbcl.org/images/ar_15.JPG

B.
http://www.kapowwe.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/sks-spring-airsoft-replica.jpg

C.
http://www.cmmginc.com/cmmg_images/tbl_images/FrontPAge/M16.jpg

D.
http://www.ultimak.com/gallery/30carbAimpoint3.jpg

(those of you in the know, don't spoil it!)

[newyearsrevolution08]

Tell me which weapons are automatic machine guns, just by looking at them, below. Also, which are "assault weapons" according to this bill?


(those of you in the know, don't spoil it!)

How can anyone answer if you tell them not to :p

Just found it funny BUT your post is EXACTLY why we need to educate people as to WHO is going to be losing rights in these bills.

If criminals, cops and the government have weapons, so will I. Why would someone choose to be defenseless? Makes no sense at all and so what if an automatic rifle can't be used for hunting. We shouldn't HAVE to only use this or that, hell if I wanted to shoot dirt all day with a auto rifle then who's right is it to tell me I can't own that gun because it doesn't make sense as a target or hunting weapon.

We need to keep these weapons because everyone who is against us ALREADY HAS THEM and don't have to follow these bullshit laws that we do.



If I was being attacked with a full auto uzi what the hell am I going to do with a 5 round detach?

Hopefully shoot accurate as hell I guess lol. Yes I know, what are the chances of that happening right?

Well if and when that time comes I HOPE I have everything needed to defend myself and family.

There is nothing wrong with a STRONG defense JUST IN CASE because guess what, just in case happens alot to people DAILY..

[pcosmar]

One full auto capable
two semi auto
one toy.

Shhh, I not sayin' which is which. :D

[devil21]

How can anyone answer if you tell them not to :p

Just found it funny BUT your post is EXACTLY why we need to educate people as to WHO is going to be losing rights in these bills.


It was directed at Notacrook but if you can't contain yourself, go for it :D

ETA: I guess pcosmar couldn't contain himself. Btw, don't let them Airsoft guys hear you call it a toy! They attack over that shit.

[newyearsrevolution08]

It was directed at Notacrook but if you can't contain yourself, go for it :D

No its all good. I am happy people might be researching weapons right now and find something they like and BUY IT even if there might be a toy in the mix...

I think a great effort which we all could do to help STOP this from happening is to get everyone to try and get 1 BRAND NEW GUN OWNER a month locally to go out and buy a gun, shoot a gun or SOMETHING.

One thing that confuses me though.

With the NRA, manufacturers and all pro-gun businesses and supporters WHY can't we stop these bills from going through? The pro-gun section of America is pretty damn wealthy BUT it still can't do anything or doesn't want to... Still never got that part of the deal.

Every new ban is one less product manufacturers can't sell so why wouldn't they really PUSH for pro gun activities nationwide?


Either way, I need to get more weapons and ammo NOW especially mags. I used to hate having to buy 10 round mags here in California and now I actually was thinking, I need to go pick up more 10 round mags before they get banned. Here I am falling for the same bullshit as everyone else. We don't HAVE to accept these rules if we don't want to.

In a dream I had the other day which is a great dream I have many many nights I had some nice 50 round drum mags that will NEVER be taken from me.

Keep up the fight everyone.

[pcosmar]

Ok, here is another question.
Which gun is more powerful.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/images/Products/366L.jpg

http://www.snipercountrypx.com/images/PRODUCT/large/27075.jpg

[newyearsrevolution08]

whichever is in your hand.


Ok, here is another question.
Which gun is more powerful.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/images/Products/366L.jpg

http://www.snipercountrypx.com/images/PRODUCT/large/27075.jpg

[Cowlesy]

I sent a note to my Congressman:



Take Action Now -- If you are represented in your district by a House Judiciary Committee member, take 5 minutes, alter my note above to fit your views (or write a better one all together) and let's make it clear that this bill is unacceptable.

John Conyers (D) - Michigan
Lamar Smith (R) - Texas
Tammy Baldwin (D) - Wisconsin
Howard Berman (D) - California
Fred Boucher (D) - Virginia
Chris Cannon (R) - Utah
Steve Chabot (R) - Ohio
Howard Coble (R) - N.C.
Steve Cohen (D) - Tennessee
Artur Davis (D) - Alabama
William Delahunt (D) - Massachusetts
Keith Ellison (D) - Minnesota
Tom Feeney (R) - Florida
James Forbes (R) - Virginia
Trent Franks (R) - Arizona
Elton Gallegly (R) - California
Louis Gohmert (R) - Texas
Robert Goodlatte (R) - VA
Darrell Issa (R) - California
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) - Texas
Henry Johnson (D) - GA
Jim Jordan (R) - Ohio
Ric Keller (R) - Florida
Steve King (R) - Iowa
Zoe Lofgren (D) - California
Dan Lungren (R) - California
Jerry Nadler (D) - New York
Mike Pence (R) - Indiana
Linda Sanchez (D) - California
Adam Schiff (D) - California
Robert Scott (D) - Virginia
James Sensenbrenner (R) - Wisconsin
Brad Sherman (D) - California
Betty Sutton (D) - Ohio
Debby Wasserman (D) - Florida
Maxine Water (D) - Florida
Melvin Watt (D) - NC
Anthony Weiner (D) - NY

Nevermind --- first I thought this was from my Congressman --- I am retarded, it was from the GOA lol

Anyhow, good to see they'll keep an eye on it.


Thank you for the note.

We are aware of this bill. It is essentially the reauthorization of the Semiautomatic weapons ban. It was recently introduced and if and when this bill begins to move through the legislative process, you will hear from us. Remember just because a bill is introduced does not mean it will make it to the floor for a vote.

Even though we were aware of this bill, we thank you for keeping a close eye on things in Congress. We need all the eyes and ears out there we can get because on occasion we might miss something.

Of course we are against HR6257
Robert E. Duggar
Public Liaison


Let's try and keep this thread on topic about HR 6257.

Thanks.

[Anti Federalist]

Nevermind --- first I thought this was from my Congressman --- I am retarded, it was from the GOA lol

Anyhow, good to see they'll keep an eye on it.

Let's try and keep this thread on topic about HR 6257.

Thanks.

It's a Three Card Monte' draw.

They can't even get democrats behind this.

Even though the bill will go nowhere, you can bet the McPain camp will use it as political cannon fodder this fall.

Of course by that time no one will recall it was introduced by Republicans.

[Cowlesy]

It's a Three Card Monte' draw.

They can't even get democrats behind this.

Even though the bill will go nowhere, you can bet the McPain camp will use it as political cannon fodder this fall.

Of course by that time no one will recall it was introduced by Republicans.

I will be happy when I know the bill is DEAD.

[Anti Federalist]

I will be happy when I know the bill is DEAD.

Can't argue with that.

So will I.:mad:

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It is essentially the reauthorization of the Semiautomatic weapons ban.

I thought it was actually much, much worse because there are no transfers allowed if this bill passes. So, no new owners. Am I wrong about that?

[JRegs85]

I'm staying positive......if Scalia writes a good opinion in the Heller case, there could be the right language in the ruling to strike down any "assault weapons ban."

[newyearsrevolution08]

Can't argue with that.

So will I.:mad:

+1

[angelatc]

I haven't refused to answer anything and I don't want to ban all weapons. That would be silly, defining what is actually a weapon would start getting fuzzy around the edges and most weapons aren't used anymore anyways.

Personally, I fall pretty much in line with the guidelines laid out in the bill.
.

Then you need to commit to amending the Constitution, because as it is written you can't pick and choose the weaons people are allowed to own. I remain fairly convinced that the founders chose the word "infringed" very intentionally.

Not that it seems to matter to anybody but Ron Paul.

[Cowlesy]

I remain fairly convinced that the founders chose the word "infringed" very intentionally.

Those founding fathers were looking out for us on that one.

[Patriot123]

"Vote Republican to protect Americans second amendment rights from the Democrats." Bullshit. The Democrats are doing a better job at protecting our second amendments than the Republicans.

I have one question. If this gets passed, how the hell do they expect to disarm everyone? These neo-Conservatives are going wind up starting their own worst nightmare: a revolution of pissed off Americans.

[No, I'm not endorsing a violent revolution in case the NSA is watching ;) ]

[Cowlesy]

"Vote Republican to protect Americans second amendment rights from the Democrats." Bullshit. The Democrats are doing a better job at protecting our second amendments than the Republicans.

I have one question. If this gets passed, how the hell do they expect to disarm everyone? These neo-Conservatives are going wind up starting their own worst nightmare: a revolution of pissed off Americans.

[No, I'm not endorsing a violent revolution in case the NSA is watching ;) ]

Anything you own would be grandfathered in. No disarming anyone.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Anything you own would be grandfathered in. No disarming anyone.

Grandfathered. lol. That's funny. Does that mean heavily regulated?

[Doktor_Jeep]

Looks like they saw how many Ron Paul supporters have guns, so not even the R party wants to ban them.

All well and good. Let's get the war started.

I won't be fighting to "keep my guns" I will be using them.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Looks like they saw how many Ron Paul supporters have guns, so not even the R party wants to ban them.

All well and good. Let's get the war started.

I won't be fighting to "keep my guns" I will be using them.

hmmm ok. Let me know when, I will haul my ass up to Canada!! :D

[LibertyEagle]

Grandfathered. lol. That's funny. Does that mean heavily regulated?

Uh, no.

"To exempt (one involved in an activity or business) from new regulations: Example: The new ordinance restricts the size of billboards, but it grandfathers those erected before 1997."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Grandfathered

[ingrid]

The goal is to disarm us. They are achieving their goal.

Agreed. Only thing I'm surprised with is that it's happening this soon.

The Supreme Court is suppose to make a decision on Heller today. With this bill coming around so soon, it doesn't look so good. I really hope I'm wrong though. One of my friends emailed me this link (it's from January) a few days ago, since he is convinced that the Supreme Court will rule against us on Heller. It's the ADL's statement on that case.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5207_33.htm

This case is about allowing states to protect their citizens' lives, liberty and property by regulating the purchase and possession of firearms. Gun violence and the caching of dangerous weapons are commonplace among extremists. If states lose the right to regulate firearm ownership, it would help violent bigots in their efforts to create an America based on hate and intolerance. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that states have the tools to counter these agents of hate. We are also deeply concerned about the possession and use of firearms by children. The Court must permit states to keep guns out of the hands of those who would bring violence to our schools. The regulation of firearms is a rational response to these twin evils and is consistent with the Second Amendment's call for a well-regulated militia.

For the obvious reasons, I think anyone who supports gun control is either an idiot or a criminal for wanting to make everyone vulnerable. Obviously in our government's case, it's the later.

[jkm1864]

That guy looks like a total flaming fagot. I am sure He proposed the bill because He got himself caught in the DC sex scandal. He probably got photographed giving Nancy Pelosi a blow job inside the mens bathroom. Good old King George has the pictures on his desk and has decided to put them to use..... God save the KING !!!!!!!!!!!