Assault Weapons Ban reintroduction!!

[Bret4207]

It was only a matter of time before they tried it again!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

[danski26]

It will get on the Presidents desk right after Obama/hillary get into office. What a bunch of garbage!

[thxmrgarand]

Yes, the anti's are still out there. However, democracy isn't majority rule as much as it is rule by the majority who show up. Showing up requires more than merely voting. It requires going door-to-door for local and statewide candidates, attending and hosting fundraisers and other events, making sure that family members belong to the NRA and vote, ensuring that candidates know that gun rights are a litmus test for our support, and making sure that candidates have every opportunity to understand the gun issue (including the media invention of so-called assault rifles). For the longer term, shooters who donate their time and money to youth shooting may be doing the most to preserve all of our freedoms (not only the Second Amendment). In working to help pro-gun candidates, it's become my belief that because so much money is around, donating time to make calls, transport voters, write letters to newspapers, etc. is a more important campaign contribution today than is writing a check. Election years take time away from shooting and hunting but that is how the cards have been dealt. In regards to our situation today, we need the White House to remain R so that judges who believe in the Constitution are appointed. Congressional leadership may remain anti-gun after November but many D's recently elected are pro-gun, and everyone of us needs to contact candidates for Congress today to tell them about the gun issue (even if they already know). Two practices my wife and I currently have under way are registering voters at different churches on Sundays and paying NRA dues for new members we sign up from among people returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And if that is all that democracy costs us then we are getting off very inexpensively! Thanks for your time.

[crabo]

http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2008/05/british-called-they-want-their-guns.html

The British are protesting because they have been disarmed and they want their guns back.

[August]

Maybe I should be smarter, but how do I find out who the authors and sponsors of this bill are????

Thanks.

p.s. Supreme court will be telling everyone what restrictions to the second amendment are possible in a few days. So, this bill is a waste of time and money -- in addition to being treason.

[Bret4207]

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


Those are the guys that introduced it. Who else signed on I don't know yet

[bruce drake]

I just sent e-mails to Congressman McHugh (my local Congressman) and to the Judiciary Committee itself letting them know that I am against this Resolution ever seeing the House Floor for any type of vote.

Let's hope we can get more people to send notes to their Representatives.

Bruce

[mike in co]

Yes, the anti's are still out there. However, democracy isn't majority rule as much as it is rule by the majority who show up. .

you have been brain washed by the liberal press........
you do not live in a democracy, you live in a republic.
simple democracy is majority rule, you do not participate in a democratic voting process for the presidential election. you vote and hope the person that in the end represents your vote, does what was asked . you do not vote for the president.

using thier terms is just the first step ......


mike in co

[Blammer]

man that bill makes EVERY gun banned. ALL guns.

Time to make a call, where are my reps numbers...

[Maximilian225]

It was only a matter of time before they tried it again!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257::(



Long letter fired off to my Cong. Rep.:Fire::Fire::Fire:

[wolfspotter]

man that bill makes EVERY gun banned. ALL guns.

Time to make a call, where are my reps numbers...

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
The way I read, it doesn't apply the long list of rifles, just so called assault type.
We still have the ban in New York and it sucks. Have to use pre ban mags, no flash hiders, bayonet lug, folding or adjustable stock. The only preban I have is an Inland carbine but the rest are NY compliant.

[OldBob]

Sent an email to my Congressman, does anyone else find it really hard to be polite and respectful when writing to Congresscritters about crap like this........... its gonna take time for my tongue to heal .. had to bite it real hard. How dare these jackasses waste time with garbage like this when we have a fuel crisis, an economy crisis and 100's of other things far more important for them to be doing?

[Old Ironsights]

Doesn't matter if it goes to the President before or after the election. It's going to pass.

ALL THREE cosponsors "so far" are REPUBLICANS...and we have had a Republican president for almost 8 years now that has said he would SIGN an AWB extension if it got to his desk. Hmmmmm...........just a thought, isn't McChurian a Republican too?

And we KNOW what the Obamanation from Chicago and his Urban Elite Demosnobs will do.

Once again, this illustrates that we simply fail to see the problem at its roots.

It is NOT about Republican or Democrat. Ron Paul was/is good, not due to is "Republican" status, but due to his "individualist" philosophy.

It is about Collectivism -vs- Individualism.

Collectivists infest all the spectrum's of our single party, the Globalist-Collectivist party.

Simply put, our Republic was formed based on our foundational philosophy, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Our Republic through its mandated governance, was formed to secure and protect Individualism, e.g. the rights of the individual.

Collectivism "uses" the "power and force" of government and of the law, to force perceived "equality" and to force special privilege or wealth redistribution for "groups" or "classes".

Individualism ensures that all individuals are equal "under" the law. There is no special class, or special privilege for any group or segment of society.

Collectivists believe in government and the expansion of its power over individuals, never do they believe in or advocate for its limitations, or on the sanctity of individual liberties.

Individual liberty is a danger and an obstacle to the aims of collectivism.

Any person wanting to serve in government should be examined using this measure and the measure of his/her adherence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Party matters not one bit. Collectivists infest all spectrum's of society.

But people won't vote for an Individualist/Constitutionalist because people won't vote for an Individualist/Constitutionalist. :roll:

[Freightman]

Sent an email to my Congressman, does anyone else find it really hard to be polite and respectful when writing to Congresscritters about crap like this........... its gonna take time for my tongue to heal .. had to bite it real hard. How dare these jackasses waste time with garbage like this when we have a fuel crisis, an economy crisis and 100's of other things far more important for them to be doing?
It aint about guns it is about control!!!!!!!!!!! without guns the other bill of rights is un-enforceable PERIOD> It is about Kings and Kingdoms!!!!Read the Anti_Federalist papers, what they were afraid of is now happening!!!

[Boerrancher]

I just fired off a Letter to my Congressman. He is wanting to run for Governor of Missouri, so I mentioned that I didn't want that bill to make it out of committee, or I would vote for the Libertarian Candidate for Governor.

Best wishes from the Boer Ranch,

Joe

[Morgan Astorbilt]

I fear, that after their unconstitutional vote giving the the terrorist prisoners in Gitmo, accused of war crimes, access to our civilian criminal justice system, the Supreme Court is also going to sell us out on the 2nd. Amendment. These are terrible times for America.:(
Morgan

[Maximilian225]

Got this back from the NRA earlier.


Dear Mr. Mace,

Thank you for your email. I've talked with our Executive Office, and they've relayed to me that this bill, although an anathema to the pro-gun community, is not as much of a threat as the other AWB bill, HR 1022. However, I can assure you we will be as ever vigilant in crushing this bill along with the all the other anti-liberty legislation.

We'll keep everyone posted on the www.nraila.org website. Thank you for the email.

Cordially,
Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots


:confused:

I have replied and asked for an elaboration on the grounds for the perception of "lower threat level"

:coffee:

[runfiverun]

the n.r.a. is playing the game up/over/out there also..

[dakotashooter2]

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

Note that this would make this ban retroactive to 1994. Meaning any NEW hi cap mags produced since the "94" ban sunseted would be illegal. Same with the semi auto's. No granfathering of either.

[Maximilian225]

Note that this would make this ban retroactive to 1994. Meaning any NEW hi cap mags produced since the "94" ban sunseted would be illegal. Same with the semi auto's. No grandfathering of either.

These two sections grandfather everything in prior to the passage. The proposed bill has internal conflicts between these sections and the one you quoted.




(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.



(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.


But it will preclude manufacturers from selling off their stock on hand.

I know what I'm spending my money on between now and January.




It's all a shell game anyway.

[AZ-Stew]

FILTHY COMMIE SCUM!

Now is EXACTLY the time to introduce this bill. Everyone's distracted by the gasoline prices. You really think this will get any press?

P.S. "Congresscritters" What an apt description.

Disgustedly,

Stew

[bobk]

Here is another case where the media deceives you, only in this case I am talking about the NRA. They keep talking about the "Clinton Gun Ban", when in fact the Clinton Ban was merely the legal codification of the ban, via executive order, that came from the desk of George H. W. Bush, in the spring of 1989. On January 17, 1989, one Patrick Purdy flipped out and wounded and killed a bunch of kids in a Stockton, California schoolyard. Then he fatally shot himself. For many years, I thought that probably Bush was pressured into his gun-ban-by-executive-order by the Democrats, who wanted some response to this tragedy. Never mind that for Purdy to obtain the AK, he had to break a federal law.
I strongly suspect that I was wrong in assuming that. It turns out that Purdy had emotional problems, and was being medicated with Prozac. As I recall, he did mention to his Dr., prior to the incident, that he thought the Prozac was making him squirrelier. There is a well-documented effect that in some cases, Prozac does not calm the patient, but makes their mood swings worse. There have been other violent incidents of this nature; I think I read that Weisbaker (sp?) was being medicated with Prozac. But, to the point: Democratic pressure for a ban might be a reasonable assumption in this case, but another fact that I did not know until years afterward was that GHW Bush was on the Board of Directors for the pharmacutical company that produces Prozac! So, it may be that this whole thing was a bit of misdirection on Bush's part, to protect the company of which he was a board member.
The more I learn, the less likely I am to attribute a politician's actions to good intent.
At the end, the point I am making is that I think it would have been very unlikely that the ban would have passed in 1994, had it not been a bill which more or less duplicated an existing Presidential executive order.

Bob K

[mike in co]

Here is another case where the media deceives you, only in this case I am talking about the NRA. They keep talking about the "Clinton Gun Ban", when in fact the Clinton Ban was merely the legal codification of the ban, via executive order, that came from the desk of George H. W. Bush, in the spring of 1989. On January 17, 1989, one Patrick Purdy flipped out and wounded and killed a bunch of kids in a Stockton, California schoolyard. Then he fatally shot himself. For many years, I thought that probably Bush was pressured into his gun-ban-by-executive-order by the Democrats, who wanted some response to this tragedy. Never mind that for Purdy to obtain the AK, he had to break a federal law.
I strongly suspect that I was wrong in assuming that. It turns out that Purdy had emotional problems, and was being medicated with Prozac. As I recall, he did mention to his Dr., prior to the incident, that he thought the Prozac was making him squirrelier. There is a well-documented effect that in some cases, Prozac does not calm the patient, but makes their mood swings worse. There have been other violent incidents of this nature; I think I read that Weisbaker (sp?) was being medicated with Prozac. But, to the point: Democratic pressure for a ban might be a reasonable assumption in this case, but another fact that I did not know until years afterward was that GHW Bush was on the Board of Directors for the pharmacutical company that produces Prozac! So, it may be that this whole thing was a bit of misdirection on Bush's part, to protect the company of which he was a board member.
The more I learn, the less likely I am to attribute a politician's actions to good intent.
At the end, the point I am making is that I think it would have been very unlikely that the ban would have passed in 1994, had it not been a bill which more or less duplicated an existing Presidential executive order.

Bob K

maybe you could provide us with the excecutive order that bush signed ??

the kalifonia gun ban was based on the liberal press claiming that a person (a convicted felon, with no gun rights) would not be able to aquire a( full auto) ak if there was a law on the books stopping it . its so childish, but typical.

its about power and control.

[bobk]

Mike,
You can research it as easily as I can, you have internet access, obviously. I did do this research a couple of years ago to show a friend of mine at work. I suspected that this might be why the NRA's support of GHWB was rather tepid in 92. This importation ban really cranked me off at the time. Polytech Industries was about to import an AK variant that would have been a very close copy of the AK-74, in 5.45. I am not enamored of any .22 "battle rifles", but it would have been a very nice addition to a Russian collection. Anmmo was scarce, but I doubt that I would have actually fired the gun. Well, Bush killed that idea when he banned importation of anything like that, and most of H&K's line, Uzis, and what have you. What is interesting is that neither ban restricted domestically-produced semiauto battle rifle clones, although magazines were restricted in capacity.
What I don't know is that although the Clinton law sunsetted, was the executive order ever recinded? I couldn't find anything on that.
Bob K

[Bret4207]

Here is another case where the media deceives you, only in this case I am talking about the NRA. They keep talking about the "Clinton Gun Ban", when in fact the Clinton Ban was merely the legal codification of the ban, via executive order, that came from the desk of George H. W. Bush, in the spring of 1989. On January 17, 1989, one Patrick Purdy flipped out and wounded and killed a bunch of kids in a Stockton, California schoolyard. Then he fatally shot himself. For many years, I thought that probably Bush was pressured into his gun-ban-by-executive-order by the Democrats, who wanted some response to this tragedy. Never mind that for Purdy to obtain the AK, he had to break a federal law.
I strongly suspect that I was wrong in assuming that. It turns out that Purdy had emotional problems, and was being medicated with Prozac. As I recall, he did mention to his Dr., prior to the incident, that he thought the Prozac was making him squirrelier. There is a well-documented effect that in some cases, Prozac does not calm the patient, but makes their mood swings worse. There have been other violent incidents of this nature; I think I read that Weisbaker (sp?) was being medicated with Prozac. But, to the point: Democratic pressure for a ban might be a reasonable assumption in this case, but another fact that I did not know until years afterward was that GHW Bush was on the Board of Directors for the pharmacutical company that produces Prozac! So, it may be that this whole thing was a bit of misdirection on Bush's part, to protect the company of which he was a board member.
The more I learn, the less likely I am to attribute a politician's actions to good intent.
At the end, the point I am making is that I think it would have been very unlikely that the ban would have passed in 1994, had it not been a bill which more or less duplicated an existing Presidential executive order.

Bob K


I won't argue intentions, but I do question this habit we've formed of blaming meds for everything that happens. It makes as much sense as blaming the gun for a crime. I've used some meds that were supposed to be horribly dangerous. No problems at all. They worked just as they were supposed to and I never went crazy, got cancer, degenerative bone disease, a third eye or even bad breath. When I did find a problem I told my doc and he changed to a different med. Most of my problems were sleeping or nausea. I didn't expect to sue my doc or the drug company.

My point is I find it strange that we all seem so ready to jump on the drug co.s and our docs when we have a reaction to a drug, but yet we, gun owners, can see not blaming the tool when it comes to guns. Seems we need to look at the bigger picture, don't we?

Back on topic. I've spread the word to several other boards. I hope the rest of you will too. Those of you that wish to could stop by www.stopguncontrol.com and link that site to your post. I'm in way over my head on other stuff and SGC could use your help. The basic plan is listed in the General posts and if anyone is interested and has the time to work on organizing all the gun related websites into anti-gun control campaigns, please, PLEEEZZEEE let me know.

[bobk]

bret4207,
The thing is, if you and I use the same gun, pretty much the same thing will happen. With drugs, though, the side effects are highly individualistic. Example: I was on Atenolol, a beta blocker, to control blood pressure. The doctor runs some blood work, and lo and behold, I appear to be diabetic! Never any evidence of it, before. Hmmm. I did some research, and found that BBs raise your triglycerides, and lower your HDL cholesterol. I found this on the Mayo Clinic website. More hmmm. At my request, my current doctor switched me from the BB to Enalipril, and ACE inhibitor. Now, no matter what I do, I can't pop my blood sugar up to where it was.
Now, I'll bet millions of people have been on BBs, and that MOST of them had no complications such as I experienced. But I'll bet SOME of them did, and are being treated for diabetes that is not an inherent condition, but an adverse drug reaction. Notice all the advertising? It's the latest and greatest disease, and no doctor whom I have met will ever consider that the drugs he/she prescribed are messing you up. Instead, they'll prescribe yet another drug to treat the symptoms that one of the other drugs is causing. Eventually, you're on so many different medications that only God could predict the synergistic reactions.
I have even less faith in the drug companies than I do in our congresscritters.
Bob K

[Bret4207]

I understand that Bob, but shouldn't we be putting the blame on our doctors rather than the tool they're using? I'm sure if folks think about it a bit they'd see what I'm saying. We have wonderful modern medicines capable of saving lives and improving the quality of our lives that weren't available a few years ago. I'm thankful for that, even simple stuff like OTC sinus remedies make an enormous difference in the quality of our lives. But we have a responsibility to learn to the best of our ability how to wisely use those drugs. I learned this from my hypochondriac mother in law, she's a doctors worst nightmare- an old lady who has all sorts of time to think about things. Problem is she's been right on a number of times concerning meds and their usage. The docs eventually learned to listen to her and truth be told she straightened a lot of my father in laws problems with meds out.

I know our docs are well trained, overworked, probably just as burnt out as anyone else. But they have a responsibility to their patients and the patient has to let the doc know whats up. If there's a problem the doc SHOULD be listening and trying to fix it. Therein lies the problem- if you have a good doc that listens and works at fixing the issue you're in good hands. If you have a burnt out doc that just doesn't care or has his own problems that are screwing with him or that doesn't keep up on his training...well, we all know what happens then.

IMO it's the same as with a mechanic, a gunsmith, a carpenter, etc. We have the tools, all can be misused and it's the responsibility of the the user to make sure he knows exactly what he's doing at all times. Of course it's a bit different dealing with someone's health rather than their lawn mower, but the wielder of the tool and the user have to work together to get the best results.

[bobk]

bret4207,
Oh, I agree with you about doctors. I have yet to meet one who shows much interest in my health. Case in point: most recent doctor wanted to prescribe a calcium channel blocker for my blood pressure, in addition to the ACE (in spite of the fact that my BP was almost 40 points lower than it had been on the BB). I said no, there's some problem. I didn't remember what, but I did look it up again. CCBs may contribute to heart arrhythmias. Did doctor forget that arrhythmias are a congenital defect that I inherited from BOTH parents? Unfortunately, as the Volkswagen fans, say, "You are your own warranty", only in this case, you have to be a very involved patient, if not your own doctor. I said years ago when I was an electronic technician for the Postal Service that if I screwed up as much as doctors did, I'd be out of a job!
However, it appears that you have much more faith in the drug companies than I do, so maybe I should shut up and go back to talking about boolits, eh?
Bob K

[Bret4207]

Well, nothing wrong with a friendly discussion is there? I think you're right about one thing for sure- You are your own warranty! I like that idea.

So, who's email their Congresscritter about the ban so far? I have.

[JIMinPHX]

Plain & simple –
When are we going to start putting politicians in jail for the treasonous act of concocting unconstitutional legislation?

That’s the only way that this assault on the American People is going to stop, if there is some sort of punishment for the assault.

The legislative pen is the most dangerous assault weapon out there. It is the one that needs to be regulated, not the commoner’s rifle.

[Bret4207]

The legislative pen is the most dangerous assault weapon out there. It is the one that needs to be regulated, not the commoner’s rifle.

Well said Jim.:drinks:

[Old Ironsights]

Plain & simple –
When are we going to start putting politicians in jail for the treasonous act of concocting unconstitutional legislation?

That’s the only way that this assault on the American People is going to stop, if there is some sort of punishment for the assault.

The legislative pen is the most dangerous assault weapon out there. It is the one that needs to be regulated, not the commoner’s rifle.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights did that. They are being ignored and no one except individual "armed radicals" care.

At this point I'm simply waiting for complete sociatal collapse. Maybe we can re-boot the Constitution and get another 250 years before the next reboot..:(

[Maximilian225]

Well I got a response to my email to the NRA

Dear Mr. Mace,

If the anti-gunners were going to push for an AWB, they would have done it with HR 1022 over a year ago. That bill is still stuck in the Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. This new bill appears to be a nothing bill--something that a candidate can say he proposed and supported to help him out in his next election, among other possible motives. The vast majority of bills never make it out of committee, much more get signed into law.

Elected officials know this, so one could induce that the motives behind proposing bills like this do not necessarily include a sincere expectation of its getting passed. However, after the election in November, a new AWB will likely be introduced.

I hope this helps.

Cordially,

Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots



:coffee:

[Old Ironsights]

Yeah, right. [smilie=b:

Thank you NRA. :???:

[bobk]

McClellan is right, that is how the system works. They whip up some bill that doesn't have a snowball's chance, let it die in committee, and tell the constituents that they fought the good fight, and we're bound to make it next time, if you vote for me, of course. They don't give a hairy rat's nether region what happens to us, they're just looking for the next political horse to ride into office. That's pretty much what happened with the USA PATRIOT Act. There were all these wacko bills sitting on the shelf, and when 9/11 happened, they all came out. You didn't think they wrote such a comprehensive, complicated bill in six weeks, did you?
Bob K

[Bret4207]

Gentlemen, I don't care if it's a sincere attempt to get the bill through or not. If we respond to each proposal loudly, vigorously and with consistently growing numbers then we WILL become a force to be reckoned with. As an added bonus this doesn't cost anything but a little time, unlike the "professional" organizations, several of which I belong to.

If on the other hand we continue to be complacent and lazy and expect NRA/GOA/etc to decide for us and do the work for us, then we're sure to get the feces covered end of the stick.

[Maximilian225]

Gentlemen, I don't care if it's a sincere attempt to get the bill through or not. If we respond to each proposal loudly, vigorously and with consistently growing numbers then we WILL become a force to be reckoned with. As an added bonus this doesn't cost anything but a little time, unlike the "professional" organizations, several of which I belong to.

If on the other hand we continue to be complacent and lazy and expect NRA/GOA/etc to decide for us and do the work for us, then we're sure to get the feces covered end of the stick.

+1

If we get in front of every proposed bill within days that they are proposed in committee. Send emails, letters, and make phone calls that are well thought, intelligently composed, and stick to the facts, while reminding our Representative that we vote in EVERY election in a respectful tone , it will become a radioactive issue for everyone.

[Bret4207]

Max- You and I and on the same page. Kudos!

[Old Ironsights]

OMG! A Banned "Tacticool" Matchlock!

http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/tactical_matchlock.JPG

Horrors!