Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 11:58:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By TAP:
The last one had grandfathered weapons and magazines.

There are interviews from some of the Anti's in Congress demonstrating how stupid they are- that they expected all the mags to be used up a few years into the ban.

Stupid or not, you can bet they won't make that mistake again if they are given another chance.


They can't ban them outright because they'd then have to give fair market value for every gun and mag turned in. They might be willing to pay for all the mags but not the guns. Though I doubt they would even do that. The next ban would probably be just like the ap ammunition ban, they would just ban the transfer of them.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:19:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By Qweevox:
We've done it to ourselves. Talk to gun enthusiast and you'd think "assault weapons" were more lethal then other guns, even though we all know that's not the case. The last assault weapons ban focused on aesthetics. If it "looked" tactical it was bad. People don't seem to understand the reason they "look" different. What's "assault" about an "assault" weapon?

...maintenance. It's all about creating a durable weapon that can be easily maintained in less then ideal conditions. That's it. Other then that, the only significant difference is magazine capacity.

If a "lone" gunman wants to take out government officials from a distance, which gun is better suited for that purpose? I could think of a half dozen "Fudd Guns" I'd rather use for that purpose over an AR or AK. If a nut job who wants to walk into a shopping mall and mow people down, what gun would produce maximum effect, an AR-15 or Walmart "special" 12 gauge sawed down with a hacksaw just before the event? Let's face it. It comes down to "looks" for a lot of the none- shooting public. They don't understand the "looks" have nothing to do with the lethality.

Gun enthusiasts should focus on educating their none-enthusiast friends about this fact. Our guns look this way because they were designed to be durable and easily maintained in less then ideal environments That's it. Keep it simple, stupid. The sad truth is most of us won't do this. We like that our weapons look "bad ass" and enjoy the illusion that they are more "powerful" or efficient killing tools.


IF the anti's want to kill our passion they'll stop focusing on looks and instead focus on mags. They'll forget about an "assault weapons ban" and focus on the mags. They'd be able to kill us by simply outlawing "removable" mags, they'd kneecap us if they just put stringent limits on mag capacity. Both of these would suck-royal, especially if they didn't have grandfather clauses. Imagine a wory'reld of wheel guns, and breechloaders...




One thing I've been doing lately is asking someone how big they think a bullet that an M16 uses is (They don't know what 5.56 is). They normally use their fingers an say about 4 inches. Then I show them a .223, normally they're pretty surprised. Especially after I show them a .308 and tell them that this is the average hunting round.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:27:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2012 12:29:42 PM EST by VA-gunnut]
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:30:01 PM EST
No idea til it gets passed.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:41:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By TAP:
The last one had grandfathered weapons and magazines.

There are interviews from some of the Anti's in Congress demonstrating how stupid they are- that they expected all the mags to be used up a few years into the ban.

Stupid or not, you can bet they won't make that mistake again if they are given another chance.


Originally Posted By substandard:

The last ban they grandfathered in the guns, but if there is another ?????? These are the people who wanted to ban barrel shrouds, there is no reason to anything they do.


Originally Posted By mcantu:
they will not make the mistake of grandfathering like the 1st time around. also expect that number of allowable 'evil features' will be dropped from 2 to 1


U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, in part: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This is the reason the existing "assault weapons" were grandfathered.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:44:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By TAP:
The last one had grandfathered weapons and magazines.

There are interviews from some of the Anti's in Congress demonstrating how stupid they are- that they expected all the mags to be used up a few years into the ban.

Stupid or not, you can bet they won't make that mistake again if they are given another chance.









My mags are all USED loaded and UP where only I can find them first!

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:44:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By TAP:
Originally Posted By 74novaman:
Next time they'll go full retard. No sunset on the ban, confiscation, the whole bit.


Diane Finestein said it this way in 1995:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."



I agree on full retard, but frankly I expect it to be a ban on the sale/transfer. They can remove all ownership within a generation without taking a single living person's weapon. And that makes it all the more difficult to stop...


Per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress can regulate interstate commerce. They cannot regulate intrastate commerce, which means that transfers among residents of the same state can only be regulated by the State.

Booga! Booga! Booga!
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:47:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lexington:
Originally Posted By TAP:
The last one had grandfathered weapons and magazines.

There are interviews from some of the Anti's in Congress demonstrating how stupid they are- that they expected all the mags to be used up a few years into the ban.

Stupid or not, you can bet they won't make that mistake again if they are given another chance.


Originally Posted By substandard:

The last ban they grandfathered in the guns, but if there is another ?????? These are the people who wanted to ban barrel shrouds, there is no reason to anything they do.


Originally Posted By mcantu:
they will not make the mistake of grandfathering like the 1st time around. also expect that number of allowable 'evil features' will be dropped from 2 to 1


U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, in part: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This is the reason the existing "assault weapons" were grandfathered.

Which is why all these waves of panics might actually be a good thing. If they dramatically raise the productions of guns and particularly the creation of "lowers" then great. Each stripped lower is a grandfathered gun, right? I wonder how many AR's exist in the US.

So while panic waves are annoying, we should actually like panic buyers? They cause the creation of lots of new guns.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 12:53:34 PM EST
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By Lexington:
Originally Posted By TAP:
The last one had grandfathered weapons and magazines.

There are interviews from some of the Anti's in Congress demonstrating how stupid they are- that they expected all the mags to be used up a few years into the ban.

Stupid or not, you can bet they won't make that mistake again if they are given another chance.


Originally Posted By substandard:

The last ban they grandfathered in the guns, but if there is another ?????? These are the people who wanted to ban barrel shrouds, there is no reason to anything they do.


Originally Posted By mcantu:
they will not make the mistake of grandfathering like the 1st time around. also expect that number of allowable 'evil features' will be dropped from 2 to 1


U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, in part: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This is the reason the existing "assault weapons" were grandfathered.

Which is why all these waves of panics might actually be a good thing. If they dramatically raise the productions of guns and particularly the creation of "lowers" then great. Each stripped lower is a grandfathered gun, right? I wonder how many AR's exist in the US.

So while panic waves are annoying, we should actually like panic buyers? They cause the creation of lots of new guns.


As I recall, for the last ban ATF defined that a grandfathered firearm was one that was "built" before the ban, and a virgin lower did not qualify as a "built" fiream. So, a stripped lower that remained stripped a day after the ban could only be made into post-ban configuration.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:05:44 PM EST
What are the implications of an Assault Weapon Ban?

That the Govt is AFRAID of it's own people.

Aloha, Mark
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:10:02 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:13:07 PM EST
Enemies Foreign and Domestic
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:16:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2012 1:19:27 PM EST by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By oo1rtw:
Originally Posted By callgood:
Originally Posted By Ciraxis:
well I'm guessing assault weapons would be banned


OK by me. I don't own an "assault weapon."

semi-auto only.



oddly enough THEY don't care if you think it's an Assault weapon or not


You two are confused. An assault rifle has a selector switch for full auto or burst.

What the antis call an "assault weapon" is a semiauto.

Some dumbass gun gun writers made that term up years ago and the antis ran with it.

An "assault weapon" is not Class 3, an assault rifle is.

Of course, the media and antis just call everything an assault rifle now.

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:26:52 PM EST
That'd I'd become a felon.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:35:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lexington:

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, in part: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This is the reason the existing "assault weapons" were grandfathered.

I hate to disagree. they were grandfathered because it was more palatable to those who already own, and didn't raise any fiscal implication of having to compensate owners for the surrender of their property. "I've got mine, fuck everyone else" is a strategy that works.

ex-post-facto would be passing a law that makes something illegal "now", but that punishes you for having done it in the past when it was legal. That's how the domestic violence offenders act has been held up.Any gun ban will work the same way.

However, the next AWB will probably look for no sunset clause, and is (IMHO) more likely to have a permanent magazine capacity limit as we see in Canada, than other restrictions. Yes, there will be grandfathering, but likely no transfers. That will only be "a start" as the ultimate end game is UK style licensing and prohibition.

If you presented legislation in the USA tomorrow with a complete copy of all the UK bans and regulation, you'd seriously have to worry about mass slaughter of politicians, their families, minions and backers. Nobody would be safe as the number of people who would "fo" would be significant.

But do it incrementally, and there won't be a peep from anyone.

And that is the plan.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:44:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By Qweevox:

Originally Posted By Lexington:
Originally Posted By TAP:
The last one had grandfathered weapons and magazines.

There are interviews from some of the Anti's in Congress demonstrating how stupid they are- that they expected all the mags to be used up a few years into the ban.

Stupid or not, you can bet they won't make that mistake again if they are given another chance.


Originally Posted By substandard:

The last ban they grandfathered in the guns, but if there is another ?????? These are the people who wanted to ban barrel shrouds, there is no reason to anything they do.


Originally Posted By mcantu:
they will not make the mistake of grandfathering like the 1st time around. also expect that number of allowable 'evil features' will be dropped from 2 to 1


U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, in part: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

This is the reason the existing "assault weapons" were grandfathered.

Each stripped lower is a grandfathered gun, right? I wonder how many AR's exist in the US.

So while panic waves are annoying, we should actually like panic buyers? They cause the creation of lots of new guns.


A future AWB might ban the sale of uppers as well. Who knows what one can do...

You might end up with a bunch of unused lowers with no way of legally getting more uppers.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:48:21 PM EST
Some may imply that you just ignore any future bans.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 1:48:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 2:56:17 PM EST
If the United States government wants to pass a law that makes me a criminal, it needs to be prepared for the things that I may do once I am no longer considered a law-abiding citizen. One cannot enjoy liberty once he has been made a criminal by legislative fiat. He has been made a part of the underworld by the betrayal of his representatives, and once betrayed owes no fidelity to those who have shunned him.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 2:58:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By Blaculo:
Some may imply that you just ignore any future bans.


One cannot ignore a ban. The proper response to those who would disarm us by the force of government is to disarm them with the use of our own force. If we do nothing and are disarmed, the opportunity to resist the impending tyranny is lost forever.

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 2:59:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By Paul:
Originally Posted By Chapman:No shit the votes weren't there, because Diane Fuckstick is the only hag crazy enough to bring that idea to the table.


Which is why no gun leglisation has ever passed anywhere.



Yeah, I wasn't aware that we'd brought Chuck Schumer over to our side of the debate!

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:05:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By 74novaman:
Next time they'll go full retard. No sunset on the ban, confiscation, the whole bit.


Diane Finestein said it this way in 1995:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."



It's a good thing they need 60 votes to pass ANYTHING...
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:11:42 PM EST
Wal-Mart sells AR's now....

If there is a "common use test" that seems to qualify.

The chances of a ban are astronomically low.


Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:13:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:18:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2012 3:18:36 PM EST by millfire517]
I won't be turning any of my guns in. Take that as you will.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:22:54 PM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I won't be turning any of my guns in. Take that as you will.


Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:22:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2012 3:25:06 PM EST by MajorStumpDemon]
lets be 'scientific'..

what they really wanna ban (well they wanna ban em all but lets be real for a minute or two) is anything that is an auto loader or has a detachable magazine.

skip the evil looking bullshit and simply do that.

grandfather all semi-autos and magazine capable weapons into NFA

and be done.

wont happen anytime soon no matter who gets elected. congress isnt going democrat and no bill is gonna make it to whoever's desk.

but give it some time and a sea-change in the makeup of congress and you probably will see something exactly as i have described above.

no confiscation. simply register it or if caught with it hard time.

this is the reason you dont want obama getting another term. he'll appoint more liberal judges, anti gun laws will come up and the courts will confirm that you shouldnt have weapons capable of mass destruction.

regardless, i predict in one to two generations, amerikan gun laws will be like british gun laws...... or austrailian. with perhaps a grandfathered NFA allowance for those (eventually) archaic weapons...

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:23:10 PM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I won't be turning any of my guns in. Take that as you will.


Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:23:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2012 3:23:28 PM EST by StretchMaK]
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I won't be turning any of my guns in. Take that as you will.





woops

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:28:03 PM EST
There is the Greek phrase I'm looking for, I think it was spoken by Leonidas of Sparta, hmm...
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:29:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By Couch-Commando:
There is the Greek phrase I'm looking for, I think it was spoken by Leonidas of Sparta, hmm...


We'll fight in the shade?

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:37:24 PM EST
Originally Posted By MatthewCourtney:
If the United States government wants to pass a law that makes me a criminal, it needs to be prepared for the things that I may do once I am no longer considered a law-abiding citizen. One cannot enjoy liberty once he has been made a criminal by legislative fiat. He has been made a part of the underworld by the betrayal of his representatives, and once betrayed owes no fidelity to those who have shunned him.


it IS prepared, it doesnt care at all to wste your life or the lives of any fellow arfcommers who might be charged with enforcing the law.

and they have stated quite clearly that they will enforce it.


One cannot ignore a ban.

why not? drug laws are ignored everyday...

The proper response to those who would disarm us by the force of government is to disarm them with the use of our own force.

not really palatable if ye truly think on it, ya cant do it without becoming a monster.

If we do nothing and are disarmed, the opportunity to resist the impending tyranny is lost forever.


not so, lets say they take all our guns tomorrow....we can build more, for one, and for two, the enforcers will still have guns...and they still hafta sleep and shit.....and they are still mortal.

it'll be like an mmo "them lvl 12 highway cops drop phat lootz, m4's and crispy cremes..."
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:42:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By Lone_Nut:
How would they track/enforce the grandfathered stuff? I don't have receipts for every piece of gear I bought over the years. Most of it would be your word against theirs.

This "ban" seems like another government clusterf**k that leaves all of us open to be f**ked with and no way to prove our innocence.


Like said they would go beyond the 1994 law which was pretty pathetic and un-enforcable thanks in part to the NRA.

If the could actually do another AWB expect something modeled on CA/NJ, Grandfathering through Registering existing AW's, more extensive deffinition of banned weapons and evil features, no sunset clause.

Look at what has happened to people in CA who said FU CA and didn't register and than got busted.....

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:43:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:43:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:46:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By ceverett:
Wal-Mart sells AR's now....

If there is a "common use test" that seems to qualify.

The chances of a ban are astronomically low.




This, Wal-Mart, Dicks, Dunham's, and any number of national retailers I have a hard time believing that with all of that and the current filabuster rules any ban could pass.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:50:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:55:07 PM EST
there will be a rise in boating accidents.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 3:57:38 PM EST
better sell all your pre-ban pre-ban stuff now........
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 4:02:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By JIP:
Originally Posted By ceverett:
Wal-Mart sells AR's now....

If there is a "common use test" that seems to qualify.

The chances of a ban are astronomically low.




This, Wal-Mart, Dicks, Dunham's, and any number of national retailers I have a hard time believing that with all of that and the current filabuster rules any ban could pass.


I only thing that I think is even a remote possibility is a magazine restriction. And that is a long shot I think.



The horse is out of the bard on mags as well. The first ban might have had an effect but now there are waaaay too many out there for it to mean anything. That and of course just like I said mags are becoming a real cash cow for larger retailers, I mean most people (present company excluded) that are going to own an EBR is going to own one. One of the big things that a single rifle owner is actually going to continue to buy besides ammo is mags. There is too much money in it now for a ban to ever pass no matter who wants it to.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 4:05:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2012 4:07:37 PM EST by ED_P]
From the wording of newer attempts, it'd be no more new mags of any kind beyond 10 rounds, and no transfer or sale of existing ones, though you can keep what you have for your use only. No selling or passing on mags when you die.

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 4:20:12 PM EST
Originally Posted By IEC:
Enemies Foreign and Domestic


Matt Bracken's Enemies series reads like a think tank's case study on cause and effect. Scary stuff.
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 5:04:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By millfire517:
I won't be turning any of my guns in. Take that as you will.


Link Posted: 10/29/2012 5:39:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By ma96782:
What are the implications of an Assault Weapon Ban?

That the Govt is AFRAID of it's own people.

Aloha, Mark


This.

And that they have the power to ban "Assault Weapons".
And that we will obey such laws.

Link Posted: 10/29/2012 8:37:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By TAP:
Originally Posted By 74novaman:
Next time they'll go full retard. No sunset on the ban, confiscation, the whole bit.


Diane Finestein said it this way in 1995:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."



I agree on full retard, but frankly I expect it to be a ban on the sale/transfer. They can remove all ownership within a generation without taking a single living person's weapon. And that makes it all the more difficult to stop...


That doesn't work in a Post Heller vs D.C. America...
Link Posted: 10/29/2012 9:31:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2012 12:31:52 AM EST
The implications are that "the Government" wont trust you with a 30 shot poodle shooter whilst they have access to tactical nukes
and chemical/biological weapons..congratulations as you are now TRULY a subject of the State!
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Top Top