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.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 12/31/2001 5:15:04 AM EDT
Tell me what you think of this.
The assault ban, as illogical and idiotic as it is, is never the less concerned with cosmetic features of semi-autos. If Bush were not to re-new the ban, wouldn't that give the anti-gunners the fuel to whip up hysteria about the need to get those "evil assault rifles" off the streets. And wouldn't it lead to a outright ban of our beloved Bushmasters et al?



Link Posted: 12/31/2001 5:19:34 AM EDT
It sucks!!!!
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 5:34:18 AM EDT
Don't you think that all semi-auto firearms are on their list? For that matter don't you think all firearms are on their list?

There have been calls to tighten the laws by those anti gunners that are smart enough to know that the ban is just a cosmetic ban and the firearms themselves haven't changed much. Just do your part to make sure your represenitives don't vote to continue or a harsher ban.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 5:52:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Don't you think that all semi-auto firearms are on their list? For that matter don't you think all firearms are on their list?

There have been calls to tighten the laws by those anti gunners that are smart enough to know that the ban is just a cosmetic ban and the firearms themselves haven't changed much. Just do your part to make sure your represenitives don't vote to continue or a harsher ban.



I agree that they indeed want to ban all guns. But they will have to stir up hysteria to do it. I don't know if getting back those cosmetic features that were banned is worth the hysteria it may cause. As for writting our representatives I totally agree. I have written Congressman Ruben Hinojosa twice and both Sen Grahm and Hutchinson at least three times each. I am a member of the NRA, TSNRA(Texas State NRA) and the GOA.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 5:59:21 AM EDT
I am not as concerned with the features as much as the high capacity magazine ban. I would like both to vanish but we will just have to wait and see I guess.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 7:24:24 AM EDT
blackrifle51,

Are you asking about the "Assault Rifle Ban" or the "Assault Weapons Ban". The two are not the same.

Now for the big question!!!
The "1934 NFA act" allowed the BATF to collect taxes for Machine Guns, Making then a "Collecting Agency" for the IRS. If you had a Non-taxed MG, then you were charged for tax fraud.

Remember that in 1934, banning of Machine guns was deemed unlawful, and the only thing that was lawful was that they could be taxed to gain money for the goverment!!!!

During what ACT/LAW did Machine guns become banned and what had changed from 1934 to then, to allow this change?
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 8:08:47 AM EDT
Ironically, it was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 that banned further sales to the public of new machine guns, and thus assault rifles as well.

The only thing that's changed is politics and the dwindling respect for the Constitution.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 10:27:58 AM EDT
It's the slipery slope my friend. The fact that the AWB is there at all indicates that they will go after ALL semi auto's next. By getting ride of this ban we take a step back.

There is no way in todays political climate that they could pass an all encompassing semi-auto ban. Too many percious hunting rifles and shotguns would fall under it. I don't think that there is anyway that congress could even repass the current ban anyway!
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 10:33:08 AM EDT
If Bush wants my vote next time, he MUST allow the stupid Assault Weapons ban die, under the sunset law.

7th
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 11:11:07 AM EDT
In the gun control debate we are always asked to "compromise". But what have we ever gotten in return? We are asked to compromise into giving up A, and they will not ask for A, B and C. Well, we still lose A. Then they come back and ask for B and C, and for us to compromise again. We lose.

If they were to agree to, OK background check, and we will give you automatic nation wide CCW... I would have to say, OK, we won something. But no, compromise, as it is practiced in gun control has been nothing but losses for us.

I have to admit, I don't mind losing bayonet lugs. Useless, a remnant of 18th century warfare. BUT, it pisses me off to lose flash suppressors. And to lose high cap mags is nothing less than destroying my Second Amendment rights by denying me the equipment I need to defend my country.

Ask your politicians and police... do you have a storehouse of 30 rnd mags for M16's, M14's, Mini-14's, etc for citizens to use in times of national emergency? Of course they don't. And if now is not one of those times, what is?

So, we are denied our second amendment rights right there.

The AW ban must go on the magazine ban alone. And we must never compromise again, no matter what. We must also demand nation-wide CCW, including being able to carry loaded weapons in our cars (which is illegal in some states).

If the time is not right NOW to do get this done, it will never be.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 5:06:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 12:02:01 PM EDT
Sunset??? Hell, I'm still waiting for that temporary Income Tax to sunset. It was supposed to have sunset like 70 years ago, but I doubt that I will ever see it happen. Just as I doubt that this stupid law will ever cease to hang over our heads.

VA gun nut, it sounds like it's working on you. You are to a point that you are willing to graciously accept one encroachment on your freedoms as long as they don't mess with another you value more at this time. Someone else said it before me; this is a slippery slope. Howabout we just ban ownership of 45+ round magazines today. Next year we'll try for 40, and after a few, the dreaded 30 rounders will be attacked. Over the coarse of time maybe they can get us all to consider a 5 round magazine as "high capacity".

Beware the slippery slope of eroding freedoms and compromise. The end result can be your ruin.


Saleen
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 1:00:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2002 1:03:15 PM EDT by Monel_Funkawitz]
I'd still love to know how the BATF is getting away with pissing all over the Constitution. I'm all for restrcting guns to some people, but people with no felonies/convictions, should have NO restrictions, in any state. Gays have free speach to say what they want, but I don't have the right to say what I want. Children in schools are allowed to wear clothes that hookers would feel bashful about wearing, yet they say one prayer and all hell breaks loose. People whine about current laws, and are too DAMN lazy to vote.

Stalin said he would destroy America from the inside out. Liberalism is the exact same as Comunism. You don't wanna work, we will give you food stamps, free heathcare, free telephone service, VERY reduced gas/oil charges to heat your house we gave you so you have some of the unemployment we gave you to spend on stuff like gas for the car we gave you, and things you want, like cigarettes, booze, yadda yadda. Whoops, we aren't taking enough out of Monel's paycheck, lets take some more. The family downtown needs a swimming pool. Wha? Monel has no more money to take from his check? We took it all? Well, since he is working, we can't give him foodstamps or anything. Lets sell what we can sell. Hmm... he has one of those EVIL black assult rifles. Sell that overseas to Habib Gruklavov. OH MY GOD! HE HAS HOLLOW POINT AMMO!! That can pierce 10ft thick armor at 50 miles from that evil black rifle! Throw him in jail!

Get the picture? It will eventually come to that. Look how bad it has become in the last 20 years. It will get worse before it gets better.

~Rant Off~
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 1:08:32 PM EDT
Bush would have to be stupid to sign a new AW ban if it happened to pass congress. I can't imagine him allowing it past him. If he vetos it, congress needs to have a 2/3 majority to pass it. Bush must realize after his first election how close things can be. He couldn't afford to sign the law, and alienate many gun owners. He does not seem to be a proponent of gun control to me. If a democrat is elected in 2004 we have a few months of AW production before a serious challenge can be mounted against our gun rights. Also, there is no proof that the AW ban did anything useful. Now that everyone has seen its effect, what sensible person would vote for it again?
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 1:41:05 PM EDT
I don't know how it is going to happen exactly, things will be very fluid, it is a real crap shoot. But judging by GWB Jr's pick of Att. Gen. Ashcroft; and the letter Ashcroft sent to the NRA, it speaks loudly of GWB Jr's support for the 2nd Amend the antis have an uphill fight.

HOWEVER.... There will be an unprecedendant assault by the anti-gunners and their allies from thru out the world to keep the ban in place; and probably there will even be calls to stregthen it. The antis are formulating their strategies and lining up endorsements right now.

You can see the BS flying from VPC regarding the controversy surrounding the 50 cal Barretts in Afghanistan; the VPC folk are do the classic lying by ommission.

I don't know how they are going to convince the everyday Joe and Josephine on the street since the liberals have lost a bit of their crditability since the WTC/Pentagon attacks. And also since the anti's poster boy Bill Clinton/Al Gore are gone, the antis are going to have a much tougher time.

All bets are off if there is another mass murder/rampage with a gun.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 1:48:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 1:55:24 PM EDT
This is a dumb question...what assault weapon ban is this? I'm taking a guess that even if it was allowed to sunset that it wouldn't affect us here in Caliban controlled territory.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 1:57:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 4:08:00 PM EDT
I apolagize for not having the proof in a link, but I do believe Bush Jr. has been caught saying he has no real problem with the current ban on over 10 round magazines. I personally expect a lot of horsetrading going on over this and other stuff towards the end of his first term.

I also know he has spoken in favor of the NRA and what not, but basically I feel he is either wishy washy or just not taking a solid stand on things.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 5:17:20 PM EDT
"And that is why we are losing. The only people who should not have their FULL rights FULLY observed by the government is those who have been convicted of crimes, and only while they are serving their sentences. Anything further is a violation of the very concept of Rights, and certainly a violation of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it."

Exactly what I meant.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 5:34:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By biere:
I apolagize for not having the proof in a link, but I do believe Bush Jr. has been caught saying he has no real problem with the current ban on over 10 round magazines. I personally expect a lot of horsetrading going on over this and other stuff towards the end of his first term.

I also know he has spoken in favor of the NRA and what not, but basically I feel he is either wishy washy or just not taking a solid stand on things.



From what I've seen and heard about President Bush, my opinion of him is that he is a good man, and pretty down to earth. I've had the opporitunity to speak with Senator Lugar recently, and his words backed up my opinion about Bush...I respect Senator Lugar a great deal and trust his judgement.

That being said, politics are not easy. I do not see Bush wanting to sign any anti-gun laws, but, like Troy said, this is in the hands of the Congress.

People Elect Congress>>>Congress Passes Bill>>>President Vetos

Then they would redo the bill. All this time, the media would blast Bush to make him look like a tyrant. They'll say that the President is ignoring what the people want, because of course, the people elect the Congress. So, in that sense of mind, it is possible to consider that Bush would sign *some* anti-gun bill...but I believe (and hope) that he would stick to his beliefs before passing anything that would bastardize the 2nd amendment any further.

The White House staff wants to keep Bush "looking good" to the people. The best way to look good is to discuss things that people agree with. (90% of the nation agree that we should feed OBL to cocaine-laced rabid donkeys). So, by a PR standpoint, there's no reason to bring up the gun argument, which is a smart thing to do, especially in a city as liberal as Washington.

This is what makes me mad about politics. Liberals (and the media) contort things and then display it as 'news'. So, anything the President says is analyzed by the talking heads and then fed into the households of the general public. It is easy to relate the general public to sheep...they'll believe anything they see in print. Because of this, the White House staff urges the President to avoid such coversations, so saying that he has no problem with the "over 10-rd ban", could just be a way of avoiding the question. If the President sat down with pro-guns supporters, I'm sure he'd have an entirely different attitude than the temperment he must keep while in Washington. Our country is so damn analytical and sensitive that the leader of our country can't say what he believes without be turned into a tyrant.

Did I over exaggerate?

I think President Bush will stand firmly behind his beliefs, but it's in his best intrest to focus on other issues right now. It's just that I don't think now is the time for Bush to come out and say "anti-gun liberals can lick the cow shit out of my spurs." It's definitely better for him to avoid talking about it, rather than starting a fire with a pro-gun statement.

The real issue is Congress. Y'all elect these fuckers, make sure they do their job and fight for the office that they've been given by voters.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 5:35:10 PM EDT
As for party politics, there is corruption on both sides of the table, but the right side of the table is certainly cleaner. Most of my views follow those of very conservitive Republicans, while a couple of my views would be very liberal. Sometimes people confuse the word liberal. When I think of the *word* liberal, I think of exercising my individual rights and freedoms. When I see someone labeling themselves (media/some democrats) as a liberal, I take it the same as being a hypocritical weiner.

(I'm off the subject, but am on a roll ;)

The fact that I give 36% of my income to Uncle Sam bothers me. We all suck it up and pay it, but the thing that pisses me off is that instead of my money going towards education, defense (and intelligence), solving the energy problems, etc...I see my money going into the welfare problem. I feel sorry and am sympathetique to those that come across bad times, and I would give anyone the shirt off my damn back if I knew they were sincere. It is the drug addicted crack-whores that take my money to buy cigarettes. I've elected President Bush, now I hope my tax money goes to something productive and worthwhile.

But, um...yeah...hopefully there will be no more ban, but I doubt they will obliterate the 94 ban when it comes back to pass.

I'll save the rest of my views for another thread ;)
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 5:52:44 PM EDT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL....therefor NULL AND VOID. If I were to pontificate further, it would only be mental masturbation.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 6:06:39 PM EDT
One element to the Constitution that many do not consider. Some of you guys may remember the terms "strict" and "loose" interpretation. Saying that these bans are unconstitutional is definitely true. Saying that would exercise a strict interpretation of the Constitution. However, our country has not practice strict interpretation of the Constitution since Thomas Jefferson was in office. In fact, Jefferson made a decision based on loose interpretation instead of strict, ending all belief for a strict interpretation. For story's sake, this decision, if I recall, was the Louisiana Purchase. The Constitution did not call for the acquiring of new land, but it was in the best intrest country to do so.

So, I wouldn't say that the assault ban is unconstitutional, because the Congress declared it to be constitutional and the Supreme Court had no beef with it. However, I agree that it is wrong in its entirity, and the only good I've seen come from it, is some rifles are now collectibles.

What kind of gun laws should we have in the US?
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 6:19:00 PM EDT
Let me see here according to the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution--

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

As such, ANY infringement of this in UNCONSITUTIONAL, period, no looseness involved whatsoever. The "law" in question infringes this and because of that is null and void.

Don't try to make this an exercise in mental gymnastics, folks, the Constitution and BOR are simple. They say what they mean and the mean wht they say. What's hard about that?

In answer to your Q, Hoosier---NONE.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 6:44:32 PM EDT
The Brady crime bill cost a lot of folks their political careers in both houses in 96'. I think that it is possible for it to go away. Basically we got ram-rodded with this thing, they know we know it and they know it cost career polititions their jobs. I remember Carville saying that the Dems need to get off the gun issue all together because it was alienating them in the "Red" areas of the country. Tennesse is a perfect example, lots of pissed gun owners there. Remember ol' Willy saying how he was a duck hunter and was standing there with that shotgun? Don't fall for it again. Put the pressure on, remind these people that it will be a repeat of 96' if they pass another gun ban! Don't just write your own reps, send letters to the ones who we know are the enemy. I would bet that their job and cushy benefits are more important to them than their agenda any day.

We are in a culture war with the big cities. The mindset of most urban citizens is one of being under seige by crime, danger in every dark alley, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, high capacity machineguns in the hands of children, they are brow beat with kids shooting each other in the streets, not interested in anything that doesn't pay the bills, afraid to look at a stranger on the other side of the street, etc.. I live in the Philly suburbs and have friends who live and work in the city and they are deathly afraid of guns, people with guns, of being robbed, you know the drill. Big city life is so self absorbed and vain. These folks depend on the gov't to hold their hands to cross the street. The electorate was a godsent in this election because these relatively small geographic areas contain a large populous.

I know a girl who is a teacher in an upper/middle class public school district. She hates guns, period. Outright believs the 2nd ammendment should be repealled and cast out. She thought Clinton was the second coming of Christ. This is what is teaching our kids! Believe me! Why? Who knows, who cares? Anti-gun sentiment has permeated every aspect of our lives. It's in the news media, the entertainment industry, corporate policy, charities, education, medicine, the legal system, government, you name it. And we let it happen, incrementally, over the last 70 years. Ten years ago if someone were to say to me that guns will be banned all together before I turn 50 I would have laughed it of as some conspiracy nut, now I take a sobering note of comments like that because we are a diminishing group floating on an ever growing ocean that is waiting to swallow us up. We are the last in a long line of impedements to a totalitarian gov't. Once we are gone it is just a stroke of the pen to stick it up our asses. A rift is forming between us and them. It is only gonna get worse as time goes on and the population increases. Steps need to be taken now to stop further legislation against all of our rights.

I see it this way. As the population increases there will be more crime by default. These scared city folks are gonna eventually run the system by sheer numbers anyway so while we still have a chance we need to fix the leak in the dam so to speak.

And you know what?
McCarthy and Reagan were right...

Holly­wood and Washington ARE filled with communists. They go by the name of "Progressive Democrats" nowadays!

Watch out, they will be coming hard in November to stack the deck for 04' and beyond. Vote!
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 6:57:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DJbump:
Let me see here according to the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution--

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

As such, ANY infringement of this in UNCONSITUTIONAL, period, no looseness involved whatsoever. The "law" in question infringes this and because of that is null and void.

Don't try to make this an exercise in mental gymnastics, folks, the Constitution and BOR are simple. They say what they mean and the mean wht they say. What's hard about that?

In answer to your Q, Hoosier---NONE.



Check out section eight of section one of the Constitution. Somewhere in there (Clause 16 or 17) it say that Congress has the power to discipline (as well as organizing and arming) the militia. I would say that the '94 ban exercises this point.

So it is conflicting. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms, but one of the articles says that the Congress can regulate the militia. Some group has to decide what fits into the 2nd amendment. It is so broad in saying 'to keep and bear arms', if someone had the means, then essentially anyone could own, say...a nuclear weapon. I don't think it's unconstitutional for Congress to declare that certain things do not fall into the "arms" category declared by the Constitution. They're the decision makers.

Was Congress being unconstitutional in the '94 law...I would say no. I *strongly* disagree with the ban and think it is without reason, but it is not unconstitutional. However, I think they'd be playing the borderline if the start to enforce that people don't use hi-cap magazines...because that would cause a problem if we ever needed to call up a militia.

I have to disagree with you on the gun law topic. No laws? That's insane man...you would not be uncomfortable knowing that your neighbor that has been arrested for beating his wife, kids, and has a bunch of DUI's just bought a nice little .45...I sure would. I mean, *real* criminals are still going to get the guns, but people with minor offenses would then have no trouble getting them...that's just not right.

I am against any invasion of privacy, and hate the thought of background checks. I really don't know the best way to go about making a good set of gun laws is, though...
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 7:06:24 PM EDT
As to the criminals with guns point, specifically a wife beater--that's easily solved. If someone beats their wife, you beat their ass. If the ass beating does not teach them the lesson and they beat any woman again, you simply thin the herd by one individual. As for other crimes, same thing. Someone kills someone, you kill them. Simple, isn't it? No gun laws is the only way this country should be. We as a people should be self-policing. After all, isn't that the whole reason this country was founded--to get away from a gov't intruding upon our lives?

And in my best Forrest Gump--that is all I gotta say about this topic.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 7:20:27 PM EDT
Well, that's a pretty extreme view on things, but since we are living in this country, you're certainly entitled to it :)

I don't see how "eye for an eye" solves anything, the damage has already been done...Mommy, bro, and sis are already dead. It seems that people still do crimes worth capitol punishment today, even though they KNOW it's punisable by death. Why would the fear of death stop anyone using your logic. What you said is kind of hypocritical...you protect the 2nd amendment, but your thoughts do not protect the 5th amendment. Just figure if you want to protect the Constitution, then protect all of it, not just the parts that you can use to promote your point.

By the way, do ya have any comment on the the clause of the Constitution where it reads that Congress can discipline the militia?
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 7:26:02 PM EDT
A_Free_Man,

I agree with you that losing bayonet lugs was no big deal with the '94 AW ban. They are usless in my opion.

What I would like to see is the limit on 10+ round magazines repealed. Shit I've spend 100's of dollars extra for all the preban maps that I have. In esence it is like paying yet another tax to the gov.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 7:48:36 PM EDT
Let's see. The 2nd is a protection as a last resort against a tyrannical government, yes even thie government of these beloved United States. So to have oversight from the very tyrannical government which the 2nd protects against is folly.

Sort of the child molester guarding the schoolyard sort of thing. Cannot work. Does not work.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 8:53:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DJbump:
Let's see. The 2nd is a protection as a last resort against a tyrannical government, yes even thie government of these beloved United States. So to have oversight from the very tyrannical government which the 2nd protects against is folly.

Sort of the child molester guarding the schoolyard sort of thing. Cannot work. Does not work.



Yeah, I see what you mean. But, we have a system of checks and balances that would make it very difficult for Congress, or any political body, that would totally disarm the public. History has shown, though, that governments can be corrupted, and in a corrupted government anything can happen. Again, it goes down to us. We choose the leaders who hold office. We choose the child molesters to guard our school.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 10:13:15 AM EDT
The reason that the second amendment was put into the consitution was that the founding fathers full expected that at some point, even with all the checks and balances, that the government would become corrupt and opressive. At the point when this happens we need our arms because it is our duty to revolt and form a new government.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 10:38:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
The reason that the second amendment was put into the consitution was that the founding fathers full expected that at some point, even with all the checks and balances, that the government would become corrupt and opressive. At the point when this happens we need our arms because it is our duty to revolt and form a new government.



Yes, being in the BOR, it is there to protect us from the government. It is naive to think that the government will never become corrupt, so it was smart of our Founding Fathers to implement that into the Consitution. However, we are in different times, arms is much more than muskets and artillery. I'm not sure where (or if) the Constitution makes any distinction among arms, so where do we make the distinction between a 1911 and chemical weapons?
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 10:52:15 AM EDT
Wow, this is a great discussion guys.

When I read the crime bill the biggest thing that jumped out at me was the part about the attorney general writing a report detailing the effectiveness of the law.
This is what Bush and congress will likely use in their defense should they fail to act(which is what we want).
But, every report I see says violent crime has gone down since 1994. So, this may work against us. The gangster rap fad of the early 90's, with all its inner city violence, undoubtably had some influence on the law.

Link Posted: 1/2/2002 11:00:38 AM EDT
As much as a fan I am of the Bush family, keep in mind that George Sr. banned as many (or more) rifles in 1989 with the stroke of a pen then Klinton did in 1994. We are STILL dealing with trying to inteperate both of these foolish laws!
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 11:13:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JSL5150:
As much as a fan I am of the Bush family, keep in mind that George Sr. banned as many (or more) rifles in 1989 with the stroke of a pen then Klinton did in 1994. We are STILL dealing with trying to inteperate both of these foolish laws!



If I recall, Democrats controlled the Congress during this time, wouldn't that make it a Democrat-proposed bill? I could indeed be speaking out of my ass on this one, I can't find the specifics of this bill anywhere. What did the '89 law do?
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 11:57:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
We are in a culture war with the big cities. The mindset of most urban citizens is one of being under seige by crime, danger in every dark alley, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, high capacity machineguns in the hands of children, they are brow beat with kids shooting each other in the streets, not interested in anything that doesn't pay the bills, afraid to look at a stranger on the other side of the street, etc.. I live in the Philly suburbs and have friends who live and work in the city and they are deathly afraid of guns, people with guns, of being robbed, you know the drill. Big city life is so self absorbed and vain. These folks depend on the gov't to hold their hands to cross the street. The electorate was a godsent in this election because these relatively small geographic areas contain a large populous.

I know a girl who is a teacher in an upper/middle class public school district. She hates guns, period. Outright believs the 2nd ammendment should be repealled and cast out. She thought Clinton was the second coming of Christ. This is what is teaching our kids! Believe me! Why? Who knows, who cares? Anti-gun sentiment has permeated every aspect of our lives. It's in the news media, the entertainment industry, corporate policy, charities, education, medicine, the legal system, government, you name it. And we let it happen, incrementally, over the last 70 years. Ten years ago if someone were to say to me that guns will be banned all together before I turn 50 I would have laughed it of as some conspiracy nut, now I take a sobering note of comments like that because we are a diminishing group floating on an ever growing ocean that is waiting to swallow us up. We are the last in a long line of impedements to a totalitarian gov't. Once we are gone it is just a stroke of the pen to stick it up our asses. A rift is forming between us and them. It is only gonna get worse as time goes on and the population increases. Steps need to be taken now to stop further legislation against all of our rights.

I see it this way. As the population increases there will be more crime by default. These scared city folks are gonna eventually run the system by sheer numbers anyway so while we still have a chance we need to fix the leak in the dam so to speak.

And you know what?
McCarthy and Reagan were right...




It's interesting to note that Jefferson forecast this happening in his concept of the virtuous citizen. His idea of the perfect republic was self-sufficent land owners (the Agrarian Republic), and he saw urbanization as corruption of the nation's spirit. I'm sure he's turning in his grave right now. As far as my preference goes, I'm a suburbanite. I think the biggest concept that sincere (read: no evil agenda) antis don't get is that criminals will always have guns and that all gun control does is take away a law abiding citizen's right to arm themselves. But, I digress, I'm preaching to the choir.

Robby

(spell-checking not working? oh Lord! )
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 7:03:30 PM EDT
Just a thought. If Congress passes the bill I think It will become law. And GWB will not sign it. If a president does nothing a bill becomes law in ten days just food for thought. He would be living up to his pledge of not signing gun control legislation but the bill still passes.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 5:23:51 PM EDT



I know a girl who is a teacher in an upper/middle class public school district. She hates guns, period. Outright believs the 2nd ammendment should be repealled and cast out. She thought Clinton was the second coming of Christ. This is what is teaching our kids! Believe me! Why? Who knows, who cares? Anti-gun sentiment has permeated every aspect of our lives. It's in the news media, the entertainment industry, corporate policy, charities, education, medicine, the legal system, government, you name it. And we let it happen, incrementally, over the last 70 years.



I've met quite a few teachers who think that way, seems they all voted for hillary also...
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:07:48 AM EDT
I JUST HOPE THE DAMN THING SUNSETS WHEN IT IS SUPPOSED TO! TO HELL WITH THE ANTI-GUNNERS. GOD BLESS AMERICA!



Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:21:45 AM EDT
I think that, despite the point made by blackrifle51, American gun owners would benefit form a non-renewal of the ban. If the ban is removed, this would actually be a POSITIVE step for gun owners and the Constitution. I think that pro-gun organizations focus too much on defending against new attacks on our rights and devote little effort trying to repeal already existing laws. Due to the nature of the political process, is much easier to defend against new anti-gun laws than it is to repeal existing ones. So, when the opportunity to take back some of our rights presents itself, we should whole-heartedly take advantage of it. To quote the JPFO, “A holding action, no matter how prolonged, is doomed to defeat. You must decide to take the offensive and eliminate victim disarmament altogether and forever.”
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 8:34:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hoosier:
I don't see how "eye for an eye" solves anything, the damage has already been done...Mommy, bro, and sis are already dead. It seems that people still do crimes worth capitol punishment today, even though they KNOW it's punisable by death. Why would the fear of death stop anyone using your logic. What you said is kind of hypocritical...you protect the 2nd amendment, but your thoughts do not protect the 5th amendment. Just figure if you want to protect the Constitution, then protect all of it, not just the parts that you can use to promote your point.



It's about justice, once of the basic values that this country was founded on. There will always be criminals commiting violent crimes. The best thing that we can do is to punish them appropriately, including the death penalty for appropriate cases. That's what justice is about, you do the crime, you do the time. What do you propose we do to people who commit heinous crimes?

How does the 5th amendment come into this argument? All of this assumes that the criminals being given the death penalty have already been given a fair trial.


I have to disagree with you on the gun law topic. No laws? That's insane man...you would not be uncomfortable knowing that your neighbor that has been arrested for beating his wife, kids, and has a bunch of DUI's just bought a nice little .45...I sure would. I mean, *real* criminals are still going to get the guns, but people with minor offenses would then have no trouble getting them...that's just not right.


I would indeed be uncomfortable in such a situation. Me being a Jew, I would also be uncomfortable if my next-door neighbor was a Nazi, but that does not mean that he shouldn't have the right to be a Nazi. The bottom line is that you do not have the right to never be uncomfortable or offended. You do have the right to be armed (at least, for now) to protect youself against such a person if he decides to attack you. Even people with minor offenses get guns all the time. Just try to find statistics on "straw purchases" - when a non-prohibited person buys a gun for a friend or relative who is a prohibited person. There's a whole lot of them.

Also, consider this: The second amendment is meant as protection from a tyrannical government. If the government was tyrannical, don't you think they would define large segments of the population, perhaps anyone who didn't agree with them, as criminals? Aren't those criminals the exact people who the second amendment is protecting?
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 9:08:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hoosier:

Originally Posted By DJbump:
Let me see here according to the 2nd Amendment to the Consitution--

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

As such, ANY infringement of this in UNCONSITUTIONAL, period, no looseness involved whatsoever. The "law" in question infringes this and because of that is null and void.

Don't try to make this an exercise in mental gymnastics, folks, the Constitution and BOR are simple. They say what they mean and the mean wht they say. What's hard about that?

In answer to your Q, Hoosier---NONE.



Check out section eight of section one of the Constitution. Somewhere in there (Clause 16 or 17) it say that Congress has the power to discipline (as well as organizing and arming) the militia. I would say that the '94 ban exercises this point.

So it is conflicting. The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms, but one of the articles says that the Congress can regulate the militia. Some group has to decide what fits into the 2nd amendment. It is so broad in saying 'to keep and bear arms', if someone had the means, then essentially anyone could own, say...a nuclear weapon. I don't think it's unconstitutional for Congress to declare that certain things do not fall into the "arms" category declared by the Constitution. They're the decision makers.

Was Congress being unconstitutional in the '94 law...I would say no. I *strongly* disagree with the ban and think it is without reason, but it is not unconstitutional. However, I think they'd be playing the borderline if the start to enforce that people don't use hi-cap magazines...because that would cause a problem if we ever needed to call up a militia.

I have to disagree with you on the gun law topic. No laws? That's insane man...you would not be uncomfortable knowing that your neighbor that has been arrested for beating his wife, kids, and has a bunch of DUI's just bought a nice little .45...I sure would. I mean, *real* criminals are still going to get the guns, but people with minor offenses would then have no trouble getting them...that's just not right.

I am against any invasion of privacy, and hate the thought of background checks. I really don't know the best way to go about making a good set of gun laws is, though...



Section 8 deals with the organized militia. USC Title 10, Section 311 specifically dictates there are TWO components of the militia, the organized which includes National Guard and unorganized which is all able-bodied men, age 17 to 43 (65 in case of prior organized armed service) not serving in an exempted profession deemed vital to national interests.

To the point, the Second Amendment dictates the right to self protection by any means is a G-d-given right, not a government given. Therefore, this amendment is to protect the right to self defense, not to provide for a militia.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 9:54:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2002 9:56:02 AM EDT by netrig]
Here's a pic of my Califonia legal ar is this ugly or what ?
http://www.ehomebook.com/users/netrig/images/caliar.bmp
Below is a pic of it after the next gun laws in Cali.

__________________________________________ ?

Link Posted: 1/8/2002 10:34:42 AM EDT
I thing gun owners are making a mistake by doing nothing, except hoping the AW ban expires, while they control half of congress and the presidency. There are a number of nice things Bush could do by executive order (allowing CCW in Nat'l Parks, rescinding the import bans, allowing the military to sell its old (but NIW) 30 rd mags instead of chopping them, etc.), and we should be laying the groundwork in congress for other steps (getting rid of the '86 MG ban, shortening SBR to 14.5", etc.). Instead we just wait for the AW ban to expire. The fact is that none of this good stuff will come to pass unless we get moving on it, and the more stuff we bring to the table the more goodies we will get. Right now it is just a question of whether the AW ban will expire. Maybe if we brought a few other issues into play, it would be a given that the AW ban would expire and SBR shortened, and the questions would be whether the '86 ban would be repealed too. It makes no sense to be defensive forever, and that is all the Republians are doing.

Maybe we should organize, decide on one or two of these issues to push with the administration and congress, and start writing letters. If they get a few thousand letters, it will probably get someone thinking.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 10:38:54 AM EDT
Tell me where to sign or start and I'm in


Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:04:43 PM EDT
Here's your pro-gun president. From issues2000.org:

Bush expressed support for some gun control measures, including the ban on assault weapons and laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. But he said he did not believe the waiting period for the purchase of handguns that is part of the Brady Act does much good, saying he prefers instant background checks.
Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999

-------

Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia
Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors
Supports law-abiding American’s constitutional right to own guns to protect their families and home
Supports the current ban on automatic weapons
Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips
Supports voluntary safety locks
Opposes government mandated registration of all guns owned by law abiding citizens
Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000

-----

So let's look at this:
Bush SUPPORTS the hicap and assault weapon bans of the "crime bill" and even wants to ban the importation of pre-94 magazines.

Bush SUPPORTS the FOPA ammendment that bans the manufacture of machine guns.

Bush SUPPORTS "closing the gun-show loophole" (whatever that means.)

When 1994 rolls around, and the congress re-authorizes the AW and hicap bans (and they will) Mr. Bush will quite happily sign the PERMENANT provision.

Folks, if you care about this issue, the time to start working on it is NOW, and not 2004. Work to elect PRO GUN senators and reps (and NOT republican! The NRA has been giving A ratings to anti-gun republicans the last few years. Look into it. Republican does NOT mean pro rights!) Write letters to your current reps and the president, vice president, and anyone else you think matters. Write the NRA and tell THEM they can shove their life membership up their asses if they do not support us on this.

If we lose in 2004, we'll never get another chance.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:40:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hoosier:
Well, that's a pretty extreme view on things, but since we are living in this country, you're certainly entitled to it :)

I don't see how "eye for an eye" solves anything, the damage has already been done...Mommy, bro, and sis are already dead. It seems that people still do crimes worth capitol punishment today, even though they KNOW it's punisable by death. Why would the fear of death stop anyone using your logic. What you said is kind of hypocritical...you protect the 2nd amendment, but your thoughts do not protect the 5th amendment. Just figure if you want to protect the Constitution, then protect all of it, not just the parts that you can use to promote your point.

By the way, do ya have any comment on the the clause of the Constitution where it reads that Congress can discipline the militia?




Hoosier:

I believe that the portion of the law pertaining to regulating or disciplining the militia has more to do with relieving corrupt officers and establishing organizational structure than gun control.

In fact, early regulations and legislation attempted to standardize weapons and ammunition of the militia (free men of age). The state of the art weapon (sturmgewehr or assault weapon) for the military at that time was likely some variation on the British Brown Bess musket. Congress would have preferred that all free citizens armed themselves with a standard pattern musket, as it simplified drill (standard range, rate of fire, etc.) and supply/resupply tremendously, but wanted, as a minimum, all militia members equipped with long arms. A hodgepodge of weapons was a hinderance. Imagine forming up all of the gunowners in your hometown with whatever they had/wanted to shoot with and breaking them down into military units for training. Anyone wealthy or with any previous military experience gets to be an officer, or you could elect them! Any rich guy who didn't get to be in charge took his toys and went home. ;-)

The requirement for artillery (king of the battlefield, c. 1776) was left to the Army, or organized militia and was purchased by local or state governments, or occasionally the wealthy landowner. I do not believe that it was, in any way, proscribed or restricted by the early US Government/Continental Congress. The only limiting factors for obtaining arty was the cost of the piece(s), attending rolling stock, and propulsion (livestock).

So much for the oft heard "The framers of the Bill of Rights never envisioned civilians with assault rifles."

When they said the right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed, they MEANT it. The more firepower the private citizen (militia) could muster, the better! Unless you were on the wrong side.

The Army was intentionally small, but considered sufficiently well trained and led to deal with any contingencies, provided the state militias (or eventually individual militiamen) were provided as augmentation.

Till the Whiskey Rebellion, but that is another story....
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 6:11:26 PM EDT
Great Discussion!

Let me put in my two cents worth.

We have to be very careful of Bush. I don't think he has strong covictions about gun rights one way or the other. If he does he has not articulated them very often. Remember, he is a "uniter not a divider". That spells compromise. What better way to compromise than to do something like ban those awfull high capacity magazines or tax ammo.

Our beloved assault weapons are only as good as our supply of magazines and access to large quanities of cheap ammo.

I'm not sure about Bush. He could give in on things like this while seeming to protect our rights elsewhere. We could be screwed.

Our only hope is give money to the lobby organizations. The liberals will have us out numbered soon. Money can buy influence. The NRA proved that in the last election by pouring money into the swing states and helping Bush just squeek by.
Top Top