Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/1/2004 6:38:57 PM EST
Should I remove mine from my gun?

How does this mess things up?

Assuming all other AR evil features remain evil, your allowed only one but they add brakes and comps to the end of the list.

CRC
Link Posted: 7/1/2004 6:50:33 PM EST
There have been attempts in PA to introduce legislation that would ban ANY muzzle attachments. I'm sure they will try.
Link Posted: 7/1/2004 6:51:16 PM EST
But hopefully your brakes will be grandfathered.
Link Posted: 7/1/2004 6:52:42 PM EST
In all likelyhood your rifle with the MB would be grandfathered in.
Link Posted: 7/1/2004 6:59:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/1/2004 7:00:22 PM EST by tivoli410]
What if they add muzzle brakes and compensators to the evil features list of the next AWB?

Then we will shoot all their dogs and set their houses a flame!!





Link Posted: 7/1/2004 7:44:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Should I remove mine from my gun?

How does this mess things up?

Assuming all other AR evil features remain evil, your allowed only one but they add brakes and comps to the end of the list.



You serious?????
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 1:19:05 AM EST
Wouldnt it be simpler for them to just ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines? It's not like they would be morally opposed to it. That would surely piss on our parade.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 3:08:34 AM EST
Considering how a lot of post ban ARs have brakes I am serious.

I don't know whether to keep the brake since they want to ban it.

CRC
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 3:23:08 AM EST
Dudes.....

They can barely get support the current one that they claim is FAR too weak.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 5:13:29 AM EST
"Grandfathering" is a way to make unacceptable laws more palatable to the people. It shuts out entrants to any field, and is intended to gradually weed out through attrition. Then you have a two-tiered system, the annointed few who got there first, and the rest of the people.

And isolated in this fashion, the ones who are "grandfathered in" will have no support from others in standing against these laws.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 5:59:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2004 6:02:15 AM EST by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By CRC:
I don't know whether to keep the brake since they want to ban it.



Dude, they "want to ban" the whole fucking gun...........I will PM you with an address to send it to if it will make you feel better.

Guys, 10 years ago with a Democrat President, a Democrat controlled House and Senate, the 94 ban was passed by ONE VOTE. They promptly lost control of both houses. In the ensuing 10 years, they weren't able pass one new piece of gun control legislation let alone eliminate a few words about "sunsetting". They haven't even been able to get one to the floor for a vote. It's a dead issue on the Federal level. The last gasps we are seeing today are nothing more than election year bullshit. There will not be another "federal ban" in the foreseeable future.

Future battles will be at the state level. As long as gun owners continue to focus exclusively on Washington, we are in real danger of suffering huge losses in our own backyards. How many out there know what their Governor's stance is on gun rights? How many even know who their state reps are? City council members? Not many I suspect.

We have won the battle in D.C., time to light some fires at home!
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 6:22:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 7:17:52 AM EST
then i will shoot naked barrel
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 7:31:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By avengeusa:
then i will shoot naked barrel


I already do .
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 7:33:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
"Grandfathering" is a way to make unacceptable laws more palatable to the people. It shuts out entrants to any field, and is intended to gradually weed out through attrition. Then you have a two-tiered system, the annointed few who got there first, and the rest of the people.

And isolated in this fashion, the ones who are "grandfathered in" will have no support from others in standing against these laws.



yeah so much for equality
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 7:40:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By redmenace:
Wouldnt it be simpler for them to just ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines? It's not like they would be morally opposed to it. That would surely piss on our parade.



Amendment II

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.


The Federal Government CAN'T BAN SHIT!!!!! How many times do I have to say it. Short of removing the 2nd. Amend. form the Constitution they CAN NOT ban any firearms. They CAN force a Tax and Registration on Semi-autos like then did Full Autos in '34 but they couldn't ban Machineguns back then and they can't ban Semi-autos now. Get over it. The AWB of '94 is UnConstitutional and Unenforceable.
Fineswine needs to be brought up on charges for "Breach of Contract" because she's going back on her word to "Uphold the Constitution of the United States". By trying to push her UnConstitutional Law upon the American People she breaks her word to uphold it. Sue the bitch in Federal Court for "Breach of Contract" and kick her ass out of office.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 7:51:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2004 7:56:28 AM EST by ScaryGuy]

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
The AWB of '94 is UnConstitutional and Unenforceable.



I for one intend to obey the law, silly and inane as it may be. That's what sets me apart from the criminals. The consequences are just not worth it to me to have a bayo lug or a collapsible stock on my gun. I will however, exercise my rights as an American to fight to have the law repealed.

If I were inclined to break the law, however, I seriously doubt that I'd be trumpeting that fact on the internet.

Just an observation.

SG


Link Posted: 7/2/2004 8:09:52 AM EST
What if? Shmutt if!

No silly bans impact my inventory, Dog!
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 8:16:42 AM EST
All this crowing about what if that and what if then is drawing attention to us and our firearms. I was given a piece of advice a long time ago to use when in a situation like this.
"Maintain a low profile." Meaning, yes we can write letters and make phone calls to fight this ban, but as for telling the world what we may have or not have, we need to use some discretion. I have been guilty of this in the past as have a lot of us. Many LEOs, even some ATF people among them I'm sure, most likely feel that the AWB conditions on AR-15s are bullshit.
If someone puts them on the spot, they will have to enforce the AWB, even if they don't want to.

As for me, I sold all my guns at the last gun show to a dealer. I don't remember which one.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 8:19:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By ScaryGuy:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
The AWB of '94 is UnConstitutional and Unenforceable.



I for one intend to obey the law, silly and inane as it may be. That's what sets me apart from the criminals. The consequences are just not worth it to me to have a bayo lug or a collapsible stock on my gun. I will however, exercise my rights as an American to fight to have the law repealed.

If I were inclined to break the law, however, I seriously doubt that I'd be trumpeting that fact on the internet.

Just an observation.

SG





Just because something is a "law" doesn't make it Constitutional or Right. Slavery was accepted as "law" but , I'm sure we can aggree, it was VERY Unconstitutional and not right. Same with segregation and it's history as well. The only way that these things went by the wayside was when people stood up to them and forced them out.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 8:31:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2004 8:45:29 AM EST by TNFrank]
www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1242.cfm
Read this link and then tell me what you think about "breaking" laws in order to uphold our Constitution.

"Notice that our Founding Fathers used the word, "infringed" here. This is an interesting choice of words, because it is far more limiting than the word, 'outlawed'. Not only is the Federal Government forbidden to outlaw the ownership of guns, they cannot even pass laws that "infringe" upon this right! In this regard, the laws requiring potential owners to register their guns, and to pass any laws requiring a background check before being able to buy a gun, are probably illegal. In fact, all these laws requiring registration are intended to do is to inform the Federal Government which of the law-abiding citizens own guns, so they will know which houses to target during the planned take-over of all guns.

Thus, ever since World War I, the judges being approved have been well trained in the movement toward the New World Order, so that they would overlook such Constitutional obstacles. Thus the power of the Judicial Branch of government is thrown behind the global government. Today, the anti-gun lobby is more entrenched and more organized than ever before. They also have the most political power and propaganda expertise of any previous anti-gun movement in this century."

Here's another good site.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/768481/posts
" THEY USE OUR OWN MONEY TO CONTROL US

They don't want your money at all, except as a means to the end of being able to control your every action and even your every thought. You don't have to own the money if you control, absolutely, how it is spent. Money is not the motivator for these people except that control of the money gives them control over you. Mayor Amschel Bauer, once the Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe said: "Give me control over a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." In 1957, the then U. S. Senator from Nevada George W. Malone, said: "I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election. It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States."

Here's one more for ya'.
web2.iadfw.net/jcpatton/2intent.htm
"Here is an example of what George Washington thought:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.... (Cooper 22)"

Do you really think that following an UnConstitutionl law is the "Right" thing to do?
What would our Founding Fathers have done?
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 8:43:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Just because something is a "law" doesn't make it Constitutional or Right. Slavery was accepted as "law" but , I'm sure we can aggree, it was VERY Unconstitutional and not right. Same with segregation and it's history as well. The only way that these things went by the wayside was when people stood up to them and forced them out.



Compared to people like Rosa Parks, most gun owners are a bunch of pussies

Link Posted: 7/2/2004 8:46:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Just because something is a "law" doesn't make it Constitutional or Right. Slavery was accepted as "law" but , I'm sure we can aggree, it was VERY Unconstitutional and not right. Same with segregation and it's history as well. The only way that these things went by the wayside was when people stood up to them and forced them out.



Compared to people like Rosa Parks, most gun owners are a bunch of pussies



A sad but true fact.
Personally, I'd rather be dead then not own firearms.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 9:52:11 AM EST
What, doesn't anyone have anything more to say on this matter? Come on now, don't be shy.
We're in a WAR here people, a War for our freedom. If we fight we may loose but we can also win. If we don't fight then we've lost by default. Isn't our freedom to own firearms worth risking jail/death? If you don't think it is then maybe you should sell your guns and buy a pool table or take up tennis because ya'll sure don't deserve to own guns if you're not willing to fight and die to keep them.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 11:05:00 AM EST
You guys are worried about bayonet lugs and flash hiders... I could care less about a bayo lug, like flash hiders... but the REAL dangerous part of the AWB is and always has been the magazine ban.

We must NOT let them ban future production of normal capacity mags. We must NOT let them ban currently possessed mags.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 1:40:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
You guys are worried about bayonet lugs and flash hiders... I could care less about a bayo lug, like flash hiders... but the REAL dangerous part of the AWB is and always has been the magazine ban.

We must NOT let them ban future production of normal capacity mags. We must NOT let them ban currently possessed mags.


I agree. While the 2nd.Amend. does protect Firearms form being banned it says nothing to protect the magazines that they use form a total ban. Without a magazine a semi-auto firearm is no better then a single shot.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 3:16:56 PM EST
Bump for the night shift.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 4:44:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2004 5:10:43 PM EST by Freakzilla]

Originally Posted By TNFrank:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
You guys are worried about bayonet lugs and flash hiders... I could care less about a bayo lug, like flash hiders... but the REAL dangerous part of the AWB is and always has been the magazine ban.

We must NOT let them ban future production of normal capacity mags. We must NOT let them ban currently possessed mags.


I agree. While the 2nd.Amend. does protect Firearms form being banned it says nothing to protect the magazines that they use form a total ban. Without a magazine a semi-auto firearm is no better then a single shot.




TNFrank,

So what your saying is we are still "free" if all we are ALLOWED to have is a hunk of metal called a "receiver", WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO, THROW IT AT THEM?

I kinda doubt thats what the founders had in mind when they authored the Bill of Rights
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 4:52:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Freakzilla:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
You guys are worried about bayonet lugs and flash hiders... I could care less about a bayo lug, like flash hiders... but the REAL dangerous part of the AWB is and always has been the magazine ban.

We must NOT let them ban future production of normal capacity mags. We must NOT let them ban currently possessed mags.


I agree. While the 2nd.Amend. does protect Firearms form being banned it says nothing to protect the magazines that they use form a total ban. Without a magazine a semi-auto firearm is no better then a single shot.




TNfrank,

So what your saying is we are still a free nation if all we are allowed to have is a hunk of metal called a receiver, WHAT WE GONNA DO, THOW IT AT THEM?



LOL, think ya' need to go back in the thread and read some of my posts.
What I was saying was that the 2nd. Amend. protects FIREARMS but noting is said that that Amend. about magazines because they didn't have them back then. There are a lot of sneeky ways that the gun grabbers could screw with us that would be within their Constitutional limites. A magazine ban would be one way, a tax and registration of semi-autos would be another. While it would be a pain in the ass to have to pay a tax on your AR, Constitutionally they could get away with it because they wouldn't be banning anything. Just taxing it.
Link Posted: 7/2/2004 5:09:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/2/2004 5:11:57 PM EST by Freakzilla]
Uh, no, i get exactly what your saying, and its twisted

The founders let the "people" have "muskets"...



The military arm of the day

Would they have stood for a ban on musketballs, HELL NO!
Top Top