Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/15/2004 5:39:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:44:33 AM EST
Klinton just wanted to give the NRA a black eye. The AWB was just his first baby step to ban just about any worthwhile firearm. What it really did was get us off our asses. Thanx Willie.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:47:00 AM EST
Agreed. Alternately, if it just banned ARs, AKs, FAL, G3s, etc... It would also have been easily permanent. But because it messed with pistols, shotguns, and mag capacities typically known as standard, it touched many gun owners who never though of themselves as someone who own or would own something that was subject to a ban.

I frequently remember people 'discovering' that the Feds had declared that new standard magazines for their Hi-Power, or fun plinking mags for their 10/22 were illegal. It's kind of like seeing a politician promising to soak the rich with taxes, and later discovering that by his definition, YOU are rich. Take that Sucker!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:51:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 6:00:09 AM EST by M4]
I agree 100%. They went too big, and too loose is absolutely right, and I can assure you, that mistake wont happen twice. The next ban will nuke the black rifle industry....or attempt to. They will focus on complete weapons, not weapon features.

There will be another ban proposed & we're one major event (D.C.sniper, school shooting) from it going through to law like shit through a goose. Enjoy this freedom while it lasts.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:56:43 AM EST
"They" will never try something like that again.

It was a complete failure and cost them many seats in Congress.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:57:18 AM EST
I disagree. Nobody should have the right to pass laws that limit any part of the constitution. Especially, the "Bill of Rights".
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:00:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:05:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 6:14:06 AM EST by mac130]

Originally Posted By shotar:

Originally Posted By mac130:
I disagree. Nobody should have the right to pass laws that limit any part of the constitution. Especially, the "Bill of Rights".



Its not about the constitution, its about why their idea didn't fly. There was no successful Constitutional challenge. This thing was decided on a practical as opposed to theoretical basis.



I guess what I'm saying, is there should have been no ban, let alone a next one. When it comes to changing constitutional rights, only a national vote, not a political one, might be the best policy.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:09:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:19:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
I understand mac but you are back to the theoretical and not the practical. It comes down to what will fly lowest without tripping the radar. Had they just gone mag capacity, not even most here would have bitched all that much, and they would have accomplished their only substantive goal. I believe that Feinstein is not stupid. She will lay low for a year or three, and hit it again from that angle alone, and she will likely succeed.



I know I live in a fantasy world. I'm just sick of politics. It will be the downfall of this country some day. If we let just one right be taken, the rest will fall like dominoes.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:24:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 6:27:10 AM EST by warlord]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
I frequently remember people 'discovering' that the Feds had declared that new standard magazines for their Hi-Power, or fun plinking mags for their 10/22 were illegal. It's kind of like seeing a politician promising to soak the rich with taxes, and later discovering that by his definition, YOU are rich. Take that Sucker!


Yep, that is exactly right. On the surface, the sheeple goes "whew, I dodged a bullet there, they're only going after the rich." But after a long while, the sheeple discovers that anyone who is not on govt dole is the rich.



Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
"They" will never try something like that again.

It was a complete failure and cost them many seats in Congress.


Gun control is a very high priority item for the liberals and Dems. The liberals detest firearms ownership because it stands in the way of their liberals socialist/communist agenda. How can you impose your will on the proletariate when they have the means to resist you? The Dem/liberals want to impose their will on me, even if it kills me.



Originally Posted By mac130:
I disagree. Nobody should have the right to pass laws that limit any part of the constitution. Especially, the "Bill of Rights".


True, but since the legislature is created by the Constitution, and therefore it is assumed that any law it passes is constitutional, and the burden to prove it is unconstitituional is a heavy one.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:26:01 AM EST
In a grad school class, we had a discussion about effective political groups. The class was full of left-leaners. The consensus was that the NRA is generally successful because it is 'single issue'. That is, no gun control. The more multi-faceted an organization, the harder to remain focused.

I think the same is true for the AWB. Too many balls in the air. Gun control proponents know that they need to work incrementally. Their next ban attempt will not be so broad.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:28:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
"They" will never try something like that again.

It was a complete failure and cost them many seats in Congress.



BVMJH,
I believe "They" will try it again just as soon as "They" get a chance!

The reason why is because of the millions of $$$ they get from the antigunners.

Follow the money trail!

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:32:53 AM EST

I believe that Feinstein is not stupid. She will lay low for a year or three, and hit it again from that angle alone, and she will likely succeed.


Recall that over the summer she tried to keep the ban on features in place in exchange for a sunset solely on the magazine limitation.

I don't think she's stupid, but there's definitely something funny going on upstairs with that woman.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:35:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:36:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
"They" will never try something like that again.

It was a complete failure and cost them many seats in Congress.




BVM, you're dead wrong on this one. They are busy putting together a new ban now. People's memories are short and they'll forget how many seats it cost them pretty quickly.

We'll all fight this fight till we either die, or have a civil war and get back to Constitutionality.

It's not even CLOSE to over.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:40:06 AM EST
After watching the debates last spring on the senate floor I dont have much faith. What I saw truly floored me.
The lies, half-truths, obfuscations and made up up shit that they spewed and got away with was nothing short of amazing. That bulshit is on the senate record now.
Most of the sheep in this country didnt get to see or hear Larry Craig and even if they did how would they know he was telling the truth after listening to the rest of them. They believe this was about machine guns and that as I type Uzis and AK47s are flooding the streets.
Without a test for truth they can say what they want and pass what they want if they have the votes and never mind what is good or right for the people.
Our only hope is to have them voted out and you know who I mean.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:46:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
I gave this some thought. Its usually pretty damn hard to get rid of a law or fail to renew an existing law with a sunset clause. Even many of us considered the issue largely in doubt until Monday. Why did this happen? The emotions and advertisement and polls on the issue suggest that there was widespread support for renewel. Congress however failed to act. I think I know why and it is really simple. No one other than a few die hard supporters and opposers understood the law. Most people thought it banned machineguns, but it didn't. Most people knew really little about it except that one group thought it was a good idea and another thought it was a really shitty idea. Most people really just didn't care too much at all about it. Now here is why the next ban will work and what the antis missed the first time around.

The law had only one substantive clause. That was the one that limited mag capacity. If they had passed a law that said we are gonna limit all magazines for private sale in the US to 20 rounds, the law would have been bulletproof. Not even the CMP shooters would complain much. If that was all the law did then they would have had their perma ban, no hoopla, no lamentation and the only people moaning would have been the class three guys with bullet hoses. Their problem was they went too large, tried to use too many convoluted definitions and played too fast and loose with the truth. Had they just gone simple, they would have won the day.




And I betcha you would have been happy as pie...JBT!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:59:42 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:56:52 AM EST
No one needs an AK47 to go duck hunting.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:17:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
No one needs an AK47 to go duck hunting.



Your right...you need 2 of them!

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:47:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
"They" will never try something like that again.




You HAVE to be kidding..."they" will try it again next year. There is no doubt in my mind that here will be another ban of some kind in the next 5 years. I would REALLY like to be wrong on this, but a few more years of the kinds of bullshit lies we've heard about "assault weapons" from the media will have conviced enough of the sheeple to make it easy for them.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:57:34 AM EST
Outlawing magazines just does not have the political appeal of banning evil AK-47s, UZIs and other 'weapons of war.' I think you are right that if they had bitten off less, they would have gotten more.

I shot my new "noban" M4gery this morning, and it is pretty apparent that rifle portion of the AWB is much ado about nothing. The heart of what makes these weapons more capable than "sporting" semi-autos rifles is the high capacity magazines, not the bayonet lugs or folding stocks. That and the reliability.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:25:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By uncle_frank:
Klinton just wanted to give the NRA a black eye. The AWB was just his first baby step to ban just about any worthwhile firearm. What it really did was get us off our asses. Thanx Willie.



Nice Job Klinton! You moron.

He went on to say months or maybe years later, that the ban legislation was to thank for 20 lost congressional seats. Which by the way, shifted the balance of power to the good guys.

Thanks Willie!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 10:43:28 AM EST
The reason they care less about magazines is that it doesn't serve their purpose. They wish to establish the idea that there are certain firearms that are so dangerous that people should not be allowed to own them and legislation prohibiting them is OK.

Once the American public accepts that notion, an anti is half-way to his goal. Once you sell the idea that guns can be banned if they are somehow "more dangerous" than other guns, all you have to do is create a myriad of BS about why guns are more dangerous - cheap guns become "junk" guns that are too dangerous, expensive guns become "high-powered sniper rifles and assault weapons", shotguns become "street sweepers spewing more lead with a single pull of the trigger than a submachinegun", small guns become "Easily concealable choice of criminals" guns, big guns become "hand cannons".

This is why the concept of any kind of ban on firearms, even a meaningless cosmetic features ban, is much more important than the magazine ban to them.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:37:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
I understand mac but you are back to the theoretical and not the practical. It comes down to what will fly lowest without tripping the radar. Had they just gone mag capacity, not even most here would have bitched all that much, and they would have accomplished their only substantive goal. I believe that Feinstein is not stupid. She will lay low for a year or three, and hit it again from that angle alone, and she will likely succeed.



I don't agree. They pretty much only went "mag capacity". The other stuff was of very minor interest to most shooters.

Except for the mag capacity portion, the '94 ban did very little (and what little it did was just plain stupid from any practicle perspective). And even so, they had to add in a "protected gun" list and an experation date to get the thing to barely pass Congress. Had they lifted the mag capacity limit to, say, 20 or 30, they might have been able to make it permanite.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 1:02:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
I understand mac but you are back to the theoretical and not the practical. It comes down to what will fly lowest without tripping the radar. Had they just gone mag capacity, not even most here would have bitched all that much, and they would have accomplished their only substantive goal. I believe that Feinstein is not stupid. She will lay low for a year or three, and hit it again from that angle alone, and she will likely succeed.



Yes Sir, You are spot on. She's just going to regroup and come at us from another angle OR 2 and I do believe the next 4 years will have 2 gun oriented assaults on our rights. One on the magazine issue, the other concerning "Automatic" weapons. That will be the slippery slope she will pull us down.
Top Top