Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/28/2002 6:32:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2002 6:36:58 AM EDT by GovtThug]
If the NRA took a strong stance against a new “Assault Weapons Ban” and set up a fund specifically for the defeat of any such proposed legislation, how would this affect your support of the NRA?
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:38:01 AM EDT
If they did that, I'd finally join.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:40:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0: If they did that, I'd finally join.
View Quote
[b]If everyone WOULD join, they COULD do that.[/b]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:42:25 AM EDT
If they did that, my feelings towards the organization would improve dramatically. I have been a member for a while and have been debating wether or not to renew my membership because I feel that they are not fighting hard enough..
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:42:57 AM EDT
We need to get the bolt-action crowd to wake up and see that once the semiautos are gone THEY'RE THE NEXT TARGET. [marines]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:46:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:46:56 AM EDT
Why would they oppose something they helped write in 1994?? As long as NRA is willing to "compromise" on "reasonable" gun control, they will not be getting support from me. As an activist in Oregon, nra has done nothing to help us, when we got "active" and opposed anti-gun legislation, or actions by local govts... [url]http://www.gunowners.org/index.html#bodlet[/url]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:49:15 AM EDT
Need another category for your poll, I am a life member and I would contribute more to such a fund.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:51:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2002 6:53:13 AM EDT by California_Kid]
Originally Posted By liberty86: Why would they oppose something they helped write in 1994....
View Quote
The NRA can and should change its mind. The best course of action when you realize you made a mistake is to admit it, apologize, and get on with your life.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:56:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:01:38 AM EDT
By 'that they helped write', you mean that the NRA tried like HELL to soften the provisions of a restrictive law that they opposed, but thought might eventually pass? 'Politics', my dear [b]Liberty86[/b], is quite correctly called the art of compromise. You give the NRA a GOP-controlled House and Senate, as we did in 1994, and you see what you get - NO MORE ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION PASSES! And just ask the Republican Party if they appreciate the help (and contributions) they received from the NRA and its members.... Do you understand that, in the least? That unless we have the numbers in the House and Senate, anything Sarah Brady and HCI wants, they will likely get? And the Republican Party is the only hope we have. It would be like fighting the Revolutionary War with several different Generals leading the rebels. All are seeking freedom, but Gen. Washington's Continental Army is more numerous and well-led. The Massachusetts folks wanted Washington to retake Boston from the Redcoats way before he was ready to do so. Should the Massachusetts patriots have left the Continental Army to try and lay siege to Boston by themselves? Or stay with Gen. Washington and win the war? We all know what the NRA would like - a repeal of most, if not all, of the anti-gun laws that have been written over the last 100 years. They must, however, be realistic or risk losing their political base. Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:03:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Flood_of_Sins: Need another category for your poll, I am a life member and I would contribute more to such a fund.
View Quote
Good idea.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:06:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:14:49 AM EDT
To all those who are not members of the NRA. Although I do agree with some of your reasons for not joining, or not agreeing with the NRA's policies and past history, I think you are doing more damage to the cause than you realize. The anti's are using your non-membership status for their own purposes. On CSPAN last week, the Presidents of VPC and AGV (Americans Against Gun Violence?) had a 'discussion' proposing further bans and restrictions on gun/ammo ownership and possession. One of the audience members asked a question regarding the NRA's Membership reaction to new restrictions. Both Anti-gun groups said that the NRA represents only a small percentage of rabid gunners. This is evidenced by the numbers. There are 30-60 million gun owners in the US, yet the NRA membership is only 4 million. Therefore, 90% of gunowners do not agree with the NRA nor their stances. 90% of gun owners agree with 'our' (anti-gunners) stance on restricting possession and ownership of guns. If this 90% of gun owners disagreed with 'us' they would join the NRA to fight us, which they have not. This is para-phrased, but it is the crux of the response. Although I agree with some peoples reasons for not joining the NRA, the truth of the matter is that numbers count, whether you agree 100% or not. GOA and other groups are growing and are an attractive alternative to the NRA, but when it comes to politics, numbers count, and the NRA surpasses all others. The NRA is a 'Sporting Organization' and that is where their primary thrust is directed. 2nd Ammendment and RKBA issues are secondary to this as we all know, but...the NRA has the numbers that for years have scared people and polititians. Now the anti's are using these numbers against us. These 'what about the other 90% of gun owners' are hurting the overall cause. The NRA may not be perfect, but they are a powerful threat to antigunner efforts. I've been a member for over 20 years, but that is my choice. What I request non-members to consider is that the cost of membership just to increase the membership numbers may be a small cost to aid the overall cause. Imagine the impact of a NRA representative walking into a Senator's Office with 10, 20 or even 40 million members, rather than the 4 million they currently have. (Flame retardent suit is now on!)
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:18:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Flood_of_Sins: Need another category for your poll, I am a life member and I would contribute more to such a fund.
View Quote
All membership levels should be covered by choice #3: "I’m a member, and I would contribute additional money to a special fund."
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:32:02 AM EDT
To all of those that feel they need not belong to the NRA, I would like to point out that I do not live under your laws but, I still am a life member. I belong to two other organisations (again life memberships) in another country other than where I live. Either we all join and pool the funds or we shall find another hobby. I would rather say, at least I tried rather than sit back with a few extra dollars in my pocket knowing I did nothing. Either you are on the team or you are not.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:34:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtddaly: If they did that, my feelings towards the organization would improve dramatically. I have been a member for a while and have been debating wether or not to renew my membership because I feel that they are not fighting hard enough..
View Quote
Are you a voting member? If not, consider sticking with the NRA long enough to qualify. As much as I gripe and moan about the NRA, the problem lies within the leadership, not the organization itself. Even though I signed the same petition you did, the only way to really change the NRA's current position is from within, by voting out the people who aren't representing you.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:35:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2002 7:58:11 AM EDT by edpmedic]
I am a life member along with my son. I should not have to pay extra money for things they should be fighting for anyway. If they would stop sending the same mail. Tapes which I am not going to pay for or send back anyway. Also sending me a poll and then asking me to join when I already do, they would have enough money to FIGHT for ALL rights of gun owners. Wait till those hunting guns are banned then who will still belong to the NRA. The only reason I joined was because my club and certain matches make you belong. To me that is extortion and not fair to any gun owner who wants to shoot. By the way I'm still waiting for my free hat and some other things for being a life time member. Edited to add: I respect what the NRA stands for, but they only seem to fight for the rights of hunters and some parts of target shooting. I have been to some meetings and saw this first hand. Why is it that they would fight for your choice of weapon if you gave them extra money.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:37:34 AM EDT
If the NRA got rid of Charlton "I hate AK-47s" Heston and Wayne "I'm a spineless weasel" LaPierre, if the NRA made a PUBLIC stance against both new "assault weapon" legislation and opposition to the current AW ban renewing with real facts that people could research and understand (such as these weapons being used in less than 1% of crimes, that the AW ban did nothing to stop crime) I'd start sending them at least $200 per year, though I wouldn't join as a member. But I'll be damned if I'm going to give it to an organization that compromises my rights away and gives member dollars straight to the bolt-action hunters.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:57:01 AM EDT
I'm sometimes amazed by the negative NRA comments made here and on other gun related forums. No, the NRA isn't perfect, it's damn near impossible to please everyone. The NRA has by far one of the most effective lobbying organizations in Washington (as far as size goes, I think it recently slipped behind AARP to number two). They understand how the political machine works, how to work with it and they get results. They were critical in getting CCW laws passed and effective in defeating the little known anti-gun legislation you really don't hear much about... taxes on ammo, one gun a month etc. They can't be expected to win every issue hands down, so it's either compromise or take it or leave it. The Senators and Congressmen they deal with are lawyers accustomed to deal making... they don't want to give their voters the impression that they're owned by the NRA. My personal belief is that we'd be way worse off without them. And if anyone thinks the GOA would better serve our interests; what have they done and what kind of effectiveness do they have? They're the Libertarian Party of RKBA groups. I wish the GOA *had* more influence as I totally agree with their positions, but the reality of things just isn't going to let that happen. (BTW, I'm a member of both the NRA and GOA). Anyhow, as long as the Brady/MMM/VPC types are apoplectic about them and take every opportunity they can to lambaste them, then they must be doing something right. At least the enemy of my enemy sort of reasoning should be good enough to back the NRA.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 8:11:09 AM EDT
Look,all I own are AWs. I don't hunt. Why should I send my money to a group who has no problem selling me out to keep their deer-gunner good'ol boys happy? ETH says that the NRA had to "compromise". That compromise mentality will have my favored guns taken from me for the good of the hunters. That is who the NRA primarily defends. Note: I have no issues with hunting, just not my thing, hunters are good people. When I say "hunters" I am meaning that group of firearm enthusiast.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 8:26:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: You give the NRA a GOP-controlled House and Senate, as we did in 1994, and you see what you get - NO MORE ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION PASSES!
View Quote
Maybe it's just me, but I look at that from a dual perspective. Yes, you are absolutely correct, in that you get no more anti-gun legislation. While some say this is due to the makeup of Congress I do respect that the lobbying of the NRA has much to do with that makeup. However, there is the flip-side. That means in giving the NRA a GOP controlled House and Senate, they were able to do nothing pro-active with it. And I'm not even talking about repealing laws. Maybe passing just ONE of the many bills out there written to either respect our rights, or to repair the political process. So yes, on the one hand we are stemming the tide of anti-gun legislation. However, on the other hand, it is little more than a respite until the next round of anti-gun laws when the hands change...
That unless we have the numbers in the House and Senate, anything Sarah Brady and HCI wants, they will likely get?
View Quote
Why then do we not get the flipside? If we did, as you mentioned, give the House/Senate after 94, what did we get out of it....not what was stopped, what did we get?
We all know what the NRA would like - a repeal of most, if not all, of the anti-gun laws that have been written over the last 100 years. They must, however, be realistic or risk losing their political base. Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
That I believe is the crux of it. No, I do not know that the NRA would want a repeal of most of those laws. I wish I could have some crystal ball style view of the inner workings of the NRA, but I do not, and thusly all I can do is view their words and their actions. And from those there really is nothing but contradiction. I don't want to sound like I'm 100% bashing the NRA. In fact, I'm very much teetering over whether or not to become a member. But for every point I come up with to join, I come up with another that contradicts it......
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 8:33:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Aces-and-Eights: No, the NRA isn't perfect, it's damn near impossible to please everyone. The NRA has by far one of the most effective lobbying organizations in Washington (as far as size goes, I think it recently slipped behind AARP to number two). They understand how the political machine works, how to work with it and they get results.
True, but you could give a very similar argument as to why all gun owners should be card carrying members and supporters of the ACLU.
My personal belief is that we'd be way worse off without them. And if anyone thinks the GOA would better serve our interests; what have they done and what kind of effectiveness do they have?
View Quote
Yes, we would possibly be much worse off. Thought there is always the consideration that some group, had the NRA never existed, might have risen up to fill the void. One thing I can think of that GOA did was to start pushing back against the onslaught of crap the Bradys and VPCers were pushing during this MD fiasco.....all the while the NRA was 'no commenting'....was it much? Who knows, though it did get all the way to 60 Minutes, which suprised the heck out of me. It meant enough to me to get a life membership.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 9:26:09 AM EDT
Post from S0ulzer0 -
ETH says that the NRA had to "compromise". That compromise mentality will have my favored guns taken from me for the good of the hunters. That is who the NRA primarily defends.
View Quote
How is it that 'compromise' in order to prevent something [u]worse[/u] from happening is a problem? You can draw a line in the sand if you wish, but now is not the time to do so. We sits on our asses and complain that 'they' are not doing anything about our loss of rights. Hell, [b]Kroagnon[/b] is happy as the dickens to sit on the sidelines and wait until the NRA becomes the 'perfect' RKBA organization of his dreams....and yet will not lift a finger to help make it so! There are rules folks, and to be able to vote in the NRA elctions where the directors who guide the NRA are chosen, you must be a 'life member', which makes complete sense, doen't it? So you little people on the periphery of the RKBA movement, continue doing what you're doing, or, more accurately, what you're NOT doing, and I can assure you that Schumer/Clinton will be more than happy to pry your gun away from your cold, dead hands! If you think the NRA is doing badly, then get into the NRA and change it. Or would that just 'mess up' your well-planned weekends? Or deny you the opportunity to spend more money on useless gadjets for your arsenal that you will sheepishlessly give up when push comes to shove. If you are not supporting the right to keep and bear arms, right now, then you are undermining the right to keep and bear arms, right now! Easy as that! Eric The(NRA-LifeMemberSince1976!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 9:49:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: You can draw a line in the sand if you wish, but now is not the time to do so. ....... So you little people on the periphery of the RKBA movement, continue doing what you're doing, or, more accurately, what you're NOT doing, and I can assure you that Schumer/Clinton will be more than happy to pry your gun away from your cold, dead hands! .... If you are not supporting the right to keep and bear arms, right now, then you are undermining the right to keep and bear arms, right now! Easy as that! Eric The(NRA-LifeMemberSince1976!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, If this is not the time to "draw a line in the sand", what will be the signs that the time has arrived? Is there any evidence that we are or soon will be moving toward that time, or have we been consistently moving away from such a time since the 1930's? It is my perception that Republicans & the NRA have taken up a defensive posture, and are simply slowing down the agenda of the liberal political establishment. It is my belief that we need to jump ship and call the Republican party, the NRA, and others who say they agree with us, to follow us. You will say that this is giving in to the Democrats & gun-grabbers. I say that the Republicans (& NRA) have already given in, so I can't support them. Besides, the recent Democratic movement in support of gun-rights (yeah, it's a sham, but the sheep buy it) makes me wonder why the Republicans have not also shifted to the right. Instead they're becoming indistinguishable from the Democrats. Richardson.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 9:50:00 AM EDT
ETH, I'm not saying your wrong. But what are you saying, the lesser of the evils? Everyone else gets to keep their guns but me because it's better to give up AWs then lose all guns? Not Me. It shouldn't matter what type of gun. If that's drawing a "line in the sand", then so be it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 9:53:17 AM EDT
Post from hard-case -
That means in giving the NRA a GOP controlled House and Senate, they were able to do nothing pro-active with it. And I'm not even talking about repealing laws. Maybe passing just ONE of the many bills out there written to either respect our rights, or to repair the political process.
View Quote
Now, this is precisely what I was talking about. The NRA, that just led us through the eight years of Clinton, with a AWB that will sunset in 2004, should be 'doing something' with it's razor thin (6 seat majority) in the House and no majority at all in the Senate. OK, [b]hard-case[/b], [u]you[/u] are now the point man for the RKBA in Congress. What do you propose be done? Remember that you must deal with Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT), as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Let's hear your sweet talk for convincing him to even consider any RKBA legislation. At all. Next, let's see how you would present such RKBA legislation to Sen Tom Dasshole, (D-SD)the Majority Leader in the Senate, and talk him into even scheduling it for debate, much less an actual vote. Chances are, you couldn't even get into their outer offices, or past security. But you know better than all of the rest of us how these things MUST be done. Great! Get to work!
Why then do we not get the flipside? If we did, as you mentioned, give the House/Senate after 94, what did we get out of it....not what was stopped, what did we get?
View Quote
Do you recall [b]H. R. 125[/b] - A bill to repeal the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices? It was the bill proposed by 38 members of Congress seeking a total repeal of the AWB of 1994. It was filed on the very first day that the Republicans became the majority party in the House. Whatever happened to it? Why didn't the GOP shove it through the House and then on to the Senate? The Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995, is what happened. Now, how would you have handled [u]that[/u]? Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 10:02:03 AM EDT
Post from Richardson -
Eric, If this is not the time to "draw a line in the sand", what will be the signs that the time has arrived?
View Quote
When you see a Democrat President with both Houses together held by Democrats that have embarked upon a 'door to door' confiscation scheme about to be enacted. Any preciptitous actions by you [u]prior[/u] to that might well constitute 'treason.' Your failure to act [u]after[/u] that might likewise be held to be 'treason.' By patriots. Eric The(Simple,No?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 10:54:05 AM EDT
By then its too late Eric. By then all the weapons with which to make a reasonable defense will be gone, given up years before in "compromises". Trying to stop armored, machine gun toting JBTs with shotguns and bolt action rifles? The kind of weapons that Austrailians were left with in their "compromise"?
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 11:16:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from Richardson -
Eric, If this is not the time to "draw a line in the sand", what will be the signs that the time has arrived?
View Quote
When you see a Democrat President with both Houses together held by Democrats that have embarked upon a 'door to door' confiscation scheme about to be enacted. Any preciptitous actions by you [u]prior[/u] to that might well constitute 'treason.' Your failure to act [u]after[/u] that might likewise be held to be 'treason.' By patriots. Eric The(Simple,No?)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, As ArmdLbrl said, by then it will be too late. I'm not suggesting an armed uprising, I'm trying to avoid it. You sound like you're given over to this as a necessary outcome. I don't believe that's necessary. What I'm contending is that today is the day to quit supporting those who verbally "support the second amendment" but dance like those who promote "reasonable gun control". I'd suggest that there will be no confiscation while Democrats control the presidency & both houses. We'd all be ready & waiting for the legislation and plan accordingly. Instead, there will be a foundation of gun-registration, so they'll know where most of us are. It will probably happen with a republican president, and a national emergency (i.e. terrorist attacks using firearms). With a "pro-second amendment" republican president proclaiming amnesty for those who trade in their "unapproved" arms, before the confiscation begins, few will resist. Especially once the media claims that "only a few remote strongholds of fire-arms owners remain". Your option, which could mean fighting with muzzle-loaders, would likely find me giving up my firearms instead of resisting. Which Clint Eastwood character said, "Dyin' ain't much of a livin'". The line in the sand needs to be drawn politically. We need to support only those who will aggressively promote second amendment rights. And until we do that, Democrats & Republicans will claim to be "pro-second amendment" and wink at each other over this issue. Richardson
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 11:44:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0: Look,all I own are AWs. I don't hunt. Why should I send my money to a group who has no problem selling me out to keep their deer-gunner good'ol boys happy? ETH says that the NRA had to "compromise". That compromise mentality will have my favored guns taken from me for the good of the hunters. That is who the NRA primarily defends. Note: I have no issues with hunting, just not my thing, hunters are good people. When I say "hunters" I am meaning that group of firearm enthusiast.
View Quote
Maybe if the NRA had 3 million AR owners as member and 1 million Hunters, the NRA would take a more pro-active stance against the AWB. BTW, the NRA opposed the 1994 AW ban. When it was clear that it was going to pass, they "softened" the language. That is why you can buy a Post BAN and the law sunsets. Without the NRA, all semi rifles that accept detachable mags would be banned. What did GOA do? Well... They don't compromise, so they weren't and aren't involved.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 12:20:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: By then its too late Eric. By then all the weapons with which to make a reasonable defense will be gone, given up years before in "compromises". Trying to stop armored, machine gun toting JBTs with shotguns and bolt action rifles? The kind of weapons that Austrailians were left with in their "compromise"?
View Quote
Oh, really? [u]When[/u] exactly did YOU give up YOUR weapons that were reasonably necessary for defense? In 1994? When? I know I didn't, and, as I've always said, every weekend of gun shows across the nation, 'post-ban' weapons that are almost precisely like the weapons that were 'banned' are being sold to new gun owners. Our numbers are expanding every day! Are theirs? And you are as wrong as you can get about not having anything available to oppose JBTs with, due to all the 'compromises' that have occurred. BTW, history has taught us well that shotguns and bolt action rifles are [u]very[/u] useful in defending your rights - even against the heavily-armed JBTs. What's the Hun's time-honored and oft-repeated saying? [b]Don't worry if you don't have full-auto weapons on Day One of the Revolution - you [u]will[/u] have one on Day Two of the Revolution![/b] I have patiently tried to get y'all to realize that joining both the Republican Party and the NRA are the very best ways of trying to hang onto our RKBA. At the ballot box! We should have no problem hanging onto our rights if we stick together and vote together. Instead, some are determined to let their own private views against the Republicans and the NRA blind them to political reality. So be it. Only if the Republicans and the NRA fail to achieve what is necessary, should we even talk of alternative methods. You and the others are talking about JBTs. You and the others brought it up. So fine. Understand that it would just be much, much easier to simply win politically. Eric The(Peaceable)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 12:25:04 PM EDT
I don't agree with the "assault weapon" ban but I do support a ban on possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 12:25:44 PM EDT
No Eric, YOU were the one who brought up the specter of door to door gun confiscation. Yes the 94' ban still left us some defensive ability. But any further "compromise" will eliminate that. Untill and unless the anti-machine gun provisions of the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" of 1986-the first casualty of anti-gunners incrimentalism and gun owners "political expediancy"- are removed we won't really be safe.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 12:26:14 PM EDT
What's your problem with how the NRA handled the AW ban the first time around, anyway? They were consistently opposed to it. They turned down a "compromise" that would have allowed 20 round magazines, thus exempting most pistols. They came within an ace of defeating it in congress. And after the Republican takeover in '94 (caused in large part by the crime buill & AW ban) they attempted an outright repeal.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 1:32:11 PM EDT
For those that don't read the NRA website: Research Library | FAQs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why does NRA oppose “assault weapon” laws? There is no rational reason to restrict firearms as "assault weapons"-arguments for doing so are founded on emotion, not fact. State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that firearms arbitrarily defined as "assault weapons" have never been used to commit more than a minute fraction of violent crimes. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the author of the federal "assault weapons" law, admitted this fact before the law was passed, and a study mandated by Congress determined: "At best, the assault weapons ban can have a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders." "Assault weapons" have been incorrectly portrayed as being entirely different from other firearms. Despite their appearance, they operate like any other semi-automatic firearm, use the same ammunition as other firearms, and possess no feature or characteristic not available on other firearms. They are widely used for a variety of legitimate purposes. Please see: Semi-Automatic Firearms ********************************** Semi-Automatic Firearms >snip< What The Ban Really Does Despite the rhetoric, the gun law did not reduce the number of firearms, or assault weapons in particular, in law-abiding citizens' or criminals' hands. The law prohibited the manufacture, after Sept. 13, 1994, of a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a detachable magazine and two or more attachments (such as a bayonet lug or flash suppressor) with similar guidelines imposed on handguns and shotguns. The manufacture of "large" ammunition magazines (holding more than 10 rounds) was also outlawed. "Assault weapons" and "large" magazines manufactured before Sept. 13 are exempt from the law. Before Sept. 13, manufacturers accelerated production to increase inventories available for sale later. After the law took effect, the BATF informed manufacturers that they could produce firearms identical to assault weapons, but without one or more prohibited features. Also, new models of semi-automatics have been introduced, and the production of some previously-discontinued models has resumed. Surely, there are more assault weapons and "large" magazine in private hands today than there would have been in the absence of anti-gun politics. Assault Weapons & Citizens' Rights Gun-ban supporters claim that the Second Amendment protects the "right" of the National Guard to keep and bear arms though, as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution clearly state, only individuals can possess "rights;" governments and their agencies possess "powers." Additionally, the Guard was established 112 years after the Second Amendment was ratified, and it is only part of the militia under federal law, the remainder consisting of all other able-bodied males of age and some other males and females. (Title 10, ß311 and Title 32, ß313, U.S.C.) Further, because the Supreme Court has held that the Guard is subject to absolute control of the federal government (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990), the Guard cannot be the state militia envisioned by the Framers. [red]The Second Amendment mandates that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," to assure "a well regulated militia" composed of the citizenry, a check and balance on federal power that is "necessary to the security of a free state."[/red] Gun-ban supporters also claim that assault weapons are "military" firearms, and that civilians should be limited to "sporting" firearms, a claim with several flaws: First, rifles used today by the Armed Forces are fully-automatic (machineguns); assault weapons are semi-automatic. Second, the distinction between "military" and "sporting" firearms is a fake. Throughout American history, most firearms, firearms designs, ammunition calibers and firearm features used by the Armed Forces were first used by civilian gun owners, including semi-automatic firearms and many of the ammunition calibers and features common to them. Many firearms used by the Armed Forces are today widely used by civilians for formal and recreational target shooting, hunting and self-protection, and they are favored by collectors. Third, firearms that might be defined as "military" would be protected by the Second Amendment, which guarantees that the people may be armed to protect life and liberty, not merely to engage in "sport" shooting. In U.S. vs. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court recognized this point, stating that the Second Amendment protects arms that relate to "the preservation or efficiency" of the militia, meaning essentially all shoulder-fired and hand-held small arms and some others. The Court said that historically, "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves."
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 1:34:02 PM EDT
To those of you who think that the NRA is a hunters group, or bolt action group -whatever your wording - "If we do not stand together we most assuredly will hang separately." when I where my tinfoil hat I am concerned with being in a database of probable gunowners also. But its a lot easier to give my money to them and have the lawyers haggle over it then it will be to tell the JBT's " No. Sorry. you cant have them" My mind has been cleared. thank you for this post all. Im becoming a life member today.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 2:12:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: I don't agree with the "assault weapon" ban but I do support a ban on possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse.
View Quote
Ditto on the AWB. Imbroglio, in your opinion, which firearms are particularly suited for criminal misuse? Sat. Nite Specials? Nickel plated S&W's held at a 90 deg. angle? AK-47s? I finally sold my TEC-DC9M (pre-ban) to an FFL holder, not a gang banger. Personally, I'd rather face a thug holding a Tec-9 or a Saturday Nite Special than someone with a ACOG mounted M4gery. Not flaming you, just wondering your take on "criminal misuse"?
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 2:46:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:49:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mcnielsen: Ditto on the AWB. Imbroglio, in your opinion, which firearms are particularly suited for criminal misuse? Sat. Nite Specials? Nickel plated S&W's held at a 90 deg. angle? AK-47s? Not flaming you, just wondering your take on "criminal misuse"?
View Quote
Firearms showing capability of killing 10 and wounding 3. Those are the types of guns that should be banned. If you don't like it, you can take it up with the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. You civilians have had too many guns for too long and something needs to be done.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:11:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0: If they did that, I'd finally join.
View Quote
[b]If everyone WOULD join, they COULD do that.[/b]
View Quote
It doesn't take a billion members for them to release a statement saying "We are against the assault weapons ban, and we are going to do this, this, and this to fight it." If they would do that, I would gladly become a lifetime member. Until they make it plain and obvious they are here to support owners of all types of guns.. I'm not giving them anything.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:19:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dskeet:
Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0: If they did that, I'd finally join.
View Quote
[b]If everyone WOULD join, they COULD do that.[/b]
View Quote
It doesn't take a billion members for them to release a statement saying "We are against the assault weapons ban, and we are going to do this, this, and this to fight it." If they would do that, I would gladly become a lifetime member. Until they make it plain and obvious they are here to support owners of all types of guns.. I'm not giving them anything.
View Quote
Did you read GovThug's post above? It starts something like this "Why does NRA oppose “assault weapon” laws?" from the NRA FAQ.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:36:01 PM EDT
I just read it(I didn't before my last post). Good piece of info. Its good to know they are against it.. but are they going to do anything? Only time will tell. I'd love it if Heston did his "cold dead hands" deal holding up a Bushmaster [:D] Chances are.. I'll become a member if the republicans take control of the gov again. Simply because if the dems keep control the sunset is all but hopeless.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:57:20 PM EDT
Also, if you would like to know what the NRA does in your state, here's some of what they do: [url]http://www.nradefensefund.org/[/url]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 8:15:13 PM EDT
OK...I did it. [b]Just became a life member.[/b]
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 9:00:30 PM EDT
The biggest problem with the NRA s they are willing to let basis for firearms ownership be redefined as they fight what ever ban or law the come out against. ETH, et al, I can completely see where you are coming from.... Still, our rights, as defined, not granted, by the Constitution is not amendable or scalable. It is an absolute. And, when a political group starts bargaining for its preservation by redefining its meaning or allowing it to be encroached upon in acts of compromise to ensure passage, then they become a danger. A danger meriting complete disregard.... not yet. But the NRA is a dangerous group. They so vehemently preport to represent gun owners that when they begin to bend to far the public opinion will sway with them. if the NRA starts saying this is OK, that is not... well you see where I am going. Heh, to jail if we don't get this train wreck stopped.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 9:53:11 AM EDT
You think the AWB we have now sucks? Look what we might have had if the NRA hadn't been fighting against the AWB: ******************************************** H.R.3371 Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1991 (Reported in House) SEC. 2021. PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF ASSAULT WEAPONS. (a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(s)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess an assault weapon , unless-- `(A) the weapon was lawfully and continuously possessed by the person since before the date the weapon is included in the list set forth in section 921(a)(30); or `(B) the weapon was lawfully transferred to the person after the effective date of this subsection. `(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer an assault weapon , unless-- `(A) the weapon was lawfully and continuously possessed by the person since before the date the weapon is included in the list set forth in section 921(a)(30); and `(B) the transfer is in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.'. (b) ASSAULT WEAPON DEFINED- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding after the paragraph added by section 2001(b) of this Act the following: `(30)(A) The term `assault weapon' means any of the following weapons, or a copy thereof: `(i) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil. `(ii) Auto Ordnance 27A1 Thompson, 27A5 Thompson, and M1 Thompson. `(iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70). `(iv) Colt AR-15 and CAR-15. `(v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC. `(vi) INTRATEC TEC-9. `(vii) MAC 10 and 11. `(viii) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs. `(ix) Springfield BM59, SAR48, and G3SA. `(x) Steyr AUG. `(xi) Street Sweeper and Striker 12. `(xii) All Ruger Mini-14 models with folding stocks. `(xiii) Armscorp FAL. [red]`(B) The term `copy' means, with respect to a weapon specified in subparagraph (A), a weapon , by whatever name known, which embodies the same basic configuration as the weapon so specified.'.[/red] (c) AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO RECOMMEND MODIFICATIONS TO THE LIST OF ASSAULT WEAPONS- (1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: [red]`Sec. 931. Recommendation of modifications to the list of assault weapons `From time to time, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, may recommend to the Congress that certain weapons be added to, or removed from, the list set forth in section 921(a)(30).'.[/red] (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `931. Recommendation of modifications to the list of assault weapons.'. (d) PENALTIES- (1) UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF ASSAULT WEAPON - Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking `or (q)' and inserting `(r), or (s)'. (2) ENHANCED PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OR USE OF ASSAULT WEAPON DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of such title, as amended by section 2001(a) of this Act, is amended by inserting `an assault weapon ,' after `semiautomatic firearm,'. (e) REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSFER OF ASSAULT WEAPONS- (1) REGULATIONS- Section 926 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `(d) Within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations governing the transfer of assault weapons, which shall allow such a transfer to proceed within 30 days after the Secretary receives such documentation as the Secretary may require to be submitted with respect to the transfer, and shall include provisions for determining whether the transferee is a person described in section 922(g).'. (2) PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS- Section 924(a) of such title is amended-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking `paragraph (2) or (3) of'; and (B) by adding at the end the following: `(5) Whoever, in violation of a regulation issued under section 926(d), transfers an assault weapon that has been lawfully and continuously possessed by the person since before the date the weapon is included in the list set forth in section 921(a)(30) shall be fined not more than $500.'.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 9:56:32 AM EDT
But wait, there's more! *************************************** Assault Weapons Prohibition Act of 1993 (Introduced in House) HR 1706 IH 103d CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1706 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or transfer of assault weapons. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 7, 1993 Mr. MFUME (for himself, Mr. WYNN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. BLACKWELL, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. TUCKER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. MAZZOLI, Mr. RUSH, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr. WATT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or transfer of assault weapons. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Prohibition Act of 1993'. SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF ASSAULT WEAPONS. Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(s)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person-- `(A) to transfer an assault weapon ; or `(B) to possess an assault weapon after the 90-day period that begins with the effective date of this subsection. `(2)(A)(i) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a transfer to or by, or a possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof, or any State or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof. `(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of an assault weapon by a person who-- `(i) has lawfully possessed the weapon since before the effective date of this subsection; and `(ii) has submitted to the Secretary, in such form and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulation-- `(I) the name (and any former name), address, date of birth, and any driver's license number of the person; and `(II) the serial number of the weapon . `(3) Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this subsection.'. SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPON . Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(29) The term `assault weapon' means-- `(A)(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; `(iii) Beretta AR-70 (SC-70); `(iv) Colt AR-15 and CAR-15; `(v) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; `(vi) MAC 10 and 11; `(vii) Steyr AUG; `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9; `(ix) Street Sweeper and Striker 12; `(x) Auto Ordnance 27A1 Thompson, 27A5 Thompson, M1 Thompson; `(xi) Springfield BM59, SAR48, and G3SA; `(xii) All Ruger Mini-14 models with folding stocks; and `(xiii) Armscorp FAL; [red]`(B) any firearm which is functionally equivalent to any firearm specified in subparagraph (A);[/red] `(C) a firearm having threads, lugs, or other characteristics which are designed to facilitate the direct attachment of a silencer, bayonet, grenade launcher, flash suppressor, or folding stock to the firearm; `(D) any part or combination of parts designed to facilitate the attachment of a silencer, bayonet, grenade launcher, flash suppressor, or folding stock to a firearm; `(E) a detachable magazine, drum, belt, feed strip, or similar device which has a capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, 10 or more rounds of ammunition; and `(F) any combination of parts-- `(i) designed and intended solely and exclusively for assembling-- `(I) a firearm specified in subparagraph (A), or described in subparagraph (B) or (C); or `(II) a device described in subparagraph (E); and `(ii) from which a firearm or device referred to in clause (i) could be assembled if such parts were possessed or controlled by 1 person.'. SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPON . The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, may recommend to the Congress that the definition of an assault weapon in section 921(a)(29) of title 18, United States Code, be modified-- (1) to include firearms not covered by the definition which should be so covered; and (2) to exclude firearms covered by the definition which should not be so covered. [red]SEC. 5. ENHANCED PENALTIES. Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting `and if the firearm is an assault weapon , to imprisonment for 15 years,' after `ten years,'; and (2) by inserting `and if the firearm is an assault weapon , to imprisonment for 30 years,' after `twenty years,'.[/red] SEC. 6. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL. (a) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General of the United States shall-- (1) investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act on violent and drug-related crime; and (2) evaluate the recreational and other noncriminal uses of assault weapons (as defined in section 921(a)(29) of title 18, United States Code). (b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the matters described in subsection (a). SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become effective 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 10:15:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2002 10:16:21 AM EDT by GovtThug]
Yes, the NRA compromised in '94. But what was their alternative? They knew this bill was going to pass, so they could either help craft it to lessen the impact, or fight it the whole way and end up with something like the '91 or '93 ban. Now, I fucking HATE compromise. But in this case it wasn't "give something to get something", it was "give something or get completely screwed". They turned a ban on AR type rifles into a ban on flash suppressors. And they got a 10 year sunset added, so we could fight this fight again. This time, if we don't win, we WILL get screwed. The antis are not going to let a sunset through again.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 3:45:56 PM EDT
Teetering between joining or not. The few NRA members I know are hunter types who can't understand why I "need" anything like an AR. What do you guys think - is this the way the majority of NRA members think, or is it just where I live?
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 3:49:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By s0ulzer0: If they did that, I'd finally join.
View Quote
Same for me! That’s when I will be confident in the NRA defending our rights.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top