Posted: 2/13/2006 3:01:14 PM EDT
If another AWB was passed would citizens be required to turn over their "assault weapons?" 
|
|
Funny thing. I was on a boat in the Ohio River and it flipped over. Well, I just happened to have all of my Assault Weapons with me. I barely made it. It was horrible. I managed to save my own life. My Assault Weapons, however, Well they didn't make it. I'm sure they're all still laying on the bottom of the river. Just go look, You'll see. ETA. Spelling. |
|
Doubtful in the near future, but I could see it happening incremenatly over a period of time. First, reintroduce the 94 ban with the same "evil features" language. Second, ban production of military style semi-auto rifles in any configuration, but presently owned ones are grandfathered. Third, legislate that grandfathered firearms need to be registered as NFA items. Fourth, either ban NFA firearms or restict their ownership even more. I'm not a legal scholar by any means, so I'm not certain how the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the Constitution would come into effect. |
Um. I don't think you got what I was really saying. Read it again and think "boating accident." |
Are you new to firearms? The 1994 AWB only banned the manufacture of NEW assault weapons and 11+ round magazines. Ones made before could be legally bought, sold, and accessorized to your heart's content. |
I know what you meant. When it is time to use the boating accident story, it is time to use your guns. |
Oh, I follow you now. The thing is, if my plan would be to use force, I wouldn't state that here, particularly not well in advance of the need to do so. It could hurt any potential legal defense I might have between now and TEOTWAWKI -- you know, crazy gun nut who says he'd shoot the feds before letting them take his guns. I find it's wiser to make jokes about boating accidents than discuss certain matters, at least for the time being. There are other things I don't discuss here for similar reasons. But I agree with you in principle. |