[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BANNED!! (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/7/2006 11:35:41 PM EDT
With all due respect, i cant see why you guys in the States get so bent up over these "Bans", i mean you can bulk buy before hand, you can still keep your Guns/Mags etc, a Ban in the UK means a Ban lock stock & barrel, we lucky people get to lose all our stuff & it's never to be seen again.
|
SOMEONE has to get upset or we will eventually become like the UK, Australia,Canada......Sorry to burst the OP's bubble, but the UK's nanny state is like a plague out of control...........infecting the rest us. I don't mean this as a personal attack to the OP, just his government. 
|
the Nazi antigun fascist BS of England (im English American) is just sickening trash. the anti-gun Europeans remind me of sheep ready for the slaughter, and they think self-defense is a heresy. no respect for them. |
|
The dems learned all about the shortcomings the last time they did it in 94. Only banned standard mags, minor features and they put a sunset into it. They will NOT make that mistake again. There will be no sunset clause in the next attempt. You'll see a push for ALL detachable mag semi-autos to be restricted, possibly with registration required and no way to pass them on to your kids/heirs (like they did in California). Any "evil, cop killer" handgun like the 5.7 will be on their hit list this time. Any .50 cal bolt or semi will be on the immediate hit list, they've made that clear. The only thing that they'll leave alone is bolt rifles, shotguns and black powder. Elmer Fudd would rouse from his stupor if they targeted those. |
This guy 'gets it'… FWIW, your 'US' gun grabbers are very active over here in supporting the gun grabbers… examine, experiment, learn, reapply… Repeat as neccessary until you get your way. ANdy |
C'mon, you mean you don't think that there was a REASON for the sunset provision? The reason was that (1) if the Republicans were in office, they could embarass them with it if they didn't reinstate the ban, and (2) if the Dems were in office, they'd reinstate it in a heartbeat, to make themselves look good. The sunset provision was a win/win situation for them. Why else could they have done it? |
They never give up. So neither can we. |
Because it got them the votes they needed to pass it. Many of the "flaws" in the AWB were things put there to placate various fence sitters. The AWB passed by only 1 vote in a Democrat majority house, they had to make concessions or it would have died. |
California is a lock stock and barrel ban. NOTHING is transferrable. Once the owner dies or moves, it doesn't exist in the state anymore. |
|
I posted this the other day. I beleive this SOME of what we can expect... Federal Arsenal License: To possess more than 20 firearms (and parts such as bolts would be regulated as firearms) 1,000 rounds of ammo or just 1,000 primers, you’d need a special $300 “federal arsenal license”. The three-year license would require law enforcement approval and an extensive background check. BATFE Home Inspections: To get an “arsenal license”, you’d have to be willing to open your home to inspections by BATFE agents three times a year. Small Handguns Banned: Possession of small-caliber pistols and short-barreled revolvers would be banned. Also in jeopardy would be older guns, such as single-action revolvers, that lack prescribed safety devices. Magazines Banned: Bill Clinton’s ban on magazines of more than 10 rounds would be replaced with a ban on magazines that hold more than six rounds. Ammunition Banned: Ammunition determined to be “non-sporting” would be banned. Any handgun ammunition left on the market would see a federal excise tax increase of 50 percent. Interstate mail-order ammunition sales would be prohibited. Waiting Periods/Gun Rationing: There would be a national seven-day waiting period on handguns and handgun ammunition sales, and you’d not be able to buy or transfer more than one handgun in a 30-day period. Registration: Buying a handgun, parts, or ammunition would require a state-issued photo ID license. You’d have to provide fingerprints, pay a fee and pass a firearm safety course to obtain a two-year license. Buyers would have to “provide information necessary to register the handgun transfer”. Transfer of a handgun would require registering the transfer with the state’s chief law enforcement officer. |
I think that is too extreme to happen. |
Just out of curiosity what actually happens in this case? Are you required to turn it over to the police? Criminal charges for sale/possession? Never have lived, or will live, in CA so I'm not familiar with how this works. |
I can see anyone one of these happening. Maybe not in the next two years, but this is what the Lib's have on their minds. |
Because one ban turns into another until we end up with our anus as completely and thoroughly raped as yours is. We would rather avoid that. |
In the near future, yes. In the log term, no way. So, what is the breaking point? When will patriots and gun owners stand in the face of the government and tell them to stop infringing upon our 2nd amendment rights? The NFA wasn't enough, nor was the GCA, the 86 ban, the import ban, or the Clinton Gun Ban. Will a semi-auto ban be enough? I doubt it. Gun owners will just roll over and comply. As long as the fuds get to keep their bolt actions, shotguns, and muzzle loaders, everything will be great. After all, the 2nd amendment does give them the right to hunt... 
|
In any case, stop giving them ideas. 
|
The goal is to take all guns out of civilian hands. Anything else is but a stepping stone. |
That would still accomplish California's goals. If a person moves out of state, those restricted firearms are forever out of state. They can never be brought back in. |
Are you serious? Do yo uthink that the Fudds give a damn? Most of the Fudds fire less than 20 rounds a year, and most of them are probably drunk rounds, as the Fudds don't care about the 'hunt', but about geting out of the house. 'Sportsmen' are the bane of true Second Amendment advocates, as their mentality is 'what do you need THAT for', and 'it ain't a huntin' gun, so why shuld I care?'. The ycannot grasp the idea that the purpose of gun ownership is for the taking of the government, and lives, if necessary. Keep on believing that the Fudds will ever really care about guns...They can always get a new hobby. |
Where do you think this came from? This is some of the stuff they are looking at trying to do.
|
| We have a 2nd Amendment to be used against an abusive government. Our elected officials are to serve the people but when they abuse that power then they are to be disbanded. You are a gun owner but with that comes certain responsibilities and it was not written nor had anything to do with hunting or self defense. |
+1...If a person in CA has a registered "Assault Weapon," and moves out of state, the only transferring that can happen is to someone else out-of-state. It can't come back into CA under new ownership at all...even if it gets neutered to comply with SB23 (the restriction on "Evil Features") as there are still restrictions by make and model under a different law... It sucks. But that's why we (well, some of us at least) keep trying to push back these rights-infringing laws, instead of bailing out. |
 
|
the reason you "can't see why" we "get so bent up over these 'Bans'", is why you have access to little weaponry at all in the UK. |
We the Electorate & our opinions are of no matter to our Government, it's not a case of having let it happen, it would've anyway with or without opposition, the Government we have is corrupt beyond belief. We have absolutely no alternative Party to vote in 'cos they're all bloody useless Lefties, there is the BNP but that doesnt bear thinking about. 
|
It was meant as a comparison, next to our draconian laws you have it easy. |
We don't have to "have it easy". Our constitution spells out the "right to keep and bear arms". The problem I foresee is that 99.9% of U.S. citizens will comply with whatever our nanny state decides to enact. I love a good cause, you can guarantee that someone is getting paid. I'll step up on my soap box for a moment: Everyone needs to read Democracy in America, it foreshadows a lot of what is going on today. People are stupid (generally), they will do whatever the .gov or special interest groups tell them to, because it is easier than thinking for themselves. There is very little difference between parties in our current political climate. The end goal is to make people as dependent on the .gov as possible. It is a lot easier to control a population that is fucking clueless. ETA: I can't spell today. |
Not strictly true. As long as they are registered, they can be brought back in. As a practical matter, once someone has escaped from this place, it seems unlikely that they would return. There also does not appear to be anything in the AWB that prevents the attorney general from accepting applications for registration of new so-called assault weapons, although he is not compelled to do so. Of course with the typical liberal attoney's general that we have here, new registrations won't be happening. |
You've just described my situation. I moved to a more free state for education and work reasons, and now, though I miss the weather, coast, oaktrees, redwoods, etc., I would have a very hard time moving back. For one thing, I'd have to give up some of my guns to go back. |
|
The dems learned all about the shortcomings the last time they did it in 94. Only banned standard mags, minor features and they put a sunset into it. They will NOT make that mistake again. No, you misunderstand. The ONLY way they got enough votes in 94 was to add the sunset. If the bill had been any more strict that it was, it would not have garnered those last few votes (2 if I remember correctly) to pass it. Also, this time we have the truth on our side. As Wayne Lapierre said, "They lied it into law." We are better organized, internet is widely available to notify us, whereas before the only info we had on gun bills was three months later when we'd read about them in magazines. Few people had internet in '94 as compared to today. |
Don't feed the troll. |
What you are forgetting is that the gun grabbers don't give a rat's ass about the truth. Gun control is all about CONTROL. They think that they know better than us, so they will do anything they can to force it on us. |
YOu didn't know that the Second Amendment has an underlying reason, and that reason is for the overthrow of the government? I didn't either, until I got a REAL education, from the words that the Founding Fathers wrote, that they DON'T teach in school. |
If you think i'm looking to start trouble your wrong!
|
Ireland? The home of my grand parents? Are you saying American gun grabbers are there? You guys are having this problem too? I don't know much about the Irish and guns... fill me in please. |
| our country was created by people who hated the rule of the king. They wrote the second ammendment i think as a way to make shure the US was never fully ruled by one person. The second amendment keeps alive our ability to over throw our gov should the US turn into a totalitarian state or something similar. Also why would you want an unarmed public if that is not your ultimate goal? Its not just about our guns, its about the direction a gov is obviously going in if it dis-arms its public... |
I disagree. You don't think Pelosi would go for all those? Sure she would. And who do you think would, or could, stop her? Bush and a veto? He wouldn't veto it because he's got bigger fish he wants to fry and needs Pelosi to get it done. I sincerly hope I'm wrong. |