Posted: 2/26/2009 5:30:38 AM EDT
 Obama to seek NEW assault weapons ban
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," LINK REPAIRED 
|
|
Quoted:
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re-institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Linky no worky http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 |
|
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Will the Obama administration be replacing "...for the safety of the children" with "...for the safety of the Mexicans" in bullshit anti-gun speeches, Mr. AG? |
|
Quoted:
So Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves with semi-auto civilian rifles under names like DPMS, Bushmaster, Norinco, Stagarms, Colt, S&W, etc...etc...etc. Is that what they're trying to say? Exactly. To claim the 2nd is to blame for arming the narco-kleptocracy that is Mexico is a truly weak argument. |
|
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.
|
|
Hmmm and I quote.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," Well I guess that if they make sure that we cant have a flash hider and or a 30 round mag and a pistol grip it will solve the issues that Mexico has with fully auto weapons. Oh yeah and not to mention the little thing called NFA of 1934. But whatever I am just a silly tax paying civilian, what do I know. I count on the government to tell me what is best for me. 
|
|
Quoted:
Maybe it will go over just like the fairness doctrine did in the senate today........shot down with impunity. One Big Ass Mistake America may be a dumbass but the rest of the democraps don't want to grab the assault weapon rattlesnake by the tail again. Exactly. Reid and Pelosi have already come out and said they are 100% against it. makes me wonder which bill they'll squeeze it in to. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe it will go over just like the fairness doctrine did in the senate today........shot down with impunity. One Big Ass Mistake America may be a dumbass but the rest of the democraps don't want to grab the assault weapon rattlesnake by the tail again. Exactly. Reid and Pelosi have already come out and said they are 100% against it. makes me wonder which bill they'll squeeze it in to. Nope, it dawned on me this morning. Just my humble opinion..... They have no desire to push an perma-AWB, because they know it will go straight to the supreme court and they are VERY unsure that it will pass the smell test with our current SCOTUS, after the way the Heller decision came down. It is FAR better for them to wait for one of the 5 judges with a lick of sense to drop dead, and to be replaced by one of their own bleeding heart liberal cronies by the Obamanation, and then it would be ruled constitutional and we'd be stuck with it FOREVER...... 
Pray for the health and safety of our 5 conservative SCOTUS judges!!!!!!!!!!! 
I hope I'm right and our judges live long enough for us to put a TRUE conservative back into the office of the POTUS. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe it will go over just like the fairness doctrine did in the senate today........shot down with impunity. One Big Ass Mistake America may be a dumbass but the rest of the democraps don't want to grab the assault weapon rattlesnake by the tail again. Yeah, keep believing that.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe it will go over just like the fairness doctrine did in the senate today........shot down with impunity. One Big Ass Mistake America may be a dumbass but the rest of the democraps don't want to grab the assault weapon rattlesnake by the tail again. Exactly. Reid and Pelosi have already come out and said they are 100% against it. makes me wonder which bill they'll squeeze it in to. Nope, it dawned on me this morning. Just my humble opinion..... They have no desire to push an perma-AWB, because they know it will go straight to the supreme court and they are VERY unsure that it will pass the smell test with our current SCOTUS, after the way the Heller decision came down. It is FAR better for them to wait for one of the 5 judges with a lick of sense to drop dead, and to be replaced by one of their own bleeding heart liberal cronies by the Obamanation, and then it would be ruled constitutional and we'd be stuck with it FOREVER......
Pray for the health and safety of our 5 conservative SCOTUS judges!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope I'm right and our judges live long enough for us to put a TRUE conservative back into the office of the POTUS. We haven't had one of those for 20 years and none seem ready to run. Also Reagan did give us the ban on new MGs. |
|
The last Assault weapon ban was stupid because the ARs may have lost their flash hiders, collapsabile stocks, and bayonet lugs, but the barrels got more accurate, they still accepted hi-cap mags, and there was an infinite shit load of 30 rounders all over the place, just at $30 a mag versus $15 a mag. Don't they see that banning black rifles will solve nothing because the criminals will just steal the rifles from citizens, and buy automatic weapons on the black market.
I hope someone wakes up soon and realizes that this administration has no brains. The deficit from the new administration in this country in one year will be more than Bush's eight years as president. So much for anyone on the Dems side keeping their word. Even if the bill doesn't get passed, all black rifles will still be priced excessively high because people will live in fear wondering when the bill will be passed. |
|
Quoted:
[We haven't had one of those for 20 years and none seem ready to run. Also Reagan did give us the ban on new MGs. EOD President Reagan did not "give us" the MG ban. He signed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) which contained the BS machine gun ban The FOPA did the following: First it reformed the practices and procedures of the ATF. Second it provides a “safe passage” provision for interstate travel with a firearm. Third the act forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners Fourth, the FOPA provide clarification of prohibited persons. Which, despite some initial confusion, was improvement over the Gun Control Act of 1968. All good things and now for the bad Machine gun ban (The Hughes Amendment) As debate for FOPA was in its final stages, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment to ban the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986. However, any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians. Controversy exists regarding the validity of the amendment's inclusion into FOPA. The vote to include the amendment took place at night, when many of the lawmakers who would be opposed to its inclusion were not present. Also, the vote was an unrecorded voice vote, which some contend was inconclusive President Reagan signed a bill that was overall good for gun owners. The NRA and many other gun rights organizations supported the bill; even its bastardized final version. Monk P.S. I like Reagan so much I named a daughter after the man so yes I am biased when it comes to President Reagan but the fact remains FOPA was/is an inperfect victory for citizens. |
|
I just watched a video on CNN about the drug/cash/gun problem we have crossing the border. I am a little confused by some of the details. The current administration needs to get all of their talking points in order if they are going to get the liberal media involved in brain washing us 'correctly'.
Apparently, Eric Holder is using this as an excuse to ban 'assault weapons' , like the ar15. O.k., but in the video I saw, the cops complain about being undergunned by the baduys. Well hell, the cops have M16's. If these bad guys have semi auto rifles, I'd say the cops are not dissadvantaged. So the weapons under threat of being banned now in the US are not all that different that what the Mexican police have. In the same breath, CNN says that these 'harmless' little guns the police have are no match for the 50 cal guns the drugs dealers have. This sounds like barinless fear mongering to me. A huge Barrett 50 cal aint exactly what I'd what to have in a street shootout. This is all them more reason to put up a Big Azzzz wall between us and Mexico, and don't let anything cross it except for good lookin' Mexican hookers. |
|
folks, this ban WILL happen. It's not a matter of if, but when. If you don't believe it, you're in denial. Maybe you're too young to remember how the last one cam about and don't remember the prices of $50-100 mags, rifles tripling in price, etc., but the reality isn't about how much a mag will cost for your toy. The elect in DC aren't concerned about the toys you play with at the range. They don't want you to be in a position to stand up to them as an armed man.
Take a look at a prison. It's full of people that had no regard for law, many are violent, but they're generally disarmed. They're controlled by relatively few armed guards. That is the direction our country is headed. A disarmed many controlled by an armed few. This is nothing new. Reality is we are facing an attack on our country. Take the time to read this speech by Patrick Henry. Look for the parallels. What does he say that doesn't ring to this very day? Ask yourself- will another letter to your representative accomplish anything? Will 10,000 more letters accomplish anything? The War Inevitable by Patrick Henry March 23, 1775 No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death. -Patrick Henry Ask yourself, what is your breaking point? I told someone just this weekend, many of us can say "I won't give them my guns" as we beat our chest, but reality is when they come for your guns, you'll be facing prison, losing your house and your family, public scrutiny and more. How much do you love your country? What is it worth to you? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
[We haven't had one of those for 20 years and none seem ready to run. Also Reagan did give us the ban on new MGs. EOD President Reagan did not "give us" the MG ban. He signed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) which contained the BS machine gun ban The FOPA did the following: First it reformed the practices and procedures of the ATF. Second it provides a “safe passage” provision for interstate travel with a firearm. Third the act forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners Fourth, the FOPA provide clarification of prohibited persons. Which, despite some initial confusion, was improvement over the Gun Control Act of 1968. All good things and now for the bad Machine gun ban (The Hughes Amendment) As debate for FOPA was in its final stages, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment to ban the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986. However, any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians. Controversy exists regarding the validity of the amendment's inclusion into FOPA. The vote to include the amendment took place at night, when many of the lawmakers who would be opposed to its inclusion were not present. Also, the vote was an unrecorded voice vote, which some contend was inconclusive President Reagan signed a bill that was overall good for gun owners. The NRA and many other gun rights organizations supported the bill; even its bastardized final version. Monk P.S. I like Reagan so much I named a daughter after the man so yes I am biased when it comes to President Reagan but the fact remains FOPA was/is an inperfect victory for citizens. Do you really believe what you wrote? He signed the bill into law and it banned sales of new machineguns. Please show me whar practices of the ATF are better after than before? Maybe Ruby Ridge and Waco are better? The ATF has admitted that they keep a registry compiled from 4473s in direct violation of Federal Law and no one has done anything. In reality all Federal Gun Laws are unConstitutional since that wonderful document never gave the Feds any power to regulate firearms. Sorry, Reagan was a great President but signing that wasn't so good. The NRA also supported and still supports the 1934 NFA. They helped the 1968 GCA pass in the first place. All of this has been discussed many times before. Go do a little research. You can start with keepandbeararms. A lot of wonderful things from the people involved in their own words and their own publication. |
|
Quoted:
Do you really believe what you wrote? He signed the bill into law and it banned sales of new machineguns. Please show me whar practices of the ATF are better after than before? Maybe Ruby Ridge and Waco are better? The ATF has admitted that they keep a registry compiled from 4473s in direct violation of Federal Law and no one has done anything. In reality all Federal Gun Laws are unConstitutional since that wonderful document never gave the Feds any power to regulate firearms. Sorry, Reagan was a great President but signing that wasn't so good. The NRA also supported and still supports the 1934 NFA. They helped the 1968 GCA pass in the first place. All of this has been discussed many times before. Go do a little research. You can start with keepandbeararms. A lot of wonderful things from the people involved in their own words and their own publication. I do believe what I wrote and I have researched the topic First it reformed the practices and procedures of the ATF. It did but the ATF has since gone rogue again. Congress and subsequent administrations have failed to prevent ATF from violating the law. FOPA at least got the law on the books Second it provides a “safe passage” provision for interstate travel with a firearm. This is working. I am not aware of any issues, (excepting misinformed LEO’s) with transporting firearms across state lines. Now if we can get some interstate agreement on CCW when traveling across state lines. Third the act forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners. Again this part of the FOPA is an example of a good law, one that holds a government agency to a standard The problem is a lack of oversight and enforcement of the statute In reality all Federal Gun Laws are unConstitutional since that wonderful document never gave the Feds any power to regulate firearms. Nope. In theory and practice no Constitutional right is absolute. You cannot use freedom of speech to yell fire in crowded theaters. The reality is the courts will always allow the government to limit some aspects of gun ownership. The NRA also supported and still supports the 1934 NFA. They helped the 1968 GCA pass in the first place. All of this has been discussed many times before. I never said the NRA is a gun owner’s best friend and I disagree with their stance on 1934 NFA act and the 1986 Machine Gun Ban. What needs to happen is an overturn of the machine gun ban part of FOPA and oversight and enforcement of the other aspect of FOPA. Monk |
|
Quoted:
I love how I heard on the news how we are to blame for this problem regarding weapons in mexico, yet the problem of these cartels drawing income from their product sold in the united states doesn't make the radar on this one. Odd. Good call out. The U.S. has strict drug laws that do little to stem the tide of illegal drugs. Mexico has strict gun laws that are not preventing gun violence in that country. The problem is a porous border. Close the border and the situation in both countries would improve. Monk |
|
You're talking about cartels whose gross profits rival some of our nations top corporations. Does anyone really believe that a multimillion dollar criminal organization really has to go to a gun show to buy "assault rifles"?
There are plenty of arms dealers around that would gladly sell them way more than can be legally purchase here. It's just another angle to try to guilt people into complying with tyranny. |
|
Quoted:
You're talking about cartels whose gross profits rival some of our nations top corporations. Does anyone really believe that a multimillion dollar criminal organization really has to go to a gun show to buy "assault rifles"? There are plenty of arms dealers around that would gladly sell them way more than can be legally purchase here. It's just another angle to try to guilt people into complying with tyranny. Exactly. It's an excuse to get people to buy into and accept the ban. The Democrats don't want to say "We don't trust you with these things, so we're going to take them away from you," even though that's exactly what they mean. Instead, they'll say something like Eric Holder did, and try and pull a federal gun ban with the excuse that it'll help stop violence on the border. This is the same kind of scare-tactic and fear-mongering that the Democrats accused Bush of in the run-up to Iraq. They're trying to push across anti-freedom legislation and using lies and intimidation to do so. Assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, and the criminal elements that do use them will get them whether there is a ban or not. The people *I* would be concerned about are the American citizens living on the border who have to deal with this violence. If Holder and Obama take away their assault weapons, then what? We're already at a firepower disadvantage thanks to being barred from using full-auto weapons. The citizen needs all the help they can get. God knows, they aren't getting it from the government. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're talking about cartels whose gross profits rival some of our nations top corporations. Does anyone really believe that a multimillion dollar criminal organization really has to go to a gun show to buy "assault rifles"? There are plenty of arms dealers around that would gladly sell them way more than can be legally purchase here. It's just another angle to try to guilt people into complying with tyranny. Exactly. It's an excuse to get people to buy into and accept the ban. The Democrats don't want to say "We don't trust you with these things, so we're going to take them away from you," even though that's exactly what they mean. Instead, they'll say something like Eric Holder did, and try and pull a federal gun ban with the excuse that it'll help stop violence on the border. This is the same kind of scare-tactic and fear-mongering that the Democrats accused Bush of in the run-up to Iraq. They're trying to push across anti-freedom legislation and using lies and intimidation to do so. Assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, and the criminal elements that do use them will get them whether there is a ban or not. The people *I* would be concerned about are the American citizens living on the border who have to deal with this violence. If Holder and Obama take away their assault weapons, then what? We're already at a firepower disadvantage thanks to being barred from using full-auto weapons. The citizen needs all the help they can get. God knows, they aren't getting it from the government. isn't it interesting that the old "It will cut down crime, or our cops are outgunned" BS isn't being used. They know damn well it won't fly this time, the last one didn't cut down on crime and in fact will result in the quick unemployment of anyone voting for it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you really believe what you wrote? He signed the bill into law and it banned sales of new machineguns. Please show me whar practices of the ATF are better after than before? Maybe Ruby Ridge and Waco are better? The ATF has admitted that they keep a registry compiled from 4473s in direct violation of Federal Law and no one has done anything. In reality all Federal Gun Laws are unConstitutional since that wonderful document never gave the Feds any power to regulate firearms. Sorry, Reagan was a great President but signing that wasn't so good. The NRA also supported and still supports the 1934 NFA. They helped the 1968 GCA pass in the first place. All of this has been discussed many times before. Go do a little research. You can start with keepandbeararms. A lot of wonderful things from the people involved in their own words and their own publication. I do believe what I wrote and I have researched the topic First it reformed the practices and procedures of the ATF. It did but the ATF has since gone rogue again. Congress and subsequent administrations have failed to prevent ATF from violating the law. FOPA at least got the law on the books Second it provides a “safe passage” provision for interstate travel with a firearm. This is working. I am not aware of any issues, (excepting misinformed LEO’s) with transporting firearms across state lines. Now if we can get some interstate agreement on CCW when traveling across state lines. Third the act forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners. Again this part of the FOPA is an example of a good law, one that holds a government agency to a standard The problem is a lack of oversight and enforcement of the statute In reality all Federal Gun Laws are unConstitutional since that wonderful document never gave the Feds any power to regulate firearms. Nope. In theory and practice no Constitutional right is absolute. You cannot use freedom of speech to yell fire in crowded theaters. The reality is the courts will always allow the government to limit some aspects of gun ownership. The NRA also supported and still supports the 1934 NFA. They helped the 1968 GCA pass in the first place. All of this has been discussed many times before. I never said the NRA is a gun owner’s best friend and I disagree with their stance on 1934 NFA act and the 1986 Machine Gun Ban. What needs to happen is an overturn of the machine gun ban part of FOPA and oversight and enforcement of the other aspect of FOPA. Monk In theory my rights are absolute. Now I have to face the consequences when my exercise of those rights interfere with anothers rights. The Fed never had any authority to pass such laws as yelling fire in a theater. Number one the BOR specifically forbid the Fed from making laws against the use of Free Speech and gun ownership. Second the Constitution laid out exactly what the Fed had power over and guns, fpeech, religion, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and many others were not included. The courts have made many decisions that are not in line with the Constitution and they get aay with it because we let them. My rights come from God and not man. |