[b][blue]I hope this isnt a dup thread, if so I am sorry.[/blue][/b]

[url]http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=644&EID=399[/url]

[i]
[b]Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Hits Congress:
Clinton Ban "Re-enactment" Targets Millions More Guns!!![/b]


As we predicted, the anti-gunners have begun the push to further expand the Clinton gun ban of 1994. Not content with merely re-authorizing the ban, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) have drafted legislation that bans millions more guns! It's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said on CBS's 60 Minutes: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." Toward that goal, Conyers/McCarthy would:


Ban every gun made to lawfully comply with the Clinton ban. The Clinton ban arbitrarily dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments that new guns could have. Manufacturers complied. New guns were made to conform to the Clinton restrictions. Now prohibitionists want to ban the new guns, too.

Ban guns the Clinton legislation expressly exempted from prohibition. This includes Ruger Mini-14s, Ranch Rifles, and .30 Caliber Carbines, and entire classes of guns, including fixed magazine rifles, as well as shotguns that hold under five rounds.

Ban guns widely used for target shooting. It bans the three center-fire rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A, and the M1 "Garand."

Ban all semi-automatic shotguns: Remingtons, Winchesters, Benellis, Berettas, etc., widely used for hunting, trap, skeet, and sporting clays, by banning their receivers (main component).

Ban guns for defense. Bans any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun any U.S. Attorney General one day claims is not "sporting," even though self-defense is a fundamental right and the federal constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense.


Ban 68 named guns (Clinton ban named 19 guns); [b][red]Ban parts used to repair or refurbish guns, including frames or receivers; Ban importation of ammunition magazines exempt under Clinton ban; Ban private sales of millions of guns, their frames and receivers, and their parts; Ban semi-automatic rifles under 30" long (useful for home defense); Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than 10 rounds. [/b][/red]


Ban guns rarely used in crime. State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that guns on the Clinton and Conyers/McCarthy ban lists have never been used in more than a small percentage of violent crime. The Congressionally-mandated study of the Clinton law concluded that guns it banned "were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders." But even if they were, are the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of criminals?


Begin "backdoor" registration. Requires manufacturers of banned guns, frames, receivers, and parts to report the names of their dealers, and requires dealers to report any of those parts they have in stock. The next step is obvious-demanding the names of gun owners who buy those parts.

Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 or by using the "Write Your Representatives" feature and urge them to oppose any attempt to keep alive the Clinton gun ban.

Posted: 5/10/2003 8:34:12 AM [/i]

Well, look at the bright side... Its absolutely proposterous! No way in hell any red blooded american (Or a gun-loving immigrant for that matter) would outlaw the most popular rifles around; That would also conflict with the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

Heh, A ban as rediculous as this one, If it stays anywhere near the way that is, doesnt stand a chance in hell of getting anywhere.

... Stay hungry, never take anything in American politics for granted. Stay active, no rest.

I hope this is the actual AWB that makes it to a vote!!  Such a ridiculous ban would assure its own defeat.

True but,

Thet probably want a comprimise to get any ban they can so keep writing and calling thos congress people!

I believe this new and improved AW ban proposal is over ambitious by design. It will lead many of us to believe it has absolutely no chance of making it to a vote, which is basically true, and that may be exactly what they want us to think. Their plan is probably to lead us into a sense of victory, get us nice and secure in the fact that we believe it will die in committe, hoping that many of us might relax or stop our efforts to fight thinking we already won if it goes to vote in that form. Then if they remove a few of the new proposals in the ban to work out a compromise, it could leave us with with little or no time to fight it effectively and it just might be enough of a compromise compared to the original to pass a vote in the House and Senate. Then we all know what GWB will do. Our enemy is a lot smarter than their new AWB proposal leads us to believe, or maybee not, but we can't bank on that so we must fight hard all the way to the end no matter how good our chances appear to be.

that's exactly what people were saying in 1993, see where it got us?

Conspiracy theory....

They [b]know[/b] it doesn't (have a chance of passig), and personally, I think there's a method to their madness.

They introduce the outlandish House version in this, the [b]current[/b] legislative session.

It gets laughed at in committee (fuh-ged about it).

That puts the House on record as dragging their feet or doing nothing to keep "assault weapons off the street and out of the hands of criminals".

The anti's capitalize and exploit that well before election year (and the year in which the ban is supposed to expire) by appealing to the Soccer Moms and other no-nothings.

The public outrage and moral indignation starts pouring in and some momentum builds.

They reintroduce the bill the [b]following[/b] legislative session. Probably watered down somewhat as willingness to compromise.

Now with the House Judiciary Committee already on record as having bottled up the bill once before, and the antis getting at least 8-12 months to build public opinion, it puts our guys in a very uncomfortable position to kill it a second time.

Consider that in the past month or so they've been trying to force Bush into a corner over his campaign pledge to sign an extension of the current ban if he's presented with it. Whitehouse spokespersons have reiterated that.
The antis are overjoyed with that, but it's not enough. Now they're trying to pressure GW into taking an active stance in having the extension passed (the original ban might not have passed if Clinton hadn't done so).

Don't forget, the AW ban is the gun control crowds shining moment. They know if they can't get this passed that they might as well tuck their tails between their legs and close shop.

The people who are doing this might suck, but they're not stupid.

The battle is far from being won.

LoginName,

Your are really onto something.

It's the mushrooms! [:D]

Seriously, I think they had this legislation and game plan in the wings for awhile now.

The timing, and persistency of questions asked of Ashcroft, Fleischer, Kove and their responses is more than just a coincidence.

Do any of you ever wonder if these idiots would feel any sort of guilt or inherrent responsibility if they ever passed the "straw that broke the camel's back" piece of legislation that would spark the second American Revolution?

I guess they're shooting for the moon & hoping to compromise it down until something gets passed

This is horseshit.  There is no way in hell that that ban will happen.  We need to keep fighting of course, but that bill is ridiculous.  What don't they want to ban?

This legislation will never make it out of committee. (I hope!)

Mike

I get a cold chill when i read that...

whoever thought it could happen here, that somebody could so brazenly be anti-American in elected office.

There is no guilt nor is their any honor among Democrats or liberals(which is a true perversion of the word since those who are most "liberal" wish to limit "liberty" the most.)

A second revolution is very unlikely since a large percentage of the population is the Medicare crowd and another large percentage is the welfare bunch who would see no reason to change a bureaucratic system that rewards their sloth.
What's left? Hard working Americans who are going to leave their jobs to take up arms and cease feeding, clothing, sheltering and educating their families? I don't think so...

This all comes down to the Democrats whoring for minority votes. Every time a middle class school kids goes postal they jump with glee because they don't have to address the real issue of violent crime in this country which is minority driven and gang related.

Of course stating the obvious would lose them the same votes they rely on to perpetuate their platform of deceit and waste, thus defeating their own job security.

If you look at the thread about voting for Bush, even if he signs it, it won't be the "straw that broke the camel's back". Most will re-elect those who take thier rights..

This is a pretty outlandish piece of legislation, but not without precedent.

The first AWB proposed during Clinton's rule would have banned any weapon capable of being converted to full auto, which would have essentially banned all semi-autos, and many if not most other repeating weapons (a lever, pump or even bolt action weapon CAN be made into a full auto weapon, just not very easily or necessarily a reliable weapon). Remember, the first "true" MGs ever made were lever-actions that Maxim tinkered with and made into blowback MGs by adding recoil springs and modifying locking lugs and disconnectors. Any weapon that is breechloading and has a capacity of more than one shot could "potentially" be made into a full auto weapon, with enough work and effort. The antis will try and get everything they can.

BWAHAHAHAHA!![ROFL2]

American's revolting because .Gov is taking away their fundamental rights!?!?!  

Stop please! You're killing me here! [ROFL2]

Has anyone here written any of these reps/sen (Conyers, McCarthy, Feinstein)?  I cant imagine a reply from any of them would be any less asinine!  I'm sure it would be like talking to a dead horse, but common sense has to exist somewhere in their pea-brain to see that this is not the answer.

I agree that this is probably just what they're going to bring to the table, in hopes of compromising it down to something still more restrictive then the current legislation that's in place.

Be cautious of the spin that is inevitably going to be put on this: No longer will it be "renew vs. expire" but "strengthen vs. renew". Somehow they'll expect us to feel like we're getting a good deal by ONLY having it renewed and not strengthened. NO COMPROMISE OR YOU'RE OUT OF OFFICE (GW included)!!!


BTW, the poll on the "vote for Bush if he renews" thing showed over 70% would NOT vote for him if he did so.  Seems to me that someone who made it to the White House by the hair on his ass would not want to lose too many votes, eh? And Fleischer did have one caveat in what he said to perhaps give Bush an out IF it gets to his desk---"The president is studying the effectiveness of the current law".    

It's a stand alone bill that was introduced for other reasons. It won't go anywhere this year. They'll be back next year to pass it...

We are getting closer and closer to the "From my cold dead hand" time.  It is time that we have a multi-million gun owners march on Washington.  I guarantee that I will be there.

[hail2] W W [hail2]

It doesn't matter if study after study says the AWB in ineffective... we will say that is a reason to let it expire.  VPI and the Brady Bunch will say that is a reason to write a new law that "closes the loopholes."  

Just wanted to show this pic off again [:D]


[img]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=11469[/img]

This bill will never see the light of day.

You will hear speaches about it from time to time on the floors of the House and the Senate but it will never come to a vote on the floor of either. Feinstein, Scumer, Conyers, et al can afford to charge this hill, for they are comfortably seated in leftist districts and states. Others, who don't have that luxury will see that this bill will be their political death certificate and thus choose not to die on this hill.

I think many here give the opposition too much credit while giving pro-gun reps. too little.

Actually, I remember hearing that Scumer's senate seat isn't looking all that secure... I don't know how the polls are, but the prospect of getting a long-time antigunner out of the Senate makes me [:D].

Well, we should definitely not get lulled into complaceny and ease up on the pressure; but the antis got WAY too greedy here.

Now the duck hunters have no choice but to stand with us because I'll tell you right now that nobody I know in that crowd would ever consider giving up their new Benelli.

Something is screwy here as putting up THAT bill in THHouse is basically begging for it to get slapped down. Maybe they are trying to play good cop/bad cop in hopes of passing Feinstein's bill instead.

So are you guys getting ready...or are you too entrenched into society to exercise your Constitutional rights...

I'm in touch my congressmen on a regular basis.  Probably often enough that at least one of them recognizes my name.

That new bill will be tabled (shitcanned) so fast your head will spin.  

Feinstein's reauthorization bill for the existing ban will join it in the shitcan very shortly, too.

This Congress ain't going to go for any bans!

We've got to make sure of that, of course...keep your elected congresscritters on a short leash and keep writing and calling!

CJ

It's not all bad. Feinstein's bill will make it easeir for the NRA to mobilize everyone. I expect to be getting a fundraising letter from the NRA with this bill prominently featured.

NRA fundraising...don't get me started!

Those guys are always begging for money, and if they would stop sending out the free gifts and yes, the magazine subscriptions, too, they'd probably not have to raise more money!

I think that at least, they should give you an option to refuse the gifts and magazine subs when you join.   I'd prefer that they use my dues for the core business at hand.

However, I COULD use a new NRA window decal. Mine's getting a bit faded...

CJ

[img]http://grahamcracka.dns2go.com/vftrt.jpg[/img]

The discussion in the other thread addresses an extension of the existing ban, not the monstrosity above.

If such a bill were signed into law by GWB, I would have trouble supporting him further. What is described above is not a disagreement on one corner of the gun argument, it is a wholesale betrayal that goes far beyond what could even be mistaken as addressing public safety. It would also be an example of blatantly breaking a campaign promise to a core constituency.

Bush said during the campaign that he was against AW's, and still we voted for him. If he expands the [b]existing[/b] ban, it would tick me off but not surprise me, nor would it be likely to affect my vote.

However, he, and anyone who supports the nightmare described above would be slitting their own political throats.

However: The bill above will never see the light of day. The fact is that the current (and VASTLY more lenient) law JUST BARELY passed last time, and that was with the demoncRATS in charge of the whole ball of wax. It will NOT happen with the current government arrangement.

Still, write your Congresscritter anyway..... Better safe than sorry...

AMEN, brother!



Call them and tell them to cancel your subscription, but not your membership. They did it for me for precisely the reason you give.

great minds think alike[sniper]

I just shot an email to my 2 Senators and my Representative and printed a hard copy to mail.  Basically goes like this:

So what's your point? [;)]