Rifle Owners and the Renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban


PDA






Justin
May 21, 2003, 03:16 AM
This is a fairly concise summation of what the new ban means for rifle owners. Please read over it to familiarize yourself with what is involved, and then please take action. If we work together we can defeat this!
______________________________

Rifle Owners and the renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban

HR 2038, the new proposal for renewing and expanding the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately it has a bunch of stuff that can and will make ownership of semi-automatic rifles more difficult. For a copy of this bill, please go to http://thomas.loc.gov and do a search for HR 2038

The AR15, FAL, and AR10 are mentioned by name along with a bunch of Kalashnikov clones, and the features listed all but put the M1 Garand and M1A on the endangered species list. Also, those with fixed-magazine guns are not left untouched. If you have a rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you have an assault rifle. So you can no longer skirt the law by attaching those 30-round fixed magazines to an SKS, and might, in fact, be committing a felony if you try to sell that rifle.

In addition to the expanded list, they have also made the definition of what constitutes an “assault” rifle more all-encompassing. An assault rifle is defined (by the law) as:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Note that the weapon only needs to have one of the so-called ‘evil’ features to be defined as an assault weapon, whereas in the current law a rifle can have two.

Here’s the real kicker to the whole thing, though: The sporting purposes clause is nowhere near ironclad. In fact, it reads:

A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'

In other words, just because a particular firearm is suited for a particular sport is no guarantee that it is suited for a particular sport, at least as far as can and will be determined by some lackey working in the AG’s office, who undoubtedly has far more insight into the shooting sports than any of us. If a particular sporting weapon is derived from a military design, then it is considered to be suspect.

Of course, the above is only in relation to rifles and whether or not they are particularly suited to a given sport. As far as one’s right to self-defense and the use of a firearm thereof, you’re out of luck as this law makes the assumption that the only valid reason for possessing a firearm is for competition or hunting.

This bill also has a lot more content that would impact rifle owners, including making it illegal to sell a weapon to another individual (even in state) without going through an FFL. It would also make it illegal for anyone to sell a pre-ban magazine without first filing paperwork with the Attorney General’s office, as well as shifting the burden of proof from the government to the individual over whether a particular magazine in your collection is indeed a pre-ban or an illegal post-ban.

For more in-depth information, please go to the following link:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23494

Please feel free to distribute this post to other forums or people who need to know this information. All I ask is that the info not be modified. (Though feedback for subsequent drafts is appreciated.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Rifle Owners and the Renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gun-fucious
May 21, 2003, 07:40 AM
are tube fed rimfires still exempt from magazine capacity issues?

yzguy
May 21, 2003, 10:43 AM
this is utterly ridiculous.... it would be very helpful if we could add to this post everything we could do to stop this now!!! (things like links to phone numbers and such...)

If we all flooded each representative with calls, email, and letters MAYBE they will get the point....

also we need to set up a watch on who does vote for it, and make them gone when the time comes....

Onslaught
May 21, 2003, 10:48 AM
are tube fed rimfires still exempt from magazine capacity issues?
Yes....

FOR NOW!

:scrutiny:

CMcDermott
May 21, 2003, 10:56 AM
Is there an exemption for lever action rifles? Many of the pistol caliber rifles used in the Cowboy action events will accept more than 10 rounds in their magazines. And as the Spencer and Henry were used by Union forces in the Civil War I think that lever action guns could be interpreted as military weapons if the AG wanted.

Onslaught
May 21, 2003, 11:20 AM
I'm terrible at choosing the proper words for such occasions, so if any of the notably articulate members of this board would like to offer a "form" letter that we could all copy and send, I'd be most grateful.

In the interim, here's my e-mail to Sanford Bishop, the evil Judas of my Great State. For those of you who don't remember, Sanford was the TIE-BREAKING VOTE for the original AWB in the House 10 years ago!

"It has been said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing but expecting different results.

You personally let your People, your Party, and your State down when you were the tie-breaking vote for the 1994 "assault weapons ban" legislation. In the ten years that this ridiculous piece of legislation has been in place, it has not changed the face of violent crime in our country. There were, and still are so very few cases of criminals using "assault weapons" in the first place that it was just plain silly to bother going after these weapons. Only the highly publicized nature of these dramatic events along with the fact that these weapons were easily villianized to the uneducated non-gun owning public has given the anti-gun movement any steam to ban them in the first place.

The only truely safe legislation that has been enacted lately which has made our State safer was the passage of additional "reciprocation" agreements between States regarding the Concealed Carry Permits that our great State issues. I can now travel through Alabama and South Carolina as well as Florida and other reciprocating States and be able to protect my wife and 14 month old daughter should we ever be in danger along side of any of the long, lonely, deserted stretches of highway with a flat tire or other car trouble. There is little opportunity for a criminal or criminals to take advantage of my family during a situation of increased vulnerability and isolation such as this, because my wife and I both posess GA concealed carry permits, small sized, decent caliber pistols with properly fitted holsters acceptable for concealed carry, and the training required to use them properly.

Please do not vote to take away even more of your People's rights to keep and bear arms. This latest legislation will not only take away permanently those weapons incorrectly called "assault weapons", but it also adds to it a whole new class of firearms that are more "mainstream", owned by more of the State's population, and infringe even further on our rights. Not one sniper, school shooter, or California bank robber is going to be averted by this piece of legislation. But how many of Georgia's thousands of unchecked parolees and early release violent criminals will be stopped from committing their crimes with this? None.

Do the right thing Mr. Bishop. Vote NO on HR2038 and let the 1994 "assault weapons ban" die.

Thank you,

Steve Slaughter
Proud resident of the Free State of Georgia"

Oh well, I tried :)

ShaiVong
May 21, 2003, 03:32 PM
I've never been so pissed. :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

Did I ever mention that i HATE our government, and the gibbering simps that think they can push me around and tell me what I can and cannot think and have? I thought that was all over when i moved away from my parents!:cuss:

Justin
May 21, 2003, 04:11 PM
There is a specific exemption for tube-fed .22's:

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


As for lever-action, pump-action, and bolt-action rifles, those are still Kosher, at least for the time being.

However, take a look at the sporting purposes clause again. Even though the specific legislation bans semiautos, there is nothing in the sporting purposes clause that precludes them from including manually-operated firearms at some point in the future.

Oh, and one last thing: we got kind of lucky last time around when Ruger convinced them to leave the Mini-14 off of the list. There's no such luck this time. The Mini-14 is banned by name.

Chairman Meow
May 21, 2003, 04:15 PM
:fire: to say the least.

ajacobs
May 21, 2003, 06:17 PM
Note that the weapon only needs to have one of the so-called ‘evil’ features to be defined as an assault weapon, whereas in the current law a rifle can have two.


I am pretty sure the current law also only allows one but the list now includes foreward grip but interestinly enough does not include flash suppressors.

yzguy
May 21, 2003, 06:26 PM
Note that the weapon only needs to have one of the so-called ‘evil’ features to be defined as an assault weapon, whereas in the current law a rifle can have two.

I believe this would be better stated as:

Note that the weapon only needs to have one of the so-called ‘evil’ features to be defined as an assault weapon, whereas in the current law a rifle must have two to be considered an assault weapon (there fore only having one is legal).

yzguy
May 21, 2003, 06:32 PM
I am pretty sure the current law also only allows one but the list now includes foreward grip but interestinly enough does not include flash suppressors.
it does not include flash suppressors, but does say no threaded barrels.... So you would have to permanatly attach anything that you wanted to put on the barrel (break, or suppressor of any kind)

HankL
May 21, 2003, 07:37 PM
Boys and girls, When bills of this nature are introduced it is not the time to wonder if it will have an effect on your 32 20 carbine etc. It is time to worry about your gun rights in general.

As Justin has stated, this bill as most of the ones like it in the past includes language that gives the U.S. Attorney General the power to say what he think's are appropriate firearms for the sheeple of our country. If a bill like this should pass, todays AG might say your 11 round tube magazine lever action is ok. Tomorrow's AG might say that your break action shotgun is an assault weapon if the owner has a shell vest in their possesion.

Call and write your representatives in Washington and let them know your feelings.

Here is a LINK (http://www.awbansunset.com/) on the subject.

Cosmoline
May 21, 2003, 08:34 PM
for reminding me how much I hate anti-gun politicians. Some antis are just ignorant, but these people are cynical scum.

El Rojo
May 21, 2003, 09:23 PM
This is very interesting for us PRK residents. You are looking at the horror we have been living with. I don't know whether to laugh or what. Part of it is amusing because many of you bad mouth the PRK and how liberal we are. And true to what so many of us said, the PRK is just the test basin for what is to come. So here is the test. What will happen? I will do my part for you free citizens. I will contact my congressman and tell him to not support those bills, even though they have zero bearing on his constiuency. However, this whole thing is just a bit scary for both sides. The anti-gunners are really scared. They know there is a good chance this thing isn't going to go through. I also know you people in free territory are scared too, if this thing passes congress, Bush is probably going to sign it. So all that bad mouthing of California and your rights go right down the drain.

Regardless I am screwed already. I already live in that reality. I sure hope you guys keep you what you have. Now maybe some of you narrow minded sorts will stop encouraging people to move out of the PRK and to abandon the cause. If you don't stop this insanity here, it just spreads. You have to kill the disease at its source. That source is Los Angeles County and the San Fransisco Bay area. Good luck. I hope you get to keep your ARs and AKs. :what:

Mark Tyson
May 21, 2003, 10:02 PM
El Rojo,

I do not think the people here intend to bad mouth Californians for the sorry state of your government. I think I speak for most when I say that we all see this kind of legislation working its way inland from the coasts. We all knew this stuff was coming, it was only a matter of time.

I wish there was something that I could do for those of you in CA. But I can't just move out to CA (not to mention give up most of my collection) just to join the fight. I hope that one day Californians will be free to enjoy their rights again.

yzguy
May 21, 2003, 10:48 PM
here is the letter I will be sending out to many (feel free to use any of it):

Dear Elected Official,

I am writing this letter to urge you to OPPOSE ANY new legislation that in any way tries to extend the “Assault Weapons” ban. I am referring specifically to H. R. 2038 in this case.

This ban from the start has been useless. All it does is restrict law abiding citizens, such as myself, from legally obtaining certain firearms. Criminals could still easily make these illegal "Assault Weapons" using legal parts and Legal firearms. Any type of "assault weapons" ban would just not work anyway. Guns that are used in crimes simply are not purchased legally. Less than 14% of all firearms possessed by State inmates in 1997 (and less than 21% in 1991) were obtained from a Retail store, Pawn Shop, Flea market, or Gun show. Friends or Family, and Street/illegal Sources account for how the rest of them are obtained. Laws regulating specific features of firearms do not do ANYTHING to stop these. Criminals don't worry about whether the configuration of their weapon is legal, it does not affect them in the least. Law abiding citizens on the other hand do have to think about these things, and are kept from having exactly what they would like.

reference for the percentages of how weapons are obtained:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

The fact that the ban does not affect criminals is beside the point, because less than 2% of all Criminals used any type of military style weapon (including the politically defined "assault weapons"). From 1976 to the year 2000, there have been only 2 years (97 and 99) where the combined total of ALL non hand gun homicides (this would include all "assault weapons") were greater than that of knives. Even in those 2 years it was VERY close. In EVERY one of these years, Hand gun homicides more than doubled non hand gun homicides. ANY ban on ANY rifle, is just not needed, they are just not used in crimes more than even the common knife (I would bet EVERY citizen has access to a knife). Criminals don't use them because they are large and hard to conceal.

references for the 2% claim:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

references for the homicide claims:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Any form of the "assault weapons" ban is also unconstitutional (I am utterly appalled that it passed in 94). Does this sound familiar?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Does it sound like the founding fathers are talking about hunting to you??

this one section of the bill is also terribly vague (as well as unconstitutional):

"A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."

So now the Attorney General can just one day decide any rifle is now an "assault rifle"??

Military style rifles are EXACTLY what the constitution is intending to protect. Do politicians think that the "well regulated militia" that is being referred to in the constitution is concerned with hunting? or sports?

Regarding the Magazine Capacity limit, if yours and the life of your family were in immediate danger and you were forced to defend them, would YOU want to be limited to 10 rounds? I would not. If you have body guard(s) would you want their collective ammunition to be only 10 rounds? Most of us don't have others protecting us, and the police will not be there until it is to late.

ANY support you show for ANY legislature supporting ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLING an "assault weapons" ban, will cost you my vote. Since you are supposed to be MY elected official, I hope you will take the time to read and understand my point. Please do the correct thing and support the constitution as it was written.

I also challenge you to provide ANY data showing criminals use of "assault weapons" and the need to ban them. I have given you my references (which I hope you take time to check), do you have ANY evidence or even a reason to ban these? (other than because of the way they look).

I look forward to your response on this matter, in which I hope you make clear to me your exact position on this bill in particular, so I may keep it in mind during the next election.

Sincerely,
Your name

*edited to correct spelling mistake*

ShaiVong
May 22, 2003, 04:26 PM
I was planning on getting a Remmington 700 in 308 this summer, and getting an AR next summer, or when i graduate. Now i'm definately getting one this summer. Probably an AK too, even though im not all that fond of them.

MOLON LABE **CKERS! :fire:

4v50 Gary
May 23, 2003, 10:46 AM
Threaded barrel. Most guns have "threaded" barrels and that's how they go into the receiver (OK, some like the HK or AK aren't). :rolleyes:

We have to let this critter die. 10 years of sterlizied toys is enough. Time to put the evil muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs and collaspable stocks on. One of our members once asked, "When was the last time a civilian participated in a bayonet charge?"

Kaylee
May 23, 2003, 12:10 PM
yz -- nice letter! Thank you!

-K

Correia
May 23, 2003, 02:56 PM
Here are some numbers to call to leave comments.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (202) 225-2976
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (202) 225-5951
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (202) 224-3344
White House (202) 456-1111
Capitol Switchboard (to get in contact with your specific reps in Washington) 1-800-648-3516.

Plus look up you reps mailing addresses and contact them via mail as well. Every bit helps. I just sent off another round of letters to Hastert, DeLay, Frist, the RNC, Hatch, Bennett, and Cannon. (last 3 are my reps).

Pile it on.

Kaylee
May 24, 2003, 01:45 AM
Thanks Larry.. just did the same today as well.

Okay y'all.. 700+ views. Y'all HAVE all called those five numbers already, right? ;)


-K

goon
May 24, 2003, 10:06 AM
Is this bill calling for the turning in of currently owned hi-cap mags and guns as well?

44
May 24, 2003, 10:22 AM
Our women are getting nervous watching the men in office being so sissified and so willing to disarm the men of the country.

Make no mistake, women want men to have the best weapons available, and enough ammunition. They were the group most in favor of arming airline pilots. And they see what's going on in the streets of Iraq.

---------- 44

Midnight
May 24, 2003, 11:49 AM
People, go to the link he provided and read the bill for yourself. Its not that long, nor is it difficult to understand.

MAKOwner
May 24, 2003, 05:33 PM
Would the bill not ban nearly every single semiauto rifle in the country or close to it?

Because of this:

A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

The first sentence there covers every surplus semi auto, and alot of civilian designed guns (for police). Also most other semi autos are based off generic designs of military semi autos...

This bill most definitely must die. I frankly think they intended for this bill to be a shocker, to get the "compromise" (read still an ??? rape) bill passed as "reasonable"...

Onslaught
May 25, 2003, 12:44 AM
YZGuy -

A personalized version of your well researched and documented correspondance has been sent to Mac Collins and Phil Gingrey of Georgia.

Phil is "my" representative, and I took the liberty of e-mailing Mac for Dad. I'm sure he won't mind :D

I went for Sanford Bishop the first time around as he will always be THE guy I remember as being personally responsible for the AWB's passing.

The tie-breaking vote, and from my HOME STATE! :banghead:

Well, here's hoping!

Thanks again for taking the time to share the words...

bogie7129
May 25, 2003, 02:01 AM
Here are the URLs you can use to find out and USE the email addresses of your elected officials:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I read the other writer's letter - I modified it a bit to suit my Representative, and my letter has already been sent. I did that before I complained to anyone on this board. I hope all of you that expressed shock and dismay have since taken the time to write and call your Congressman's office. The phone numbers are already listed here, too, for Hastert, DeLay, the White House, etc.

Just remember, be nice to the person answering the phone and keep your call limited to one subject.

:fire: :mad:

yzguy
May 25, 2003, 12:04 PM
also, one more thing to add...

make sure you are very clear about them not supporting ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING an "assault weapons" ban. It has been suggested that this specific one may have just been introduced to die. So that a less restrictive one could pass because it is "not as bad". So my point is, go ahead and mention this one specific bill, but don't leave out the fact any other bill like it should be voted against as well.

Hopefully many representatives and elected officials will see many copies and versions of my letter :) .

I also think I may print a few up and put them in addressed envelopes to leave a few stacks at my local ranges. So people could just pick one up, sign it, put on a stamp and drop it in the mail.....

yzguy
May 27, 2003, 03:12 PM
it only takes a few min, just call:
202-456-1414
tell the operator you want the comment line
then you will probably be on hold for a few min. When the operator answers they will ask your state, then your comment. Say something like:

I would like to strongly encourage the President to actively oppose any Assault Weapons ban legislation.

then say thank you, and that is all.... :) (took me 5 - 10 min)

Shawn Dodson
May 28, 2003, 02:52 PM
It's NOT JUST AN EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT BAN as the anti-gun crowd claims. It goes further and bans MANY more guns than the original law.

If you value your right to keep and bear arms, then you MUST act and let your federal lawmakers know how you feel about this new law!

DAL
May 30, 2003, 12:09 AM
Don't worry, guys, the Republicans are in power to save the day! As long as they are in power, everything's cool! AHHHHAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!
DAL

P.S. Never forget that a Republican is just another stinking politician who has a thirst for power. Ain't a one of them a friend of mine, a free, sentient being who pays his bills on time, is raising a family, holding down a job, and paying spirit-crushing taxes so the sick, lame, and lazy can survive and breed. Make sure they know EXACTLY where you stand on this issue via a phone call or a written letter. Forget the e-mails--this issue is too important for that.

TheLastBoyScout
May 30, 2003, 10:12 PM
Did any of you guys see (I can't remember whether it was House or Senate) bill 2038.... It does all the stuff that the ban you're talking about does AND sets the grandfather clause to 9/13/93. There is no way in **** that your "post bans" will be legal, and that aspect hasn't come up yet here.

yzguy
May 30, 2003, 11:34 PM
that is the one we are talking about...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:


this part means that if was lawfull to own the gun before, it still is (just no new ones can be made):

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

I don't see anything referencing 9-13-93... I think you might be talking about this:

(2) by striking `on the date of the enactment of this subsection' and inserting `as of September 13, 1994'; and

which does not actually change anything, just states the date directly instead of leaving it up to figuring out when the "enactment" of this subsection was.

TheLastBoyScout
May 31, 2003, 02:21 PM
ok thanks for the clarification.

goon
May 31, 2003, 02:52 PM
The day will come when none of our post-bans or pre-bans are legal anyhow.
The thing is, if we do things right, they will only be illegal for a little while.
I am actually kind of looking forward to an all out ban on all guns.
There are many who are willing to live with a little bit of oppression, but how many are willing to live with a whole lot of it?
Hunters are people who hunt. They sneak up on an animal and shoot it.
Would you want to be the guy who walked up to a man who does that for recreation and tell him he is gonna have to surrender his Winchester?
Not me!:eek:

Combat-wombat
June 1, 2003, 03:55 AM
THE M-1 CARBINE? THE M-1 ****ING CARBINE????? THE MINI-14????? OMG!!!!! THEY'RE LISTED BY NAME!!!!!:eek: :barf: I CAN GET EITHER OF THOSE IN THE PRK RIGHT NOW!!! THEY'RE GONNA BAN 'EM NATIONWIDE!!?!??!?:barf: :barf: :barf:

ShaiVong
June 1, 2003, 07:21 PM
I just shot with a guy who only owns a marlin .30 and a bolt action 20ga. He inherited both from his father, and only shoots a couple times a year... Mostly deer hunting. The guy is a hell of a shot though, no problem shooting 6in steel plates at ~ 60yrds off hand. The way he groups though, I'm sure he could nail it at 100 no sweat.


I ain't gonna try and force his gun away :uhoh:

I'm sure there are tons of men out there who arent even remotely active in the firearms community, and maybe have never ever bought a gun (like my buddy, just handed down). Thats a large silent majority that i'm sure the ATF discounts, because they dont rack up much firearm purchases.

yzguy
June 5, 2003, 09:46 PM
I just got a response from my Rep...

He first says thanks for writing, then says basically what the bill will do (like I don't know), then says that the bill is in the "House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I do not serve." then says "Rest assured, should I have the opportunity to vote on this issue in the future, I will certainly keep your views in mind." Then thanks me again....

notice how he never says what side he is on?!?!?! I even ask specifically in my letter/email to say what side they are on!!!

ShaiVong
June 6, 2003, 07:03 AM
Trying to get a solid answer out of a politician is like trying to clamp mercury in a vice... Dirty mercury.

Thufer
June 8, 2003, 01:23 PM
Words are meaningless. You can call the white house, you can call your representatives, you can send them letters. They'll reply with something to make it seem like its out of their hands, if they reply at all.

The Government won't listen because it dosen't have too.
Sure you may not vote for the person that voted for the renewal of the ban, but how many non-gun owners will? And do you think the other guy is going to be any different then the one thats in office now?

The Government will do what ever it wants. It will do it slowly so it won't attract the attention of the masses that are to preoccupied with their Jobs, sports and TV shows to care. As long as they get a pay check, get to cheer for their favorite team and watch reality shows. They'll let the government do what ever it wants.

goon
June 8, 2003, 03:47 PM
The Government will do what ever it wants. It will do it slowly so it won't attract the attention of the masses that are to preoccupied with their Jobs, sports and TV shows to care. As long as they get a pay check, get to cheer for their favorite team and watch reality shows. They'll let the government do what ever it wants.

I hate to say it, but you are just about right.
The problem is that the average American simply doesn't care about anything that doesn't personally affect him.
Guns are just the start. They are nothing more than the visable target.
I don't hate gun control because it is stupid. I hate it because it is the first step in people control, and a very bad step for a country that is supposedly free.

yzguy
June 9, 2003, 11:11 AM
Thufer and goon,
what so your answer is to give up? lie down and take it?!?!

I took the time to come up with a well written letter with valid points and references to prove them, posted it and sent it myself. I hope that many copies of it reach elected officials. What have you done to help me keep my gun rights?? If enough people make their voices heard, Politicians will listen, will you be one of those voices? or one of the quiet sheep?

I am not naive, I know very well it may not make a difference, but I'm damn sure going to try!!

ShaiVong
June 9, 2003, 11:44 AM
It comes right back to the "will a 223 stop a grizzly" post. It might not, but if its all i've got, then im damn well going to try!

Thufer
June 9, 2003, 02:28 PM
yzguy and ShaiVong

I'm not suggesting that we give up trying. I'm suggesting that we need to do something more drastic then words before it is to late to do anything.

.223 probably won't stop a grizzle. But why use .223 when you could use .308, 30-06 etc.?

yzguy
June 9, 2003, 03:19 PM
ok then what exactly are you suggesting??

Thufer
June 10, 2003, 07:22 AM
AKs, ARs and FN-FALs arn't for hunting deer and they don't make the best target rifles. The have only one good use...

If a man owns an FN-FAL and has it taken away from him by a man armed with a 9mm pistol. The man that owns the FN-FAL is an idiot or a coward.

yzguy
June 10, 2003, 10:47 AM
yes but what if the man with the FAL could have used words earlier instead of bullets later, but instead waited until they came to get it to do ANYTHING. Does that make him more brave or more stupid?? or maybe just lazy?

oh, and by the way, one guy with 1 9mm will not be who comes to take it, if they come collecting guns there will be many of them, and I doubt they would be armed with just 9mm's..... (think shot guns, and M-16's and in armored cars)

Thufer
June 10, 2003, 11:45 AM
I have already explained why words will fail.

What I'm getting at is that the man with the FAL should use it before they come to take it. Because, as you stated, it will to late to use it when they come to take it.

If you spend too much time trying to fix things with words that don't work. You'll lose your chance to try and fix things with bullets.

When you people say "Molon Labe", what you realy mean is "Molon Labe as long as no one gets hurt"

yzguy
June 10, 2003, 02:18 PM
so then I ask again, what exactly are you suggesting??

don't bother trying to get your voice heard by speaking, but be silent and go shoot them now??

What I'm getting at is that the man with the FAL should use it before they come to take it. Because, as you stated, it will to late to use it when they come to take it.

If you spend too much time trying to fix things with words that don't work. You'll lose your chance to try and fix things with bullets.

Please set me straight, and tell me that is not what you are saying....

also you said "If you spend too much time trying to fix things with words that don't work." so how much time have you spent on this? have you uttered one word to any of your elected officials?? I bet the anti's have....

ShaiVong
June 10, 2003, 02:46 PM
Thufer, I'm sure you understand that making an agressive or violent action toward's the slimy anti's, although tempting, would only doom those with guns. I'm sure Feinstein, HGC Inc. and their ilk would jump at the opportunity to sacrifice thousands to the machineguns if it would give them a better toehold twords a complete gun ban. We need to deny the enemy every advantage, which includes responsable gun ownership.

We'll discuss violence when/if they start a large scale gun confiscation. Lets delay that as long as possible.

Thufer
June 10, 2003, 10:46 PM
No I have not uttered a single word to my elected officials and neither have you. All of our messages are being taken by secretaries, who then delete them and send back a prefabricated response.

You can brake it down all you want but its much more complicated than what we are arguing here. Whats happening is the Government is taking away our rights and when you are ready to admit it, maybe we can stop it.

Why is it even up for debate whether anyone can own any gun? Owning a firearm of my choice is an unalienable right of being an American. I'm cant understand how these people can even propose such things without public uproar. But the public isnt awake. Our rights are already infringed. Its your call. I've already made my decision.

yzguy
June 11, 2003, 01:15 PM
I do agree that it is ridiculous that many gun laws are even up for debate, I also believe in at least giving the system a shot before committing to shooting someone over it....

True my letter may not have made it to any elected officials desk, but I bet if his secretary gets 300 copies of it from different voters, at least one will... And at very least I am very sure there is a little count going on about different subjects (such as this one) that I added one more to the anti gun control count. I'm sure the gun control crowd has many more though because of people like you who don't even bother attempting to make their voices heard. You want to know why the elected officials don't bother to hear you? because not enough people who think like us bother to talk/vote!!! YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. In my opinion you are worse than the sheep who don't even know/care that their rights are being taken away. They don't know any better. You know what is going on, know it is wrong, and yet still fail to even attempt to make your voice heard!!!

You can brake it down all you want but its much more complicated than what we are arguing here. Whats happening is the Government is taking away our rights and when you are ready to admit it, maybe we can stop it.Admit it? who is denying it?!?!? of course they are trying to take away our rights... why? because the people that speak the loudest to politicians (and vote the most) are the ones that will be heard. So my point is, educate the people that don't know and tell them why it is wrong and why they should care, and get yourself and anyone else you can involved in protecting our rights!!

I ask again, what exactly would YOU propose we do to "stop it"?

by Homer Simpson:
Trying is the first step towards failure.Maybe that is why you won't eve TRY making your voice heard.... :)

Art Eatman
June 11, 2003, 04:09 PM
Thufer, a polite, one-page, one-subject snail-mail letter will be read. Yeah, maybeso "only" by a staffer. However, what often counts is the relative number of letters, from the standpoint of "It's the squeaky wheel which gets the most grease."

The biggest problem is that the anti-gun gang works harder at getting mail to Congressfolks than the pro-gun folks do.

Another helpful action is joining up with any local pro-gun group which actively works to get out the vote. The afore-mentioned Rep. Sanford Bishop from Georgia discovered that anti-gun would cost him his job; the Committee for Safe Government (CSG) made it clear to him that a pro-gun stance would not hurt him at the polls. He isn't the same Democrat as when he first was elected.

I've pointed out to a few folks up in the Beltway country that any anti-gun legislation would be seen as betrayal. The result would then be that the people who voted as a bloc to get a Republican Congress and Presidency might just stay home on election day. If there is one thing on God's green earth that those folks want, it's re-election.

Art

xjer
June 13, 2003, 06:36 PM
After reading this thread I faxed a short letter to my districts
House of Representatives member, Tom Cole.
I could not figure out how to post the original but here is
what he had to say.

Thank you for contacting me regarging your Second Amendent
rights.

As a NRA member, I am committed to protecting our Second
Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. The problem with
gun control is shown time and again in cities that have strict
gun control laws. For example, Washington, D.C. has the most
restrictive gun control laws in the country, yet is know foremost
for its violent criminal activity. The city has gun control, but little
crime control.

The key to curbing the unlawful use of firearms is stricter
enforcement of existing laws. There are about 20,000 firearms
laws on the books. We cannot erode our constitutional rights in
the name of crime prevention, and I will oppose any legislation
that seeks to do so. In particular, I will vote against reauthorizing
the Clinton era 1994 assault weapons ban.

I appreciate your thoughts and hope that you feel free to contact
my office whenever other issues of importance arise.

Tom Cole
Member of Congress



Mike

yzguy
June 13, 2003, 09:43 PM
I wish my rep sounded more like that!!! :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Rifle Owners and the Renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!