H.R. 6257 - Assault Weapon Ban Re-authorization Act of 2008


PDA






LegalAlien
October 19, 2008, 11:47 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

This proposed Bill severely attacks our 2A rights. Even more restrictive and specific than the original expired Bill.

Write/phone/email the sponsor, cosponsors and your own representatives to prevent this Bill from proceding any further.

I am not going into the political aspects of this, but it is gun related and RKBA related and we need to pay special attention to this

If you enjoyed reading about "H.R. 6257 - Assault Weapon Ban Re-authorization Act of 2008" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Big45
October 19, 2008, 11:55 PM
Bill is 4 months old and has 4 cosponsors. What am I supposed to be worried about again?

Zoogster
October 20, 2008, 12:11 AM
Always good to be vigilant, but I do not see any anti legislation going through until after the elections.

When the democrats have majorities in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all at the same time is when you need to worry. It looks like that is going to be the case.
The worst among them will be able to sponsor anti legislation, and have it voted on along party lines in short time, and then signed right into law. Won't be many checks and balances in place. (Other than the 2nd Amendment, but don't worry about that, Supreme Court appointments by the next president can deal with any appeals that end up at the SCOTUS years down the road.)

So when things are looking so easy for the antis not too many months from now, I don't think they are going to do much to bring attention to the issue of gun control while votes are still important.

mbt2001
October 20, 2008, 12:11 AM
Bill is 4 months old and has 4 cosponsors. What am I supposed to be worried about again?

That the Government is attacking your 2nd amendment rights, rights guaranteed in the Constitution, a document that the Government has sworn to uphold...

And don't think that 4 sponsors can't turn into 80 if Obama wins the election.

hso
October 20, 2008, 12:13 AM
Then it might be a good idea to hit things like this hard now instead of waiting until the current in Congress is even stronger against us!

LegalAlien
October 20, 2008, 09:11 AM
Bill is 4 months old and has 4 cosponsors. What am I supposed to be worried about again?


Dream on brother. . .. dream on!!

You might just be woken up in a screaming nightmare of HR 6257 during 2009.

Frog48
October 20, 2008, 11:32 AM
When the democrats have majorities in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all at the same time is when you need to worry.

And don't think that 4 sponsors can't turn into 80 if Obama wins the election.

Yall are assuming that this bill is a Democratic product. Click the above link... HR 6257's sponsor is a Republican, as are all 4 co-sponsors.

Sponsor:
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]

Co-sponsors:
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]

Crow1108
October 20, 2008, 01:31 PM
Yall are assuming that this bill is a Democratic product. Click the above link... HR 6257's sponsor is a Republican, as are all 4 co-sponsors.

Sponsor:
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]

Co-sponsors:
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]

Thought it was a little weird seeing all of them were GOP, then I noticed where they all are from (mostly the liberal stronghold of New England). The Florida one...well...the hyphenated last name gives it away :uhoh:

Phil DeGraves
October 20, 2008, 01:40 PM
then I noticed where they all are from (mostly the liberal stronghold of New England).

Only the Connecticut one is from New England. Maine, NH, and VT are all solidly pro gun. (Mass. CT. & RI, that's a different story.) Delaware and NJ are NOT part of New England.

LegalAlien
October 20, 2008, 02:22 PM
It is unfortunate about the political affiliations of the sponsor and co-sponsors, but, be that as it may, can we please keep the party politics out of this.

Best we can do is to contact our own representative, whether Rep, Dem, Ind, etc and let them know we do NOT want to see this Bill go any further during 2008 and we do NOT want a resurrection and repeat of 2007 and 2008 attempts.

hso
October 20, 2008, 10:47 PM
If you can visit any of these politicians it will go a very long way to getting their ear. If you can't get to see them, a snail mail message carries more weight than an email. Try to get others to snail mail the word to them that an AWB is already a failed experiment that even the National Science Foundation and the DOJ couldn't find any statistical support for.

mbt2001
October 21, 2008, 10:34 AM
We have made the gains that we have because we began engaging the other side on every point, statistic and law they tried to put out there. It has been extremely effective, not just in the political realm, but in the tilting of the debate from the idea that banning guns would really do anything at all.

The next step is to win the argument that some guns are more deadly and dangerous than others. This would be a bad time to disengage.

hags
October 21, 2008, 03:33 PM
If you can visit any of these politicians it will go a very long way to getting their ear. If you can't get to see them, a snail mail message carries more weight than an email. Try to get others to snail mail the word to them that an AWB is already a failed experiment that even the National Science Foundation and the DOJ couldn't find any statistical support for.

Uh, having a brother who is an attroney who worked in a U.S. Senator's office I can tell you that snail mail, notes, and postcards usually wind up being the joke of the day.

Sad fact is that the good parts get highlighted, copied, or handed around for light entertainment.

Your representatives are far more accessable to those with money, power and influence. A school shooting with major press coverage or something along those lines is all it would take for your rights to be trampled under an Obama, Pelosi, Reed administration.

hso
October 21, 2008, 04:07 PM
Post disappear?

See below copied from the sticky at the top of the forum

This forum is dedicated to activism to promote the RKBA.

It is the place to share with others the actions you have taken on behalf of RKBA or to propose actions on behalf of RKBA. actions taken or proposed on behalf of RKBA means that your post must describe an action taken or propose a plan of action on behalf of RKBA or it will be deleted.

On rare occasion a thread may be closed instead of deleted. Closed usually means that a moderator thought that your mistake might serve as a bad example to others in Activism so that they would see not to post whines, "Didja see...", cartoons, unrelated material, etc.

This is not the place to complain about politicians or discuss politics. Endless discussions complaining about politicians and politics sap the power of the internet for change. Those threads will be removed as a violation of the terms of this forum.

This is not the place to debate ideas. This the place to outline action to be taken.

This is not the place to use RKBA as the excuse to promote a broader agenda. Focus.

This is where we present actions we actually have carried out or action we want to carry out to make change happen.

There will be absolutely no arguments or comments about whether a given course of action is a good one. Such arguments always occur, about every single idea, and then no course of action is taken. This is the place to co-ordinate, not to talk somebody else out of doing anything.

If you cop a defeatist attitude in this forum, we’ll boot you. We don’t have time for crying. Any extraneous posts not directly related to the activity get deleted.

There will be no preferences given to any political party. If you have an activity to organize Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians, it doesn’t matter. Any bashing on any party is not allowed. This is not the place to muddy the waters.

Please use this forum to coordinate and work together. This is the place to organize to get things done. Use this forum for campaigns, legal gatherings, letter writing, talking points to push on the media, and things of this nature.


In other words, this forum is not where little gets accomplished because of the endless bickering, and we’re not going to let it turn into that. This is a forum for those of you that actually want to get things done instead of talked to death.

hags
October 21, 2008, 07:41 PM
Rkba?

Frog48
October 21, 2008, 08:12 PM
It is unfortunate about the political affiliations of the sponsor and co-sponsors, but, be that as it may, can we please keep the party politics out of this.

My point was simply that we can not afford to assume that a particular politician is "on our side" simply because they happen to label themselves as Republican (or Democrat, or what-have-you).

We much scrutinize EVERY candidate and assess their personal ideology individually, REGARDLESS of claimed political party. Our rights could possibly be infringed either side of the ideological spectrum, so we much remain attentive and not lull ourselves into a false sense of security.

Big45
October 21, 2008, 08:24 PM
snore

Juna
October 21, 2008, 08:25 PM
And don't think that 4 sponsors can't turn into 80 if Obama wins the election.

Exactly. This isn't about partisan politics, but Obama, Pelosi, and other prominent politicians in the highest positions of power are as vehemently anti-gun as can be. This bill is on the back burner for now, but wait and see what happens if Obama wins. Remember what happened when Clinton won?

If Obama wins... No checks. No balances. Veto-proof, filibuster proof control over both houses of Congress, in addition to control of the White House and the SCOTUS. Remember, we only kept our 2A rights by a 5-4 majority in the Heller case!!!! ONE VOTE was all that kept our individual right to keep and bear arms from extinction!!!

NEVER get complacent. One SCOTUS justice is 89 y/o, and 3-4 others are over 70 y/o.

distra
October 21, 2008, 10:25 PM
Only the Connecticut one is from New England. Maine, NH, and VT are all solidly pro gun. (Mass. CT. & RI, that's a different story.) Delaware and NJ are NOT part of New England.


Actually CT is not bad (minus the AWB :banghead:), we have carry permits with few restrictions, no gun list like MA, but still not as nice VT or NH. This guy Shays is the rep. from Fairfield county AKA New York City's north east suburb. Doesn't surprise me coming from that area of CT. DE & NJ are police states compared to CT so that's not surprising either. We must stay vigilant and stop this nonsense. If "That one" wins we will have 4 hard years of fighting this mess. Sign-up as many new NRA members as possible. Let's learn from the UK and believe an all out ban could happen in the US.

skwab
October 22, 2008, 10:14 AM
I think we need to play up the economic health of the firearm industry. I may be wrong, but from everything I've seen it is a very healthy industry on many fronts, from manufacturing, to retail to participation. Weapons bans will only mean lost revenues, decreased profits and lost jobs. - Not the kind of thing you want to be responsible for during these sketchy economic times.

hso
October 22, 2008, 10:57 AM
skawb has a very very good point. Do we want to put people out of good manufacturing jobs during hard economic times? That's a great point to hammer home!

hags
October 22, 2008, 12:28 PM
skawb has a very very good point. Do we want to put people out of good manufacturing jobs during hard economic times? That's a great point to hammer home!

Let's see..........if it means saving one life. if it means assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, if it means no more innocent victims in urban drive-bys, if it means saving a life in a domestic dispute, if it means one less assualt weapon in the hands of a gang banger, if it means cops have to deal with one less assault weapon on the street, etc...........

What do you think the response would be, especially if Obama was the salesman?
He could appeal to country and the urban black community and say "these weapons are killing our children". Does anyone think that an argument about jobs would sway anyone?

Of course I'm playing devil's advocate but I can see this happening without putting too much thought into it.

skwab
October 22, 2008, 12:43 PM
I agree Hags - but they'll spin any argument we come up with, but the more angles that can be included in the argument, the better the position. And right now the economy is hot and heavy on people's minds. The argument of economics wouldn't stand on its own because I don't think the industry is all that big, but it could certainly contribute.

hags
October 22, 2008, 01:16 PM
There's just no need to have these "assault weapons". They're killing are kids and are used against the police.

Your answer is?

hags
October 22, 2008, 03:13 PM
Breaking News.


"Shots fired on Western Kentucky University"




.......here it comes.

skwab
October 22, 2008, 03:32 PM
My response would be:

The type of weapon is irregardless. You use the phrase assault weapon because it's scary and raises eyebrows. In reality what is being used to kill kids and harm police are weapons obtained illegally. You think by banning so called assault weapons, rifles with pistol grips or any firearm with a detachable magazine, that you are going to somehow make the streets safer. The only outcome of such legislation would be to take those guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, because they are the only ones following the laws. You then put the citizenry of this nation at risk because you hamper their ability to protect themselves. You punish those who have never broken a law and who use the labled assault weapons for the various sporting purposes that most who own them use them for. You damage an industry who employ thousands of people across this country, resulting in lost jobs in retail and manufacturing. You decrease the budgets for Research and Development for weapons our Law enforcement officers and military use on a daily basis to protect themselves...and yet the bad guys still have the guns.

something to that effect.

hags
October 22, 2008, 03:57 PM
and while I agree with you why didn't that work the first time around?

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 22, 2008, 04:43 PM
The type of weapon is irregardless.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

benEzra
October 22, 2008, 05:02 PM
Substitute "irrelevant" for "irregardless", I imagine.

paintballdude902
October 22, 2008, 06:51 PM
well look at the hr 1022
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

it is the same bill pretty much and made it to the same point then died it looks like

HK G3
October 23, 2008, 04:43 AM
There's just no need to have these "assault weapons". They're killing are kids and are used against the police.

The gangs are killing our kids, and they need to be aggressively engaged, routed, and stomped out, as they are a plague on our urban communities. Our children's lives are too precious to jeopardize by scapegoating inanimate objects to distract us from the real issue: gang-life and gang-culture, which not only tolerates, but encourages brutal violence with wanton disregard for innocent life and the law. Until we address the core issue, we are only endangering our children and law enforcement officers, and in this instance, undermining the Constitution.

How's that for a soundbite?

hso
October 23, 2008, 11:10 AM
Folks,

This is turning into a broader discussion than just the AWB bills currently in the congressional pipeline and I'm not sure what else can be said than stay vigilant for each and every one of these things slinking through the background noise, work your congresscritters as much as possible and keep people informed of the contents of these pieces of "legislation".

S4gunn
October 23, 2008, 05:14 PM
Let's not forget that irregardless isn't even a word. :)
-g

Yo Mama
October 23, 2008, 05:46 PM
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to reinstate, for 10 years, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act's assault weapons ban to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Specifies models and features of banned weapons.

Sets forth exceptions to such ban, including: (1) firearms or devices lawfully possessed under federal law on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) certain firearms, replicas, or duplicates listed in an appendix as they were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (3) any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action and that has been rendered permanently inoperable or that is an antique firearm; (4) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; (5) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and (6) firearms manufactured for, transferred to, or possessed by a federal, state, or local government agency or for law enforcement.

Requires the serial number of any weapon or device manufactured after enactment of this Act to clearly show the date of manufacture.

Directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the effects of this Act on violent and drug trafficking crime.



First, why is it always ten years?

Second, looks like they will try to make this one easier to digest than hr 1022. It's grandfathering in current guns.

Third, we will be lucky to have this bill as I see it so far written, as once Obama gets into office they will be much worse than this.

Hey, stock up, and keep trained.

shdwfx
October 23, 2008, 05:50 PM
delete

hags
October 24, 2008, 09:20 AM
The gangs are killing our kids, and they need to be aggressively engaged, routed, and stomped out, as they are a plague on our urban communities. Our children's lives are too precious to jeopardize by scapegoating inanimate objects to distract us from the real issue: gang-life and gang-culture, which not only tolerates, but encourages brutal violence with wanton disregard for innocent life and the law. Until we address the core issue, we are only endangering our children and law enforcement officers, and in this instance, undermining the Constitution.

How's that for a soundbite?

There is nothing inherently illegal about belonging to a street gang, motocycle gang or any other kind of "gang". It's not a chargable offense.
So much for the "core" issue.

It's the easy access to guns, particularly assault weapons, and the gun culture that's the real culprit.
If you can save one childs life keeping assault weapons out of the hands of thugs by keeping them out of the hands of everyone then that's an even trade, especially if it's your child.
As Obama says "you don't need an AK47". I think most voters would agree.

As to the "plague on our urban communities" I don't have an urban community and think they are a plague unto themselves.

Yo Mama
October 24, 2008, 11:58 AM
There is nothing inherently illegal about belonging to a street gang, motocycle gang or any other kind of "gang". It's not a chargable offense.
So much for the "core" issue.


In AZ they just arrested 5 gang members in a high profile raid, and charged them with belonging to a crime sindicate.

hags
October 24, 2008, 12:08 PM
Ha, ha.

Yo Mama
October 24, 2008, 12:19 PM
Come on, everyone needs to call! I did. I was hung up on twice.

These people need to know that everyone across the nation knows what they are up to.

hags
October 24, 2008, 01:11 PM
Call who?

X9ballX
October 24, 2008, 08:15 PM
ok so i'm geussing no more ar-15 for me what about a PS90 will i still be able to get one of those

X9ballX
October 24, 2008, 10:23 PM
i posted this on a few political websites. that should help us out.still will this mean i can get no ps90

hags
October 24, 2008, 11:23 PM
Not my county, but my state. Take a look at this. This mindset is scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuYiacyAUDU

Now there are alot of anti-gunners in Cook County government but this takes it to a whole other level.

If people in Cook County Illinois value their 2nd amendment rights VOTE!

X9ballX
October 25, 2008, 12:15 AM
dont they know more guns less crime. god stupid people. dose this law mean no more ps90 for me???

Crow1108
October 26, 2008, 02:23 AM
As Obama says "you don't need an AK47".

Most Americans don't need to smoke. It causes polution, health-related problems due to second-hand smoke, and the occasional forrest and brush fire. But we do it anyway.

Most Americans don't need to drive a full-sized SUV. They use enough gas to fuel two or more economy cars, is heavier on the road (thus making road repair more frequent), and can be potentially fatal to someone who they get into an accident with who is driving a smaller car. But we do it anyway.

It's about the freedoms that are ours. For the most part, owning any weapons we want is a victimless enterprise. Oh sure, you hear some nut shooting up a mall, but you won't hear than a many, many more of those weapons never will kill anyone. I don't think it's anybody's business to tell me that I shouldn't have what I want to protect my family or take to the range, anymore than it is their business to tell me what to eat, what side to sleep on, how to spend my time, and what I should wear to go out with my wife.

I don't buy into the "punish the many for the actions of the few". It's not sound logic, and it stinks of a nanny mindset. If it worked, let's ban driving anything that allows anyone to mow down a crowd of pedestrians, heavily regulate the obtaining of a private pilot's license, make purchasing certain power tools open only to legitimate corporations, ban the sale of certain household cleaning compounds to anyone not possessing a license and having a psychological evaluation to see that they are mentally sound to obtain them, and completely ban people from owning certain breeds of dogs.

X9ballX
October 26, 2008, 11:32 AM
most americans who go out and kill people with these guns are usually white(sorry its sterotype) supremisists or white people who lost their job and was expecting alot of good before it all came down on him.they dont see anything to do so they kill people.

its usually whote people who do this...or white people who get put in the news for doing this

X9ballX
October 26, 2008, 11:35 AM
i'm not racist against white people its just sterotype.

so the summary is if it has a pistol grip-semi auto- detachable mag its to be outlawed

what about a single shot 50 cal?

Big45
October 26, 2008, 11:37 AM
Oh yeah, this thread is so THR 2008.

Master Blaster
October 26, 2008, 12:25 PM
most americans who go out and kill people with these guns are usually white(sorry its sterotype) supremisists or white people who lost their job and was expecting alot of good before it all came down on him.they dont see anything to do so they kill people.

its usually whote people who do this...or white people who get put in the news for doing this

You mean like John Muhammed and Lee malvo? Or the MS-13 gangbangers in miami???

I think the race of folks who commit heinous crims is immaterial, as is the tyep of weapon they use.

The thing we really need to worry about isnt a ban but a law that embodies reasonable restrictions, a loophole heller has left wide open.

Like ammo capacity regulations, or prohibitively costly licensing, or AMMO taxes./ arsenal licenses.

X9ballX
October 26, 2008, 01:28 PM
the race is immaterial its just thats whos usually assosiated with the crime. anyways will this law forbid a single shot 50 cal

makanut
October 26, 2008, 03:06 PM
Remember folks, If it doesn't have a "happy switch" it's just a rifle. The messiah says "Nobody needs an AK-47." I would submit that almost noone can afford an AK-47. Unfortunately, ignorance on firearms abounds among the general public. Democrats have exploited this and continue to do so. AKs cost about the same as a low end SUV (Dealer Samples), out of my price range. AKs are so rare in the US, banning them shouldn't even be an issue.

thebucket
October 26, 2008, 05:19 PM
We need to oppose any upcoming AWB's by specifically emphasizing that most murders are comitted with handguns, 7,361 to be exact, versus 450 with rifles in 2007. We know from Heller that a ban on handguns would be unconstitutional as that was the exact subject matter they dealt with. With assault weapons, banning them may be considered "reasonable" regulations. Any defensive strategy needs to highlight that AK-47's and other "assault" weapons are not the most common murder weapons and that they are used for sport, self defense and many other legal purposes. We need to tear down the idea that guns are only used by criminals and fight the claims that "assault" weapons are dangerous weapons only used by criminals.

hags
October 27, 2008, 09:33 AM
I think the race of folks who commit heinous crims is immaterial, as is the tyep of weapon they use.

The thing we really need to worry about isnt a ban but a law that embodies reasonable restrictions, a loophole heller has left wide open.

Like ammo capacity regulations, or prohibitively costly licensing, or AMMO taxes./ arsenal licenses.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head!

Most Americans don't need to drive a full-sized SUV. They use enough gas to fuel two or more economy cars, is heavier on the road (thus making road repair more frequent), and can be potentially fatal to someone who they get into an accident with who is driving a smaller car. But we do it anyway.

I wouldn't mind a ban on SUVs. You wouldnt' even need an outright ban just enact some sensible fuel standards and enforce them.
Most people I see driving a Hummer, Excursion or Aviator do so as status symbols. I usually see one person only in these vehicles. That's not good for anyone. It would benefit not only the enviorment but save me tax money and strengthen my country as well by reducing the amount of money we send to the Bin Ladens.

Some people think a crucifix in a jar of urine is "freedom", I don't, I think it's offensive and has no place anywhere let alone sponsored by taxpayers.

Remember folks, If it doesn't have a "happy switch" it's just a rifle. The messiah says "Nobody needs an AK-47." I would submit that almost noone can afford an AK-47. Unfortunately, ignorance on firearms abounds among the general public. Democrats have exploited this and continue to do so. AKs cost about the same as a low end SUV (Dealer Samples), out of my price range. AKs are so rare in the US, banning them shouldn't even be an issue.

You can argue semantics all day. Let's face it, the definition of an assault weapon has changed. A (semi-auto) AK47 has no place in modern society, everyone involved knows what Obama is talking about. Explaining the definition of assault weapon in the hopes that the opposition will "wake up" or realize they're wrong is delusional.
:evil:

Big45
October 27, 2008, 10:03 PM
Some people think a crucifix in a jar of urine is "freedom", I don't, I think it's offensive and has no place anywhere let alone sponsored by taxpayers.

The crucifix in the urine is not freedom. The act of doing it is called freedom of expression. Your verbal opposition to it is called freedom of speech. You've been in Illinois too long. The rest of us, who drive SUV's and burn American flags, live in America.

hags
October 27, 2008, 11:43 PM
Ok, I'm guessing you missed my point, so, I think the crucifix in urine represents freedom for many. How's that for semantics?

Plenty of SUVs here, usually with one person in them. I find burning the American flag offensive too.

You keep arguing semantics and make cutesy talking points while they're taking your rights away.

Please check out the link in my sig. How far away is forced confiscation with that kind of mindset?

Big45
October 28, 2008, 01:01 AM
Who has taken any of my rights away? Who is the mysterious 'they'?
Who? What have 'they' done? I open carry all day long. I have stacks of guns and tons of ammo. I shoot whenever I want. I could go buy an NFA if I could afford one. I go to gun stores and gun shows. I make private party sales and trades with no paper trail.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? I feel like I'm in gun heaven. I am only limited by my funds.

So how I am being restricted? Who is taking away anything from me? Let's hear it.

HOW'S THAT FOR SEMANTICS.

hags
October 28, 2008, 08:30 AM
Well, you could check the title of this thread for one.

Kino74
October 28, 2008, 09:37 AM
I really worry about the 2A when gunowners act in disbelief about a ban. It was only 4 years ago that the AWB sunsetted and yet we have gunowners acting like it never happened. Every year we have had another AWB, worse than the first one, drawn up and I see nothing that says we will not see another one brought up in Congress, especially since the Democrats will have at least a commanding number of Senate and House of Representative seats and possibly have the most anti-gun POTUS with them.

X9ballX
October 28, 2008, 05:30 PM
still dont they realize more guns less crime.the crininals wont give a **** if guns are legal or not.

Killian
October 28, 2008, 10:25 PM
As Obama says "you don't need an AK47".

Too kill someone, maybe I don't. But as I often tell liberal friends, those extra shots give me the option of firing WARNING shots.

Would Korean storeowners in Los Angeles have failed to protect their stores if "all" they had were 12ga 870s? No. They'd have just faced the mobs of people and shot to kill instead. With an AK they could pop some shots into the ground or into the air in order to warn away people intent on causing them harm.

No reason why the same thing couldn't be done for other situations. With a surplus of 30 rounds, I don't have to worry shooting two or three in the ground. With only 10 rounds in the clip, I might not take the risk of shooting two or three that I might feel I will need if the person(s) confronting me don't comply with my instructions.

So remember...the extra bullets are not there to KILL more people, they are there so I don't HAVE to kill people.

sig228
October 29, 2008, 01:04 AM
Yall are assuming that this bill is a Democratic product. Click the above link... HR 6257's sponsor is a Republican, as are all 4 co-sponsors.

Sponsor:
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]

Co-sponsors:
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]

Whats unbelievable is that Ros-Lehtinen is rated a C+ by the NRA. Big rating downgrade needed here for being a co-sponsor. I'm shocked the NRA hasn't figured that out yet.

Big45
October 29, 2008, 01:29 AM
Is it just me or does anyone else here not give a flying f*@k about this dead, non issue,4 month old bill that had 4 sponsors?

I'm calling out the shop owners. STOP THE PARANOIA.

moooose102
October 29, 2008, 08:27 AM
WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? I feel like I'm in gun heaven. I am only limited by my funds.

move to gustopo michigan, then you wont feel so free. and we are not as bad as it gets, there are states out there that are way worse. once all of my family dies off, i am moving next door to you! i would love to be able to strap on a gun to my hip, walk out the door, and not fear being hassled, or arrested by the cops for something that is legal. its legal, and they still arrest you, how is that for freedom!

X9ballX
October 29, 2008, 09:51 PM
and still nobodies answering my question about wether or not a single shot 50 cal would be affected by this

misANTHrope
October 30, 2008, 12:15 AM
and still nobodies answering my question about wether or not a single shot 50 cal would be affected by this

Did you ever consider reading the text of the bill yourself? I found the answer to your question on about the third line.

(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

And a bit further down:

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

(B) any firearm that--

‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;

X9ballX
October 31, 2008, 05:36 PM
i was worried about rules on caliber i read that part

marklbucla
November 5, 2008, 12:34 PM
Even more restrictive and specific than the original expired Bill.

It appears to be the same thing. How is it different?

Lonest@r
November 5, 2008, 12:46 PM
Let's keep the politics out of this one
It is unfortunate about the political affiliations of the sponsor and co-sponsors, but, be that as it may, can we please keep the party politics out of this.

As a recent member, I have noticed several threads closed down at the mere mention of politics and/or party affiliations.

My question to you is: In order to protect our RKBA (2A), how can we inform or be informed on how to vote without mentioning politics?

I understand if it was to get out of hand.

hso
November 5, 2008, 02:04 PM
Well, this one sure got off the rails.

Perhaps someone will want to start and keep an Activism thread going on this piece of legislation instead of derailing the discussion?

If you enjoyed reading about "H.R. 6257 - Assault Weapon Ban Re-authorization Act of 2008" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!