What is the argument for reinstating the AWB?


PDA






Atticum
February 26, 2009, 11:32 AM
Hello Highroaders,

I was wondering - What is the argument for reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004? Have the demographics of American safety declined in the last four years? What related events have occured since it expired? Was there an explosion of assault-weapon related crime? Was it assault weapons that killed the Wall Street?

Is it because we are worried about drug cartels in Mexico? I'm not saying we shouldn't be, but I wonder how much the AWB directly impacts that situation. Maybe instead of reinstating it we could create more American jobs in the US Border Patrol.

I do not wish undue suffering on anyone. But I do think that the rights of American citizens come before the considerations of other nations.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the argument for reinstating the AWB?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Seminole
February 26, 2009, 11:39 AM
You are looking for the kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the real motivations for gun control. Oh, sure, those types of reasons are sometimes given, but they are always pretenses.

The desire to impose gun control is unrelated to issues of safety or crime. Gun control is based on the premise that individuals have no legitimate right to self-determination; instead, they should depend on and obey the state.

Just Jim
February 26, 2009, 11:45 AM
Democrats use any incident they can to bring more socialist control on America. The border is left open so an incident can happen. Like Rhame Emanual (pres chief of staff) says, no sense wasteing a good crisis.

jj

everallm
February 26, 2009, 11:47 AM
There is no RATIONAL argument although it can pass legal muster under a "rational basis" level of constitutional law scrutiny, two different beasties.

This is why getting 2A incorporated is so important as then we get scrutiny (should be "Strict Scrutiny a la 1A) evel tied down, something the SC was lamentably negligent on in Heller.

scottgun
February 26, 2009, 11:51 AM
Assault weapons are dangerous, they have no useful purpose other than mowing down crowds of innocent children. They are bullet hoses, flinging endless amounts of death and dispair into our vulnerable inner cities. Nobody needs a military style weapon.

:barf: :barf: :barf:

I am scottgun and I do not approve this message.

TexasRifleman
February 26, 2009, 11:57 AM
Is it because we are worried about drug cartels in Mexico?

No, that's just a handy excuse.

Last year the problem in Mexico was all the FN Five Seven handguns being smuggled into Mexico, now it's Barrett 50's and AR's, even though most of the violence seems to be happening with full auto AK's and homemade explosives.

No, it's just a handy excuse to do something the anti's have wanted to do all along

eye5600
February 26, 2009, 12:53 PM
The AWB is a natural extension of the line of thinking among politicians that goes something like this: Something terrible happened, what can I make illegal so it won't happen again? It's true of the both the left and the right, and it happens all the time. Right now someone in DC is proposing legislation to outlaw private ownership of large primates because of approx 1 incident in the 233 year history of the country. You would think that if it took until now for it to happen once, it wasn't a big problem, but politicians don't think that way.

So sometimes guns are involved in bad things, and many very bad people have assault weapons. I'm talking gangs and druggies with AK-47s. (I think they like AKs for the same reasons as other insurgents and rebellions: they're cheap and they work.) Also, one or two nuts. So politicians are looking for something to make illegal.

One of the major reasons it sounds so reasonable is that they are outlawing something they don't want themselves. (Chances are there aren't any congressmen who have chimps as pets.) Mostly urban people don't know about or care about rifles. It's a tyranny of a majority over a minority. It can work the other way round too. For example, voters in a mostly rural state might refuse to fund mass transit, or not see the point of school busing for integration.

Politicians don't read all their mail, but they do count the pros and the cons. It's a fine time to send a note to your congressman saying that if he ever votes for gun control, you will never vote for him again.

ArmedBear
February 26, 2009, 01:02 PM
No, it's just a handy excuse to do something the anti's have wanted to do all along


It's the PATRIOT Act technique.

Take a laundry list of some interest groups' wishes that no regular American citizen really even thinks about, let alone wants. Have it ready, hundreds of pages of it. When something happens and everyone is waving the flag and paying no attention, force it through Congress.

Did anyone in Congress READ the PATRIOT Act before it passed? AFAIK, no. Nobody could have.

Did anyone in Congress READ the Generational Theft Stimulus Act of 2009 before voting for it? No. Nobody could have.

This is how a Republic dies.

Justin
February 26, 2009, 01:15 PM
There is fundamentally no rational reason for re-instating a ban on so-called "assault weapons."

Even the study commissioned by the Clinton administration came to the conclusion that the ban had little effect on crime. (You can read the summary of the study here. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Search/Abstracts.aspx?id=173405))

Attempting to reinstate the ban is nothing more than a culture war issue.

lanternlad1
February 26, 2009, 01:23 PM
The original AWB had to be re-written several times before it was viewed as "not too broad to be overturned by SCOTUS". Even then, it had to slipped into the Clinton Crime Bill as it would not have passed on its own. Be on the lookout for any such "necessary" bill (like the Stimulus package) that they can slip a new AWB into, because that's how they'll do it. Granted, Heller gives us some precedent with SCOTUS, but that won't stop Holder. The Mexico thing is B.S., and Holder knows it, he'll do anything to make the cards fall his way. It will be another VT slaying that will doom us, not Mexico.

beatcop
February 26, 2009, 01:25 PM
-Use to utility ratio...cars kill more people, but they are used by the majority of the populace to get to work, etc...the danger of the arms outweighs their usefullness.

-Acceptable losses...when an "innocent" is gunned down with one, this is TOTALLY unacceptable. There are no acceptable losses when it comes to gun violence.

-Outgunned...these arms are superior to "everything", the police/good people don't stand a chance.

When you can change these "impressions" you might have a shot at striking it down. These arguments appeal to the average Joe/Jane who have no interest or inclination in shooting.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
February 26, 2009, 01:34 PM
There is no cogent valid argument. The only 'argument' is:

"I don't like guns; lets ban some of them at least, even if it is a complete sham based on cosmetic features which has nothing to do with lethality and zero correlation to crime stat reduction -- Gawdsakes its for the children, people!!!"

eye5600
February 26, 2009, 01:50 PM
It's the PATRIOT Act technique.

The history of the Patriot Act is indeed instructive, and in a number of different ways. It contains many clauses that are reasonable and necessary but it's hard to tell that from the newspapers who are only interested in the two or three things which crossed the line. It's hard for Congress to simply modify the excesses in part because the reporting has been so simple-minded, and in part because Congress is so simple-minded. (Congress, as an institution, is not half as smart as most it's members. Not sure why....)

jimmyraythomason
February 26, 2009, 01:56 PM
The argument? Well let's see, a friendly president, a friendly congress(both houses) and a friendly speaker of the house. No reason for them not to try again.

KBintheSLC
February 26, 2009, 02:39 PM
Attempting to reinstate the ban is nothing more than a culture war issue.

Who do you think will win that war? The armed, the unarmed, the dot gov. Heck, the majority of police and military folks are pro-2A. Will they turn their guns on us en masse? Not too likely. There may be patches armed government assaults against gun owners, but I bet their determination would wither rapidly compared to our determination.

If its war they want, they should think long and hard before waging it against 100 million armed citizens. Most of us are already at the end of our patience reserve.

I personally will not abide by any further Federal infringements. I have a few LE friends at the public range that say they will not enforce any more Federal gun regulations... one of them said "if they want to pass more laws, they can send in their own thugs to enforce them".

I think a lot of folks are tired of the same old Fed crap. After all, whether you are a cop, BATFE agent, or just a working-class civilian, in the end we are all Americans. And taking away fundamental rights will effect us all.

Congress is so simple-minded. (Congress, as an institution, is not half as smart as most it's members.
That can be said for society as a whole. The mob mentality is a potent retardant.

OAKVILLE SHOOTER
February 26, 2009, 02:45 PM
Because they want to. No other reason is needed. Gun Control has never been about the guns. It is about the control. They don't have and don't need a rational reason.

RedAlert
February 26, 2009, 04:34 PM
IMHO, the base issue is fear. The average US Citizen is afraid of guns and the pain and suffering caused by criminals, irresponsible owners, and the Waccco Image presented by so many PRO-GUN people. Just look at the "Bunker Buds" and their "bunker mentality" expressed by many on this site which is fairly moderate.

Too many of our average citizens only see AWs as battle weapons that are used in a time of war "over there somewhere." Not here in our generally peaceful cities and suburbs. Not trying to say we have no violence here; but, look at what they see on TV all the time with the AKs being fired in the air by every Tom Dick or Saddam!

IMHO, reasoned defense of our RTK&BA will win when coupled with reasoned education. Some guy hollering that the only way you'll get my weapon is from my cold dead hands in the streets and press will not do us a single good thing. The guy will be dead, the police will have his weapons and his voice will be silent. It might demonstrate to the average Joe/Jill out there the depth some will go to defend their rights but in the wrong manner. We need to focus on the veterans who won us this right, not the Bunker Buds! Their image of "Bunker Buds" is imprinted by Ruby Ridge, and Wacko Texas.

Are you going to be a screamer or an advocate who through reasoned dialog and education advances our rights?

Personally, I'd rather try to educate with reasoned conversation, letters to my Political Members and letters to the editor in the newspapers.

I still defend my personal rights and person.

Ralph

Jorg Nysgerrig
February 26, 2009, 04:52 PM
RDF nailed it. Anyone who is discussing civil war is doing little more than making noise on the internet and more than likely damaging the cause. Real change is going to happen through education, civil discourse, and working within the system. The sooner the chest-thumpers realize this and focus their energy towards a realistic goal, the better off we all are.

That said, let's keep on the topic of the reasoning behind AWB and other such bills.

TexasRifleman
February 26, 2009, 04:53 PM
The average US Citizen is afraid of guns and the pain and suffering caused by criminals, irresponsible owners, and the Waccco Image presented by so many PRO-GUN people.

I don't even buy that the average citizen is afraid.

There is a small but vocal, and voting, minority that wants these things in place.

If you were to flat out put this to public vote it would never pass.

That's why these things are never allowed to be decided by referendum.

California's marriage bill is a perfect example of why they try to stay away from public votes.

ArmedBear
February 26, 2009, 04:55 PM
It contains many clauses that are reasonable and necessary but it's hard to tell that from the newspapers who are only interested in the two or three things which crossed the line.

The news media is simple-minded. Who went into Journalism in college? The best and brightest, with the most potential for using their intellect to invent the future? Or the marginally book-smart who were envious of those who were?

That said, though, you brought up something that bears discussion.

A long time ago, I took a Real Estate class through a local college. The prof taught part time; he was a successful local broker who enjoyed teaching classes here and there. He owned a number of rental properties and ran a large realty.

His taxes were quite complicated, and he used every remotely plausible deduction, figuring that, if the IRS doesn't like it, they can always disallow it.

So, as you might guess, he got audited every year.

When he went to an audit, he would bring in a good thousand pages of detailed documentation: receipts, printouts, whatever, an enormous stack of paper. He put the rock-solid stuff first, then the pretty-good deductions, then the dubious ones, then finally, at the bottom of the pile, he put the most egregious "hail Mary" writeoffs -- the ones that would make most people laugh that he even tried them. And he got away with most of them, too.

Usually, by the time the auditor got through the legit stuff, he/she was tired and bored, and just quit and sent him on his way. Maybe there would be a few token disallowed deductions, but not enough for the guy to care. He'd write a check, shake hands, and go home.

So... Are those "two or three things that went over the line" the real reason for the bill? Do the many "reasonable" phrases and paragraphs just serve as cover for the really egregious stuff that would never have flown by itself?

I'd assert that, in at least some of the cases, Congress does exactly what my old Real Estate prof did: pile on the legit stuff to hide all the "over-the-line" stuff that is the whole point in the first place.

hso
February 26, 2009, 05:01 PM
What is the argument for reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004? No logical arguments exist in light of the failure of the AWB to accomplish any of the stated goals.

Have the demographics of American safety declined in the last four years?

Demonstrably, no.

What related events have occured since it expired?

None

Was there an explosion of assault-weapon related crime?

Demonstrably, no.

As has been said, this is a culture war without any basis in fact.

Justin
February 26, 2009, 05:32 PM
Who do you think will win that war? The armed, the unarmed, the dot gov. Heck, the majority of police and military folks are pro-2A.

Please, please, please tell me that I don't have to explain that the "culture war" is not an actual shooting war...

MT GUNNY
February 26, 2009, 05:32 PM
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, Director

March 1999

-------------------------------

ISSUES AND FINDINGS

Discussed in this Brief: This study examines the short-term impact (1994-
96) of the assault weapons ban on gun markets and gun-related violence as
contained in Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994. Title XI prohibits the manufacture, sale, and
possession of specific makes and models of military-style semiautomatic
firearms and other semiautomatics with multiple military-style features
(detachable magazines, flash suppressors, folding rifle stocks, and
threaded barrels for attaching silencers) and outlaws most large capacity
magazines (ammunition- feeding devices) capable of holding more than 10
rounds of ammunition. Weapons and magazines manufactured prior to
September 13, 1994, are exempt from the ban.

Key issues: Although the weapons banned by this legislation were used
only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these
weapons posed a threat to public safety because they are capable of firing
many shots rapidly. They argued that these characteristics enhance
offenders' ability to kill and wound more persons and to inflict multiple
wounds on each victim, so that a decrease in their use would reduce the
fatality rate of gun attacks.

The ban's impact on lethal gun violence is unclear because the short period
since the enabling legislation's passage created methodological difficulties
for researchers. The National Institute of Justice is funding a followup
study by the authors that is expected to be released in 2000. It will assess
the longer term impacts of the ban and the effects of the other firearms
provisions of Title XI. The long-term impacts of the ban could differ
substantially from the short-term impacts.

Key findings: The authors, using a variety of national and local data
sources, examined market trends--prices, production, and thefts--for the
banned weapons and close substitutes before estimating potential ban
effects and their consequences.

--The research shows that the ban triggered speculative price increases and
ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior to the law's
implementation, followed by a substantial postban drop in prices to levels
of previous years.

--Criminal use of the banned guns declined, at least temporarily, after the
law went into effect, which suggests that the legal stock of preban assault
weapons was, at least for the short term, largely in the hands of collectors
and dealers.

--Evidence suggests that the ban may have contributed to a reduction in
the gun murder rate and murders of police officers by criminals armed
with assault weapons.

--The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun
murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.

Target audience: Congressional representatives and staff; State and local
legislators; Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials; criminal
justice practitioners and researchers; advocacy groups; State and local
government officials.

Zoogster
February 26, 2009, 05:51 PM
The reason is because they want them banned. Not just the type of "assault weapon" of before either. The definition has expanded, and they aim to include new gun banning powers in a "renewal". The last proposed bans even let the Attorney General ban any gun at will.
That if a firearm was used by any military agency or federal LEO or was based on a similar firearm it would be presumed "unsporting" and prohibited.

After being told over and over from many sides for years that the old ban was cosmetic they have begun to focus on the action itself. The self loading capability of semi-auto firearms. They use the old rhetoric to not alarm people, and bills with similar wording except the key addition of carefuly worded lines.


They want them banned. No there has not been an explosion of crime with them. If there was they would highlight that to ban them. Instead they will highlight problems in Mexico. If it was not Mexico they would highlight someplace in South America, or Canada. They want them banned. The argument they propose does not have to been deeply logical, they already have the support of much of the Democrat party in such legislation regardless of the argument made. So it is just a matter of creating the argument, and then acting on it.

The new definition of "assault weapon" includes the majority of semi-auto firearms, far more encompassing than the old one. They realized the old one was a cosmetic ban, and they aim to change that.

theotherwaldo
February 26, 2009, 05:57 PM
Whatever happens is always a reason to do what you WANT to do.

Just as Market Booms/Market Busts mean that we must become Socialists.

Just as Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change means we must become Socialists.

-And, by the way, Socialists do not approve of the concept of self defense for common people. If you are important to Society then Society will provide defense for you. Otherwise you are merely a replaceable cog and do not have the right to damage other cogs, regardless of reasons.

rickomatic
February 26, 2009, 06:41 PM
If its war they want, they should think long and hard before waging it against 100 million armed citizens. Most of us are already at the end of our patience reserve.


I understand your frustration. But I think that still too many Americans, including those in our firearms brotherhood, are all too happy to let "the other guy" take the heat. By that, I mean we are still too factioned to pose a unified front. It's the old "....when they came for the Jews, when they came for the homosexuals......." thing.
Unless, and until we bond together as one voice we'll continue to see our rights eroded.
JOIN THE NRA. Don't whine to me about...the NRA this...or the NRA that, so I don't like them. They are the ONLY unified voice we have right now.
Write your congress critters both state and federal and let them know that they will NEVER get your vote again if they try to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Make your voice heard to the ones that can and will make a difference.
And, yes, continue to yell from the rooftops of the internet. It keeps us all motivated. It's not wasted energy.

My $ .02

:cuss:

MT GUNNY
February 26, 2009, 06:51 PM
:cuss:
/\

BunnyPuncher
February 26, 2009, 07:51 PM
Not surprisingly... Good ol Lou Dobbs will be discussing Holder's comments during his show on CNN and has phrased it as "an attack on your 2nd amendment rights". Something tells me MSNBC won't have the same slant on the coverage :)

whitefeather
February 26, 2009, 09:29 PM
What is the argument for reinstating the AWB?

Well, I just saw Diane Feinstein on T.V. and she made a clear argument for reinstating it:

"Semiautomatic or Military-style weapons simply have no use in urban areas".

Wow.... that makes lots of sense, huh? I mean, there's noting by solid reasoning in her statement.

The reign of the Chosen One is in full swing and, once again, the libs are dusting off the usual suspects in an effort to usurp our 2A rights. Remember, they're smarter than us and their only concerned with our well-being!

archigos
February 26, 2009, 09:35 PM
JOIN THE NRA. Don't whine to me about...the NRA this...or the NRA that, so I don't like them. They are the ONLY unified voice we have right now.
Write your congress critters both state and federal and let them know that they will NEVER get your vote again if they try to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Make your voice heard to the ones that can and will make a difference.
And, yes, continue to yell from the rooftops of the internet. It keeps us all motivated. It's not wasted energy.

My $ .02
I just renewed my NRA membership after a couple years of not being a member due to disagreements with some of their positions because you're absolutely right. We need all the help and organization we can get right now to help us keep the reigns of tyranny off of us, and the NRA is the largest and arguably most effective solution.
I personally love the JPFO (they respond to gun grabbers the way that Israel responds to terrorists - its great) and am planning on joining them soon, though I realize that it might not be quite as effective as my NRA membership in terms of defending my freedom.

whitefeather
February 26, 2009, 10:22 PM
As far as the NRA goes, I know that some people take exception on a few of their positions and that's fine; staying true to one's priniciples is generally an admirable trait.

When we are talking about defending our 2A rights in the face of what is arguably the the most potentially oppressive administration EVER, we need to bring our "A" Game.

Joining the NRA, or maintaining your membership status, costs about the same as a box of quality handgun ammo goes for these days. Whether you agree with them 100% or not, they are unarguably the best bang (pun intended) for the buck. Collectively, members are a political force to be recconed with. Don't belive me? Ask Al Gore or John Kerry.

Until another 2A group surpasses the NRA in terms of sheer political power, they'll have my support.

whitefeather
February 26, 2009, 10:29 PM
As far as the NRA goes, I know that some people take exception on a few of their positions and that's fine; staying true to one's priniciples is generally an admirable trait.

When we are talking about defending our 2A rights in the face of what is arguably the the most potentially oppressive administration EVER, we need to bring our "A" Game.

Joining the NRA, or maintaining your membership status, costs about the same as a box of quality handgun ammo goes for these days. Whether you agree with them 100% or not, they are unarguably the best bang (pun intended) for the buck. Collectively, members are a political force to be recconed with. Don't belive me? Ask Al Gore or John Kerry.

Until another 2A group surpasses the NRA in terms of sheer political power, they'll have my support.

SCKimberFan
February 27, 2009, 07:27 AM
It's not about Gun Control, ITS ABOUT CONTROL!... Controlling the serfs.

mija
February 27, 2009, 07:42 AM
Want to save your 2ND amendment.Go to, www.secondamendmentmarch.com and get involved. For all that think it will never happen, with that attitude it wont. If you get involved we can make it happen.
Millions of law abiding citizens marching in state capitols and D.C. in the spring of 2010.
Mija
Semper Paratus

Southern Rebel
February 27, 2009, 09:20 AM
They have no rationale, at this point in time, other than their political pride was severely damaged by the utter failure of their last ban. That ban turned out to be a blessing for the gun owners. While not doing very much in terms of actual gun control, it awakened a large percentage of the "fence sitters" as to gun ownership. It not only resulted in a large increase in gun ownership at the time it was passed, but also set the stage for the unprecedented level of gun and ammunition purchases we have seen over the last several months.

The gun-banning group just can't find it in themselves to admit that their social policies of entitlements, leniency to criminals, welfare state, and on and on, has not resulted in utopia. Their approach has led to lifestyles that say the government will provide our food and shelter - our criminal activities will provide the niceties of life that other people have to work 40+ hours per week to get. And the best part - we will not have to really worry about swift punishment, long imprisonments, or tough prisons.

We are very fortunate that the democratic party is not particularly intelligent. If they could have shown a massive reduction in crime after the first year or so of the ban, they would have had the general publics support for the destruction all guns, other than maybe a shotgun and "hunting" rife, to be locked up in a public storage facility rather than kept at home. But to accomplish tht crime reduction, they would have to address all crime like the crime of bank robbery is addressed. Banks are one of the easiest and most profitable robberies to commit for the small time criminal, but the assurance of quick response and long jail sentences are effective deterrents. Liberal thinking, though, has no stomach for applying the same standard to everyday crime and criminals.

There will be another attempt at a gun ban, but it will be a quick sneak attack, well-planned out ahead of time and waiting for a trigger such as another mass school attack or public massacre. the plan will be to get it voted in quickly and the logistics of enforcement started before any organized opposition to the vote can be gathered. Public outrage to senseless killing can be a powerful motivator for quick actions. We shall see..........

deaconkharma
February 27, 2009, 10:17 AM
these laws O is passing....
You know, the "gotta-pass-them-quick, no-no-dont-read-them" bills, I wonder if they'll be remembered in our future history books as this generations' "Intolerable Acts"?
We all sit and try to draw the line in the sand over the "second amendment" when all of this theft takes place under our noses. The theft is not from us alone, the theft is from our children. Yet we do nothing. I look every day at my twin toddlers and want to cry. A grown man, still I want to cry. Every day my childrens' education fund and money for what I want for them is taken away and given to someone else with the mere stroke of a pen. It is one thing for me to not have what I want, but taking from my children is unacceptable. To top it, not only from my hands and out of their mouths, so to speak, but from their future hands and their childrens' mouths. This, to me, is as intolerable as losing my rights to the second amendment. This is losing the right to properly provide for my children. Further their rights, to provide for theirs. The second amendment is not all they are after and so far they are getting the rest. Freedom, itself, not just one freedom is at stake.
I may be heckeld, boo-ed, or maligned for all of this, but we have drawn a line in the sand and they have stepped around it and encircled us. For example, taxation and creative taxation have been ways to create whole departments and to obstruct or impair rights. The second amendment is only one piece, not THE PIECE, and I am afraid we have missed the much larger issue of "they came for this they came for that... but when they came for the second amendment, there was nothing else to stop them". Though I do not deny the value of the second amendment: I am afraid with the Second, we have missed the forest for a tree.

chuckusaret
February 27, 2009, 11:17 AM
The majority of Americans have no idea what a "real" assult rifle is and the present administration will use this to their advantage. I have a "TactiKool" 12 gauge that most people would call an assult rifle. Food for thought. We used shotguns in Vietnam on the majority of our combat patrols. Is the shotgun to be declared an assult weapon? No.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
February 27, 2009, 11:19 AM
I understand your frustration. But I think that still too many Americans, including those in our firearms brotherhood, are all too happy to let "the other guy" take the heat. By that, I mean we are still too factioned to pose a unified front. It's the old "....when they came for the Jews, when they came for the homosexuals......." thing.
Unless, and until we bond together as one voice we'll continue to see our rights eroded.
JOIN THE NRA. Don't whine to me about...the NRA this...or the NRA that, so I don't like them. They are the ONLY unified voice we have right now.
Write your congress critters both state and federal and let them know that they will NEVER get your vote again if they try to infringe on your 2nd Amendment rights. Make your voice heard to the ones that can and will make a difference.
And, yes, continue to yell from the rooftops of the internet. It keeps us all motivated. It's not wasted energy.

My $ .02

Agreed!

You know, the "gotta-pass-them-quick, no-no-dont-read-them" bills, I wonder if they'll be remembered in our future history books as this generations' "Intolerable Acts"?

Maybe; I don't know. But I do know this: Rushing legislation through is ALWAYS a bad idea. Anytime a politicians says "we must pass this without delay", and makes a disparaging remark to any opposition who wants to actually read it and debate it, should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

CoRoMo
February 27, 2009, 02:35 PM
Their argument goes something like this...


Guns are bad
Guns kill people
Guns are the cause of society's ills
Gun owners are virtual criminals
Citizens who cling to guns are not mentally healthy
Average citizens should not have the freedom to defend himself/herself with lethal force
Violent criminals willingly abide by gun control laws
Gun manufacturers are to blame for all violent crime
Violent crime wouldn't exist if guns were banned
The higher violent crime rates in other countries has nothing to do with an unarmed populace
Gun manufacturers conspire to organize gang activity amongst ethnic groups
Gun manufactures invented Gangsta Rap
One million children are killed by guns everyday
Ten million children are killed by guns everyday
Twenty million children are killed by guns everyday
Our utopia awaits on the other side of complete gun control enforcement
Only government personnel are capable of handling firearms safely
All government personnel are a different, flawless, perfected, race of human kind
All gun owners suffer from a number of mental illnesses
All gun owners are slack-jawed, red necked, racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobes
Concealed carry permits are issued at random to inner city gang members
Only federally qualified individuals are competent enough to carry guns
Guns are readily available at Wal Mart to children and felons
Gun shows hand out free handguns without checking ID
Mountain militias manufacture and distribute black market machine guns
Assault weapons tend to fire without operator control
Manufacturers often label full-auto guns as semi-auto to slip them through
All semi-automatic guns eventually become full automatic machine guns
Any child can convert a semi-automatic gun to full automatic with an emery board
Children order all types of guns over the internet everyday
Society is more peaceful when the populace is dominated over by the government
All governments are under the obligation to completely control its citizenry by force
The proper place for the citizenry is underneath the thumb of government
Totalitarianism is a wonderful path to nirvana
Communism is coming and we'll need your guns in order to get there
The government can't effectively oppress you if you keep and bear arms, so hand them over
Guns are responsible for 100% of the deaths in America
Gun violence is the #1, #2, and the #3 causes of death in the USA, Canada, and Switzerland
There is no reason that a person should ever own, possess, use, keep or bear arms
The Second Amendment was meant for the 1800s and the old west
The Second Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) is outdated and needs revision
The Second Amendment applies to organized militias (which are obsolete), but not individuals
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written by slave owning Nazis
We won the past two elections, you now have no rights, get used to it
You'll be happier without your guns, trust us
You don't need guns now that BHO has descended from the Heavens
Hope & Change = Change the 2nd Amendment, & Hope for the best
If you take the guns of law abiding citizens, violent criminals will surrender their guns too
Owning a gun makes you impotent
Charlton Heston's hands are now cold and dead, so hand over the guns

Omaha-BeenGlockin
February 27, 2009, 02:51 PM
In the end--

It boils down to so you have no way to fight back when they are loading you on the boxcar on its way to the gas chambers.

REMEMBER THAT---because that will be your eventual fate if we don't fight now.

CoRoMo
February 27, 2009, 06:56 PM
+1 Omaha-BeenGlockin

twoclones
March 18, 2009, 11:15 PM
Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines.

Complete letter here:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf

hlq
March 19, 2009, 01:38 AM
Well the logical reason is simply ..

uh..

:confused:

uh..

:(

mcwjr13
March 19, 2009, 01:57 AM
It is really an agenda that is driven by fear and mis-education. While there are a lot of pro 2A folks out there just as many people run screaming at the sight of a firearm. This was posted recently and the logic of the anti shows exactly what we are up against. The anti's are well and good to ban weapons since they are primarily associated with violence. This goes hand in hand with the liberal agenda against hunting. The more ground they can gain on any front is a launching point for further agendas and encroachments.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/25712/30-days-gun-nation

(sorry for the length I tried to find a shorter clip but nada)

HeavenlySword
March 19, 2009, 03:03 AM
troll...

Jubjub
March 19, 2009, 03:30 AM
We didn't vote for them, therefore we must be punished.

As far as I can tell, that's pretty much it.

Jed Carter
March 19, 2009, 06:02 AM
When one persons civil rights are violated by the government, we all suffer. Just how badly will we all suffer when the government violates the civil rights of millions?

22-rimfire
March 19, 2009, 08:28 AM
"Semiautomatic or Military-style weapons simply have no use in urban areas".

That is the crux argument of the anti-gun politicians and their allies. They will then create "facts" to support their case.

The Clinton AWB did not work. Why? It was not sufficiently broad and far reaching.

What does work mean? Disarming the people.

Hitler instated gun registration during the depression as a crime control measure after he was elected. The fact that he was elected at all says something about people and the times. One could say the same thing about BHO amd the times. Why would the Democrats choose the most liberal US senator and nominate him for president of the US? And then, why would the people vote for such a man?

If the fabled world depression hits, crime will rise. Folks, many folks, will be hurting, and the recent school shooting in Germany is all the justification they need. Politicans just pass laws. They can do little else and so far only the president stands over the military in the USA.

Like BHO's popularity, interest in strict gun control measures by the general public would falter after they see that the measures have little effect except limiting our freedom. The problem is you get stuck with a law and does incredible damage to the foundations of liberty in the USA.

As the police officer stated in court a recent deal on a TV show, as a police officer, ... Sir, you've seen a lot of things..... were you personally shocked when the woman exposed her breasts in public? Sir, I was shocked because she broke the law. Would be the same with gun control unfortunately.

Anyone ever notice how similar the words "Sir and Sire" are?

CHEVELLE427
March 19, 2009, 09:07 AM
maybe :rolleyes:
because if Americans ever find were they put there back bone :o they dont want the people to be well armed in case of a revolution,:what:

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the argument for reinstating the AWB?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!