Discussion in 'Legal' started by 30 cal slob, Feb 14, 2007.
Got my NRA-ILA grassroots email alert this morning and nothing about this
in it yet.....
So, are you gonna mail 'em back about it?
McCarthy does this a lot. It's her pet project.
She's still disturbed that a nutjob was able to get on a train full of unarmed passengers and blast away at will.
Yup. Logic rulez...
I'm not so sure of that. The anti sentiment is alive and well here in WI. In fact a couple of days ago there was a big blazee on WTMJ about straw purchases. For days before it aired there were bleeding heart commercials on every radio station complaining about "how unbelievably easy it is to buy a gun in WI."
Certain elements in the media will always be biased against guns, but recent polls show public support for new gun control laws is at its lowest point in decades.
But, at this point, public support is moot. It is what the representatives the pubic chose do at this point that matters.
While the public may not be in support of new gun laws in an active manner, the majority of your average non-gun-owning american will not care if they do, as long as their representatives and the MSM tell them it is "reasonable" and "in the public interest" or "for the children".
Unfortunatley, a good number of gun owners are in that group as well..
The bill is listed as being,"H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."
Other purposes, dont you just love how precise politics are? We should all get coffe cans and print "donate money for lost puppies AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" then place the cans in local gas stations etc. Then donate any money recieved to the NRA under the "Other purposes".
But it looks so scary . Thats what its all about in the end, looks. Its a easy target for lazy politicians to attack so they can appear to be doing something for the good of the people without having to dirty their hands going after the real problems in society. And the Brady crowd buys it hook, line, and sinker.
I just wrote my representative, The Hon. Ander Crenshaw. I suggest you all do the same, if you have not already.
Do you have any links to these polls or any source for this statement?
Just say "NO"
A good article by Chuck Hawks...
She claims that the weapons are designed to just hit and kill as many targets as possible as quickly as possible and have no self-defense value whatsoever.
That's odd, because the new AR-15's I'm looking to buy are for home-defense.
But I guess subconsciously I was planning to go on a killing spree. Thanks Mrs. McCarthy for straightening me out! Wow.... that could have been bad had I acted upon real knowledge rather than the B.S. that you're spewing.
CHECK OUT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY
As I stated in an another thread; ANY FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATIONS = UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I hear people constantly talking about how certain arms are or are not used for hunting, sport shooting, or home defense; NONE OF THESE ACTIVITIES WERE THE MAIN POINT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
The Founders knew that the true enemy to freedom is a government; ANY GOVERNMENT. This includes ours, and the writers of the Constitution knew that this was likely going to be the case at some point down the road. It absolutely DOES NOT MATTER what the arms are used for; only that the people can have the same personal arms that any infantry soldier would use to defend their country from any enemies, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.
The Founders were deathly afraid of any central government, especially one with a standing army under it's control. They were from a place where any civil insurrection would be dealt with by military personnel, and where the people had a snowball's chance in hell of defeating that army. They did not want that capability to be presented to the government here.
Letting the government regulate firearms is like allowing a local fuel station to decide whether or not any new fuel stations may be built in that area; it is allowing the inmates to run the asylum. These politicians sit there in their insulated ruling class positions and dictate whether or not we should be ALLOWED to have the ability to defend against a corrupt government. Does anyone else find anything wrong with that?
One of our esteemed "reps" was talking the other day about certain weapons having no sporting purpose and asking whether a hunter needs a machine gun to kill a deer. It's not about killing a deer; in the Founder's view it is about having the CAPABILITY of defending ourselves from a government run by people like her.
This whole 2nd Amendment thing (along with many other rights such as religious freedom and freedom of speech) has been perverted for so long that it is probably too late to expect a political party to repeal any of this garbage.
What are our options? According to the Founders we should have had another several revolutions in the last 100 years. Is that feasible today?
Military coup? They have sworn an oath to the Constitution, not the government or it's ruling elite. But then the power lies with a military organization and all it takes is a few bad seeds to throw the whole Constitution out the window.
I'd be interested in hearing from others what real actions can be taken about our rights. If we leave it to the current political parties we are surely doomed; they care not what is good for the country or it's people. To them it is all about power and their well-being.
I ran across this party the other day; they appear to be gaining steam across the nation. Their platform is excellent.
The Libertarian party is the best party for gun owners.
The Constitution party is to Christian based for me. I dont like their views in regards to pornography, abortion, or gays. In general I feel that they want to impose Christian values on the country when the majority of the country does not want them.
If you support using the law to enforce Christian morals, the "Constitution Party" (should be named the "Conservative Christian Party") is for you. If you don't, the Constitution Party is nauseating.
If we can reframe the debate in terms of fear, and explain to people why they shouldn't be (more) afraid of guns that have silencers, bayonets, are black, or carry 30 rounds, then maybe we have a chance?
Especially if you like open borders.
I have one in my district all my friends swore he was Pro-Gun Shuler, now we'll see!!
Well, I did the exact opposite of what the antis wanted. Yesterday, I went in and bought a brand new Sig 226R that comes with two 15 round magazines. Next on my shopping list is either a new 1911 or an M4gery to piss off the antis. I was already planning on making these purchases, but this has hastened the time frame.
Especially if you like open borders
Take away the incentive to cross, and you won't have to worry about border crossers.
(end the WOD, welfare,etc)
Look at the whole platform.
Or just keep voting for the lesser of two evils.
Text of the bill is now up at GovTrack.us. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
I'd post it, but the formating is mess due to its conversion to PDF and I've not the time to reformat this bilge.
Don't know if this thing will become law or not, but I'm stocking up on AK and AR mags like crazy.
Is it just me, or is this substantially worse than the 1994 AWB?
It's not your imagination.
Here is the text in a hopefully more readable form.
Maybe someone has a PDF to Word converter.
Separate names with a comma.