And so it starts ... HR 1022 ... to Reauthorize Fed AW Ban

[Prince Yamato]

If you don't think that allowing antis to blur the line between an M16 and an AR15 is bad for our cause, I don't know what to tell you

I stated in another post that the only difference between my AK and a full-auto one is a couple chunks of metal (and a hole if you want to get "technical"). It doesn't fire full auto and cannot be readily made to fire that way. I'm sick to hell of "Assault Rifle" vs "Assault Weapon" arguments. Defending them is practically admitting that you are guilty or at least owning said rifle eats at your conscience. The same arguement for allowing AWs should work for Full-Autos as well. THe problem isn't the rifle, it's the user. There's car fatalities all over . Should we ban cars? Honestly, I don't care if they blur the line, because when it comes down to it, ARs and M16s are both GUNS and as such we are constitutionally entitled to own either. The only reason machineguns have a "WOW" factor is because they are not nearly common enough. After you fire one it's like, "ooh, that was fun... and expensive...". Personally, I see nothing wrong with Americans owning a select-fire AK. It'd be a great hunting gun in semi-auto mode and a great home defense gun in full auto. It's cheap, rugged, and dependable. It's the Jeep of the gun world. Do I really want to put machineguns on our streets? No, I want them to be in civilian homes and readily accessable for those who need or want to use them.

I'm seriously just SICK of pretending that what I own is somehow immoral. I'm also sick of HEARING the same old 1994 diatribe, "it's not the same as an assault rifle...blah blah STG-44, first true assault rifle, these are really just hunting rifles that look scary". We speak so much we stumble over our own tongues. Shakespeare has a great phrase for this:

"He doth protest too much"

We use so many words to explain our innocence, that to others it clearly sounds like we're hiding our guilt.

 

[Zundfolge]

I'm seriously just SICK of pretending that what I own is somehow immoral. I'm also sick of HEARING the same old 1994 diatribe, "it's not the same as an assault rifle...blah blah STG-44, first true assault rifle, these are really just hunting rifles that look scary".

Good point. Our defense of so-called "Assault" weapons works against the cause of getting rid of the NFA eventually.

We're accepting the premise that full auto guns are evil when we say "My AR-15 isn't an evil machine gun, it just looks like one."


As far as I'm concerned, machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, crew served anti aircraft ... all that stuff should be as regulated by the government as chewing gum.

 

[bullfrog99]

Let me translate for you

"we have to ban guns for the children"

(translation: I am afraid of the "common" American citizen with a gun)

I think mule was the correct term stated earlier in the post

 

[Outlaws]

(translation: I am afraid of the "common" American citizen with a gun)

Actually, I am afraid of the "common" American citizen with a gun. There are a lot fo dumb people out there who shouldn't use matches or stoves let alone firearms.... But I would rather I have a gun to help with that fear than the government try to take them away from both of us.

 

[mcwjr13]

HR 1022

:banghead: Here we go again it was only a matter of time and just because this bill doesn't pass won't mean there wont be a succession of others following it.

 

[lacoochee]

Maybe we should support this bill and insert riders......

Better yet, we really should have an entirely new assault weapons bill, one put in the docket by one of the Republicans or even better a pro-gun Democrat on the committee.

For starters, it would define an "assault weapon" as being a fully automatic firearm...require a NICS background check...require a $200 tax stamp when purchased...require that the serial number be added to an "Assault Weapon" registry ... How could anyone oppose it? After all we would be doing it to keep these sort of "useless" weapons out of the hands of criminals and save the lives of children everywhere. Seriously, couldn't we just back door these jerks into a corner?

 

[JLelli]

I just don't see any political will to get this thing passed. 2007 is way different than 1994. Nobody except us pro-gunners even care about gun control laws anymore, so there's no political reason for the 'Rats to pass this. I predict that the bill will be tabled in committee and die.

 

[AndyC]

Just to be clear, that was a statement made in comments on my blog, and not by me.

Sorry, Les, I wasn't very clear there, was I?

 

[illspirit]

We use so many words to explain our innocence, that to others it clearly sounds like we're hiding our guilt.

You make an excellent point. However, it's probably also a good idea to highlight the fact that they are lying when they misrepresent "assault weapons" as machine guns, no?

For starters, it would define an "assault weapon" as being a fully automatic firearm...require a NICS background check...require a $200 tax stamp when purchased...require that the serial number be added to an "Assault Weapon" registry ... How could anyone oppose it? After all we would be doing it to keep these sort of "useless" weapons out of the hands of criminals and save the lives of children everywhere. Seriously, couldn't we just back door these jerks into a corner?

Or, for a real bitter poison pill, why not add modern, ergonomic "assault keyboards" to the legislation? Those things let writers "spray fire" slander "from the hip," and nobody "needs" them except hackers and cyber-terrorists, right?

 

[JWarren]

I spoke with Representative Gene Taylor's (D-MS) office today. I will be getting a call tomorrow from the guy that is over gun legislation in his office tomorrow. However, the office did tell me that this is a typical stunt from the woman, and there is very little possibility that the Ban would ever see a vote on the floor. In addition, his office said that they will fight any ban vigorously.

Let's cross our fingers.


While I was making phone calls, I went ahead and upgraded my NRA membership to Lifetime member-- and volunteered to work as NRA-ILA Grassroots Coordinator for MS congressional district 4, which has no coordinator at this time. I will be getting my orientation material in a couple weeks.


We have to be heard all.

John

 

[vis-à-vis]

I wish they'd post the text of the bill already. :banghead:

With regard to the previous gentlemens post, I need to join the NRA and soon.

 

[Prince Yamato]

You make an excellent point. However, it's probably also a good idea to highlight the fact that they are lying when they misrepresent "assault weapons" as machine guns, no?

Correct, the guns they want to ban are not machineguns. So say in a debate:

"The weapons they are looking to ban are NOT machineguns". End of story.

Then you have to counter the "they are made to be fired from the hip and shoot multiple bullets". Instead of going on the defensive with "no, they are to fired from the shoulder, etc." just say, "so?". Firearms aren't politically correct. Their proper purpose is to kill. That's what they were designed for. Some people use them for non-lethal sporting purposes. That's fine, but I don't need them to be legal for sport, I need them to be legal for personal defence.

The way to debate it is to focus on personal defence and personal choice concerning small arms. I also think the "bring your friends to shoot your AW" needs to be expanded to "rent a machinegun with your friends". Then the AW automatically (ironic ain't it?) seems less lethal by comparison- as it should, because it's a neutered machinegun. How's that for a non-pc term. It's a neutered machinegun.

 

[rbernie]

Is it normal for a bill to have gained no co-sponsors by now?

 

[Autolycus]

Anyone got the text of the bill yet? Cause I still havent seen it? And I would feel like an horses rear end if we were wrong. I dont doubt that they would try to reauthorize the AWB but I still want to see it.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'd rather be wrong and be prepared than let this slip through without a fight. We all need to keep on our toes watching out for this sort of insanity.

 

[thexrayboy]

At this point in time I can find nothing to support the premise the McCarthy has introduced HR 1022 a bill to renew the assault weapon ban. The only two places on the web that mention this as even being possible are here at THR and over on PDO. I'm not saying McCarthy wouldn't be one to introduce a bill to renew the AWB, she is just the type of overwraught emotionally dependent socialist that worships gun control. It's just at this point in time I can find nothing indicating that she has in fact introduced such a bill. Let us all pray to John M Browning that such legislation will not appear. We should know in the next day or two if in fact this is true or not.

 

[Autolycus]

I agree that we should be on our toes but I will feel like an ass if we are wrong.

 

[skinnyguy]

Tecumseh - DO NOT feel like an ass if we are wrong, feel GOOD that we've stepped up and done something to stop this thing before it snowballs and we can't stop it.

Remember the little boy who cried wolf??? After a while, nobody paid him any attention. You can bet good money that is EXACTLY what liberals are doing! They throw a bill out there that they know is going nowhere, we all get up and yell about it. It dies how many times? 3? 5? 472? Then WE get complacent, we think "the last 25 times this was submitted, it went nowhere, it's going nowhere now." Then, we wake up in the morning with smiling LEO's at our door saying "give us your guns right now, they are ILLEGAL, you should have said something"...

Scary thought? I sure hope so. If we have to stand up and yell STOP 9,999,999 times, we'll have to do it again for the 10 millionth time.

NEVER feel like an ass for standing up for what is right!!!!

 

[skinnyguy]

And a repost of the link to the bill...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Note that there are still no co-sponsors, the text is not yet published on the site, and the scariest of all things, the title is

H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. The AW ban is bad enough but what the are the other purposes?!?!?!

 

[Outlaws]

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. The AW ban is bad enough but what the are the other purposes?!?!?!

I can only think of a few.

.50
Handgun registration
Only "sporting firearms" remain legal
ammo tax
stick it to you where the sun don't shine with a smile
then add that anything than shoots over 100 yards isn't sporting

 

[skinnyguy]

Both Dems and Repubs are famous for tacking "riders" onto bills. These riders generally have nothing to do with the bill.

As an example pulled out of the air -

Public school funding increase, and for other purposes

Shall congress approve a $1.5 billion additional allocation to fund public schools?

RIDER - Shall congress approve a ban possession of all semi-automatic weapons in the United States?

Now we have congress NOT wanting to ban semi-autos, but they DO want to increase the funding of schools, they vote YES, we lose the autos but the schools are in hog-heaven, and they are blamed for defeating a bill to protect the 2A, they vote NO- they are tagged as anti-public-education.

So what says the other purposes on this bill are for something REALLY outlandish? Example, Shall Congress cut taxes for persons making less than $75,000 per year by 90%?

See the dilema?

 

[Thin Black Line]

I just don't see any political will to get this thing passed. 2007 is way different than 1994. Nobody except us pro-gunners even care about gun control laws anymore, so there's no political reason for the 'Rats to pass this. I predict that the bill will be tabled in committee and die.

If not this one, another incarnation after 2008.

 

[erikd65]

Thanks to Mrs. McCarthy, the NRA just got a new member on their rolls.

 

[illspirit]

Correct, the guns they want to ban are not machineguns. So say in a debate:

"The weapons they are looking to ban are NOT machineguns". End of story.

Ah, righto. I wasn't sure whether you meant to let them have the fallacious AW=MG claim and defend from there. Thanks for clarifying, and I agree we shouldn't try to make MGs seem more "evil" as a defense.

Then you have to counter the "they are made to be fired from the hip and shoot multiple bullets". Instead of going on the defensive with "no, they are to fired from the shoulder, etc." just say, "so?".

Totally. And on top of just saying "so," perhaps we should add that any rifle can be fired from the hip? IMHO, it's easier to fire a traditional rifle design from the hip since the grip angle leaves the muzzle nearly horizontal when one's hands are at their side in a natural position.

Every time there's a hearing on one of these AWBs, someone from our side should show up with a DVD containing clips from that old Rifleman show. Seriously, in like just the first four seconds of the opening credits, he shoots, what, 13 rounds rapidly from the hip? On a 50-something year old TV show, with a 100+ year old (albeit slightly modified) rifle, no less. Not only does this sink the idea that pistol grips are the only thing that can fire from the hip, it contradicts the claim that 10+ round capacity is some uniquely modern "scourge."

The worst that can happen is the antis freak out and try to add antique lever-actions to the list of "assault weapons." But then they would wake up the sleeping giant of millions of hunters and collectors who think their firearms are safe...

 

[tyme]

In Philadelphia, a gunman opened fire on his colleagues using an AK-47 assault rifle he legally purchased.

WHO CARES what he used? It was 3 dead + suicide.

I have never heard of a mass murder where the gunman shot more than 3 or 4 people in rapid succession, which is just as easy to do with a pump-action shotgun as with a so-called "assault weapon."

$10 says anyone paying attention to that shooter before the shooting, probably for weeks or months, would have noticed unnerving strangeness about him. Normal people do not shoot people over a boardroom disagreement.