AWB II? Let's fight!!!

[ShootAndHunt]

Just received a letter from Alan Gottlieb. It disclosed a secret bill proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg. This bill has a "beautiful", "genius" and disgusting title called "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act", but from its content, it could be undoubtedly called the familiar and notorious "Assault Weapon Ban" AWB II (or enhanced, extended?)

So the liberals already began their second try to take the rights away from us the law-abiding citizens, What should we do???

We have no other choice, we must fight back!!!

We have succeeded to overthrow AWB, we have succeeded in giving the Democrats big lessons (they lost both the house and the senate, and they lost two presidential elections). Are they afraid of us?

You bet they are, you bet they ARE! That is why this infamous Mr. Lautenberg trys to sneak his bill as an amendment. He is sooooo afraid, even his comrads try to be quiet (they do learn our tactical skill called stealth, don't they?)

However, we are experienced fighters with glorious victories! Let us go into action again and defeat this bill and anything might follow before they could even do anything!

May the power with us!

 

[RexDart]

Could you provide a link, or even a reference, to what bill this is in? Then, we might be able to contact our congressthing and be able to specifically point out this nefarious amendment.

 

[Johnnybgood]

What bill

is it an amendment too? You can bet I will be contacting my legislatures. Rep. Shimkus is 100% on our side. As for Durbin, well he never saw a gun control bill he didn't like. Obama has me confused. He voted FOR the non-confiscation of arms bill. I thought he was totally anti-gun. Let us know what bill and I'm sure we will all jump on it.

 

[ShootAndHunt]

What bill?

Bill #: S. 645 "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act".

According to Alan, this bill has the following "hightlights"

1. it would ban on the manufacture, transfer and possession of most semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. It names guns made by Bushmaster, Calico, Kel-Tec, Olympic Arms, and others

2. it would prohibit the manufacture, transfer and possession of magazines or clips that hold or can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

3. Violate this law and you're a criminal, up to 10 years in prison and lose your right to own any firearms and right to vote!

Aren't these sound familiar?

 

[Librarian]

S 645 IS

109th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 645

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 16, 2005

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. REED, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DODD, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

The usual gang of grabbers. Hasn't moved since the day it was introduced. This link to Thomas should work.

DiFi isn't on the list, apparently because she introduced her own version, S 620, 2 days earlier. It, too, went to the Committee on the Judiciary and has not moved since March 14, 2005.

 

[FTF]

Seems to me like a "feel good" bill.

There are only 11 co-sponsors and it hasn't moved for a year and a half. Still in the initial review part (I don't know the legal terrm).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-645

The co-sponsors are like a who's-who of gun grabbers. Thankfully there are only 11 of them so this thing will probably never see the light of day... this year.

And yes, it does seek to ban anything semi-auto.

``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm
14 that--
15 ``(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level,
16 or slide action;

It also references the "Atomic Energy Act" When will it ever end. They'll put these things everywhere if we don't pay attention.

 

[Zundfolge]

It, too, went to the Committee on the Judiciary and has not moved since March 14, 2005.

This is what the "Them Republicrats and Democans are all the same!" people don't get ... even though the GOP hasn't fought tooth and nail to repeal everything back to the NFA, they do prevent a LOT of this crap from even getting out of committee.


A Democrat controlled house and or senate would mean MORE of this crap would get to the floor and one or two bad one's might slip by and make its way to a Dem (or RINO) pres.

 

[jlbraun]

Emails away!

 

[progunner1957]

Wake up, gun owners!!

1. it would ban on the manufacture, transfer and possession of most semi-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. It names guns made by Bushmaster, Calico, Kel-Tec, Olympic Arms, and others

2. it would prohibit the manufacture, transfer and possession of magazines or clips that hold or can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

3. Violate this law and you're a criminal, up to 10 years in prison and lose your right to own any firearms and right to vote!

This kind of "stuff" would never stand a chance of becoming law if we could get all 80 million plus gun owners in this nation to act like gun owners and stop voting for antigun bigot politicans.

95% or more of Democratic candidates at the national level are proven to be the enemy of gun owners and our right to arms; why do millions of gun owners insist on voting for them?

 

[crazed_ss]

The problem is not all gun owners are Republicans.

My political views are probably a little more left of center which means I should vote Democrat.. but since I like my guns, I should probably vote Republican..

A terrible dilemna.

 

[jeepmor]

It's pretty obvious who the gun grabbers are now

So a vote for Hillary is a vote against guns. Not that I ever liked her mind you, just nice to see on paper, exactly where she stands. Not that I ever doubted it either, just good to know exactly what she thinks.

I wonder if she'll be asked about this topic during a debate or if she have some "yes man" screening all the questions as is so common in my corporate environment. We frequently get the "all questioned fielded" mantra only to find out that the "yes man" taking the questions from the audience is filtering what will and won't be answered.

I know a guy who was married to the Oregon PR chief in our world's largets semiconductr company, and he said that's just the way they do it. The common worker is duped into thinking he can ask tough questions only to be stymied by the go between person, the PR person in this case, who has direct orders not to allow certain questions through.

 

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

Pretty crappy choices, progunner1957. The Republicans are just as much my enemy as the Democrats.

Pretty bad news.

 

[sacp81170a]

Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

The one the others all depend on is the 2nd, as has been pointed out time and time again. THAT's why I tend to be a single issue voter.

 

[arthurcw]

Okay, so I vote for Democrats and surrender my 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for Republicans and surrender my 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment rights.

Or, I can vote for either or neither and lose my 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment rights.

Lose the Second and you lose them all. Period. Everything else you believe you are losing can be reclaimed when the Second is secured. Without it, the others are dead and buried anyway.

 

[longeyes]

The co-sponsors are like a who's-who of gun grabbers. Thankfully there are only 11 of them so this thing will probably never see the light of day... this year.

The operative words are..."THIS YEAR."

They will keep trying, and they will use any means to get their way. I suggest we recognize the gravity of the threat.

 

[GEM]

That would never stand a chance if George W. Bush would say he would veto such bill. Oh, never mind.

 

[JesseJames]

You know, I really wish these guys would keep their "gun banning" to their municipalities and districts.
I'm sure the vast majority of law-abiding gun owning America would appreciate it. Also, it would let me know never to visit there and spend money.

When are they going to learn that you are not going to accomplish anything by sweeping water with a broom. You have to wade in and find the leak and do the repair.

 

[FreedomKommando]

So the liberals already began their second try to take the rights away from us the law-abiding citizens, What should we do???

Would that include such liberals as Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg? All Republicans.

Would that include George W. Bush, whose BATFE continues to infringe the Second Amendment?
As Aaron Zelman reminds us,

The “firearm-friendly” Bush administration had been in power for three years by the time the BATFE descended on Peterson. BATFE entrapment and other abuses had been denounced by Congress more than 20 years earlier. But did anyone from the administration take a single step to curb the BATFE's injustice? No.

Would it include the numerous pro-2nd Amendment liberals who regularly post here on THR?

 

[Phetro]

Would it include the numerous pro-2nd Amendment liberals who regularly post here on THR?

I'm sure those numerous pro-Second-Amendment leftists are glad you mentioned them--really, all five of them are.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear even one of them support the meaning of the Second Amendment as written, with no restrictions. That's not "liberal" at all.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Neither do many “conservative” Republicans.

~G. Fink

 

[antsi]

FreedomKommando,

You've got quite a straw man going there.

Nobody ever said the Republicans or GWB are ideal on gun rights issues, or that all Republicans are uniformly pro-RKBA.

However, that doesn't mean there's no difference between the R's and D's, or that the differences are trivial.

This proposed legislation is a case in point. The sponsors are predominantly Democrats. All the national-level congresscritters who are driving gun control bills are Democrats - especially when you look at these kind of draconian laws that prohibit people keeping guns they already own.

Pataki, Blomberg, and Guliani are not representative of the main stream of Republicans. As bad as they are, they don't compare to Kennedy, Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry et al.

If Pataki, Blomberg, and Guliani were the worst RKBA threats we had in politics, we'd be a lot better off than we are with the above-mentioned Democrats.

If we elect a Democrat congress and Hilary president, then abominations like this AWBII will have a strong chance of passing. Right now, with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, these kind of bills don't even make it out of committee.

Sure, I'd love a chance to go after the GWB BATFE policy book with a big eraser (or a shredder). But are you seriously claiming that President Hilary will be the same or better? If so, I call BS: Hilary would be a million times worse than GWB and you know it.

Bush: Admittedly, weak on gun issues. Tries not avoid inflaming either the gun-controllers or the gun-rights crowd. If an anti-gun policy isn't generating too much heat, he's going to leave it alone. If a pro-gun policy change would be intensely unpopular with the left-leaning, he probably won't make that policy change. Said he would renew the old AWBI "if it reached his desk," but worked behind the scenes to make sure it didn't reach his desk.

Clinton: Active, enthusiastic gun-grabber. Will take any opportunity to do whatever she can to advance gun control and set back gun rights. May go somewhat into "stealth mode" and declare her support for the second ammendment rights of hunters and skeet shooters during campaign season, but perfectly willing to sign her name to the most virulent anti-gun legislation proposed (including this one).

I don't have a problem with pro-RKBA liberals. Go ahead and take over your party. I'd love the chance to choose between two parties actively competing to win the gun owners vote. Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while I wait for you to accomplish this.

Meanwhile, don't try to gloss over your support for the active, militant, anti-RKBA party by pointing and hollering at a few goofball Republicans on the East Coast urban far left fringe of the party. They don't have anything like the influence on Republican agenda that the gun-ban crowd has on the Democrats.

 

[FreedomKommando]

antsi wrote:

Meanwhile, don't try to gloss over your support for the active, militant, anti-RKBA party by pointing and hollering at a few goofball Republicans on the East Coast urban far left fringe of the party. They don't have anything like the influence on Republican agenda that the gun-ban crowd has on the Democrats.

My support? What on earth are you talking about? Go re-read my posts, sir, then come back and tell us where I ever claimed to support the Democrat Party?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Said he would renew the old AWBI "if it reached his desk," but worked behind the scenes to make sure it didn't reach his desk.

In what way did Bush "work behind the scenes" to make sure the AWB didnt reach his desk? That statement is often repeated, but when asked about it, no one can ever back it up. What exactly do you think he did to work behind the scenes?

At best, what he did was "play chicken" with the second amendment. It worked out ok with the AWB, but he did the same thing and lost with Campaign Finance Reform. We don't need politicians who play games with the Bill of Rights.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

from my cold dead hands...

no piece of paper will make me give em up

 

[GEM]

Bush: Admittedly, weak on gun issues. Tries not avoid inflaming either the gun-controllers or the gun-rights crowd. If an anti-gun policy isn't generating too much heat, he's going to leave it alone. If a pro-gun policy change would be intensely unpopular with the left-leaning, he probably won't make that policy change. Said he would renew the old AWBI "if it reached his desk," but worked behind the scenes to make sure it didn't reach his desk.

Said this quite a few times - that makes him a liar. If the bill was worth, he should have worked for it. If he disagreed, he should have stated it.

Thus, he was disingenous about a basic human right. That doesn't seem ethical in my book.

Also, as long as gun folks rave about liberals, they hurt the cause. The discussion should be purely pro or antigun. Folks who may be progun may not want to be branded as social conservatives by definition.

Whenever, I see a discussion about gun rights where the poster starts off with ' damn liberals', I basically discard their intellectual contribution to the cause.