New AWB in the near future?
- Thread starter BammaYankee
- Start date
- Status
mljdeckard
Member
Rachen is absolutely right. It is OUR job to make sure that the common perception of guns is a good one. Join the NRA. Vote. Take friends shooting.
Even if the next president wants to dabble in gun control, or submit to a congress which wants to do so, it won't be until their second term. The last AWB was the singlemost decisive factor in the congressional revolution in 1994. And they know it. They know if they fulfil the suspicion that they want to control guns, it will cost them the second election.
There is now legislation in place to protect the industry from third-party lawsuits. 40 of 50 states are now shall-issue. 40% of housholds now have guns. I'm suspecting a favorable ruling in June for Heller. The presidentian candates, who 15 years ago would have proudly proclaimed that they were going to ban assualt rifles are now on the defensive, trying to convince us that they are at least gun-neutral. The momentum is absolutely on our side right now, it is up to US to make sure we keep it that way.
NO SHRUGS. Every time you see a news article in your local paper referring to a 'machine gun', an 'assault rifle', or any other ficticious anti-gun language, YOU need to write to the editor and say something about it. When your social circle does the same, you need to speak up.
Even if the next president wants to dabble in gun control, or submit to a congress which wants to do so, it won't be until their second term. The last AWB was the singlemost decisive factor in the congressional revolution in 1994. And they know it. They know if they fulfil the suspicion that they want to control guns, it will cost them the second election.
There is now legislation in place to protect the industry from third-party lawsuits. 40 of 50 states are now shall-issue. 40% of housholds now have guns. I'm suspecting a favorable ruling in June for Heller. The presidentian candates, who 15 years ago would have proudly proclaimed that they were going to ban assualt rifles are now on the defensive, trying to convince us that they are at least gun-neutral. The momentum is absolutely on our side right now, it is up to US to make sure we keep it that way.
NO SHRUGS. Every time you see a news article in your local paper referring to a 'machine gun', an 'assault rifle', or any other ficticious anti-gun language, YOU need to write to the editor and say something about it. When your social circle does the same, you need to speak up.
The point on alot of hunters' guns now technically falling under the bill is unbelievably true, now that I think about it. You can even look at your hunting shotguns and realize the amount of models and parts that can be tac'd on to it. If they were to pass the current ban, then alot of guns in general are gone to the point where any gun made after 1914 is off the market.
However, the point on the alternative bills makes me worry, and I bet it would be against hi-cap magizines and any gun that is modeled after what they call machine guns. That would pretty much get rid of the AKs, M4s, and the like of 'real' military guns that the bill was primarily intended on getting rid of in the first place. I bet that you can pretty much sum the alternative up as "unlawful to have anything that holds more than ten rounds, is an SKS, AK47 or AR15."
However, the point on the alternative bills makes me worry, and I bet it would be against hi-cap magizines and any gun that is modeled after what they call machine guns. That would pretty much get rid of the AKs, M4s, and the like of 'real' military guns that the bill was primarily intended on getting rid of in the first place. I bet that you can pretty much sum the alternative up as "unlawful to have anything that holds more than ten rounds, is an SKS, AK47 or AR15."
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Looks like Kirk is a fan of the much-hated 1994 Feinstein law. From his House website:
Big45
member
You know, I'm glad you brought this up. The subject of AWB get far less attention than it deserves on this forum.
Professor Gun
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 175
Catherine,
The segment written by L. Neil Smith is so to the point. I have never heard of him before but the item you posted gets to the heart of things in few words. Thanks for posting it.
The segment written by L. Neil Smith is so to the point. I have never heard of him before but the item you posted gets to the heart of things in few words. Thanks for posting it.
I may have missed it (and I’m sure someone will point it out to me otherwise) but I’ve not seen any comments to this part of the OP’s post. Lawmakers tend not to pass legislation that could be deemed unconstitutional. Am I to assume that an individual right decision would not protect us from an AWB?
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Quote:
Catherine,
The segment written by L. Neil Smith is so to the point. I have never heard of him before but the item you posted gets to the heart of things in few words. Thanks for posting it.
~~~~~
You're very welcome. What he wrote, what many of have us have said and written over the YEARS is in that gun essay!
Some people think it is 'too political' but when you think about the "WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE GUNS?" essay - it hits the nail on the head about TRUE freedom because it is FIREARM OWNERSHIP AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR LOVED ONES, YOUR HOME, YOUR COUNTRY ALONG WITH ALL OF THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION!
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Yours in liberty,
Catherine
Quote:
Catherine,
The segment written by L. Neil Smith is so to the point. I have never heard of him before but the item you posted gets to the heart of things in few words. Thanks for posting it.
~~~~~
You're very welcome. What he wrote, what many of have us have said and written over the YEARS is in that gun essay!
Some people think it is 'too political' but when you think about the "WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE GUNS?" essay - it hits the nail on the head about TRUE freedom because it is FIREARM OWNERSHIP AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR LOVED ONES, YOUR HOME, YOUR COUNTRY ALONG WITH ALL OF THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION!
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Yours in liberty,
Catherine
Quote:
Quote:
Some people think it is 'too political' but when you think about the "WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE GUNS?" essay - it hits the nail on the head about TRUE freedom because it is FIREARM OWNERSHIP AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR LOVED ONES, YOUR HOME, YOUR COUNTRY ALONG WITH ALL OF THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Nothing is ever "too political". Freedom is something worth defending with your life, if need be. Talking about how to preserve freedom is talking common sense.
~~~~~
I agree with you and when I said TOO political - I meant that on SO MANY GUN BOARDS now (NOT like it was years ago! I am fairly new here.)... they do NOT allow you to discuss politics or only gun issue politics.
FREEDOM comes into ALL areas of our lives including politics... gun issues... you name it!
Thanks and take care.
Catherine
Quote:
Some people think it is 'too political' but when you think about the "WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE GUNS?" essay - it hits the nail on the head about TRUE freedom because it is FIREARM OWNERSHIP AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF, YOUR LOVED ONES, YOUR HOME, YOUR COUNTRY ALONG WITH ALL OF THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION!
Nothing is ever "too political". Freedom is something worth defending with your life, if need be. Talking about how to preserve freedom is talking common sense.
~~~~~
I agree with you and when I said TOO political - I meant that on SO MANY GUN BOARDS now (NOT like it was years ago! I am fairly new here.)... they do NOT allow you to discuss politics or only gun issue politics.
FREEDOM comes into ALL areas of our lives including politics... gun issues... you name it!
Thanks and take care.
Catherine
revjen45
Member
Remember, to the Violence Policy Center a hunting rifle is an "intermediate sniper rifle."
pharmer
Member
Get B.O. or HRC in the White House, that "change" will happen fast. They are already grinding their axes to payback those who didn't support them. Joe
Get B.O. or HRC in the White House, that "change" will happen fast. They are already grinding their axes first, to destroy and smash the Constitution, then slice the Bill Of Rights into shreds, and then, finally, to payback those who didn't support them.
Here, thats more like it.
I will vote Ron Paul and be satisfied that I am doing the right thing. You will not be stealing votes from the republicans because there are no republicans running this time. And you Ron Paul nay sayers should read his book instead of listening to our slanted media twist his words.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolution/dp/B0017I1IYQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211743643&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolution/dp/B0017I1IYQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211743643&sr=1-3
- Status