What's your stance on the proposed assault weapons ban?

[Kurt S.]

I don't think this iteration of the AWB will have a big chance of passing. I think the 51 cosponsors 1022 are about all the support it is going to get.

However, I also don't believe the anti gun crowd is going to give up.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

You Keep Using That Word . . .

. . . I do not think it means what you think it means.[/SpanishAccent]

I own a number of GPRs (General Purpose Rifles).

They're good for controlling varmints, target shooting, home defense, community defense, and "other legal purposes."

Some of them have box magazines. Some don't. In today's world, a GPR used defensively against a home invasion could very well require a magazine large enough to dispose of a group threat to the home, family, and one's own person.

If I found myself in a military or similar environment and found it necessary to engage in an assault on an enemy position, I'm pretty sure I would be issued an assault rifle for the purpose. Of course, I'd probably have a couple of guys on the crew-served machine guns or the guys with the RPG to soften things up prior to the assault.

Why would you want to use a GPR for that? Hopelessly inadequate. A GPR can't even do full-auto or burst fire. It's a civilian arm.

It's a good idea to have at least one GPR whose ergonomics and controls are consistent with those one might find on a militia-class weapon, should he be pressed into a community defense role. Imagine having to train a body of men on short notice, whose only experience with arms is something with a bolt or similar manual action.

A GPR with a well-recognized manual-of-arms is an asset to the cause of national or community defense, as it allows the common man to stand with the professional, reduces the effort required to train a body of men, and improves their performance in the field.

Even a manually operated GPR is better than nothing, but familiarity with cleaning and maintenance of the arms commonly issued for the common defense is much better.

But this . . . how you call it . . . "assault weapons" concept? . . . how very pretentious.

Why ever would anyone want to use such a slander?

 

[rosco22]

So 1022 passes . The Ban of Bans is law . Next is .....................the collection points .

Where is the " High Road " ???

What will you do ??? ( do not post , just think )

I think it will happen by '11 .

<politics removed>

 

[shooter429]

Term "assault weapon" is smoke screen

The type of weapons people law-abiding citizens of the USA own should be irrelevant. We are a free people with certain inalienable rights given us by the Creator. We do not have to explain that we want only to hunt or protect our homes or give any other reason for ownership, because we have the RIGHT to bear arms. If I want to keep an Uzi, that is my right. Personally, I think the NFA and all other laws restricting gun ownership should be repealed.

Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people. So focus on getting rid of the bad guys and those people and social climates that create them.

My .02

Shooter429

 

[cnorman18]

1022 is dead in the water, but they'll be back.

My biggest fear isn't legislation, anyway. It's that Hillary or Hussein will get in and appoint a bunch of leftist Justices to the Supreme Court, and the Republicans will bend over and take it like they did with Justice Ginsberg, a loony lefty if there ever was one.

Then the Court will finally rule directly on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, declaring that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, but only a collective right--that is, a right belonging only to the State.

And that, gentlemen, will be that. Our lives as officially criminal revolutionaries will leave the realms of fantasy and theory and begin in reality--unless you're ready to be disarmed.

We recently won the most important victory in the courts, ever, for gun rights; in the DC case, a Federal district court ruled that the 2A does, indeed, guarantee an individual right to own and carry weapons. That's the highest court that's ever directly addressed the issue. If SCOTUS upholds that decision, or lets it stand, well and good. But a Democrat-appointed majority on the Court could, even then, gut the 2A of any real meaning, and the will of the people--or even the congress--be damned.

That's my nightmare--and IMHO, it's got a good deal more chance of happening than the passage of 1022, with far worse consequences.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Awesome explanation shooter429. I think my sig has relevance to what you were saying.

 

[CU74]

I am surprised - no, APPALLED - at the number of THR members who have not taken the minimal effort to sent a letter/email/postcard to their Federal Congress-Weasels about HR-1022. Do you people think they will get your opinion by osmosis?

The New Royalty needs reminding that they serve at your discretion, and they should be given "guidance". The greatest fear the Ruling Class has is of being removed from their positions of power and they will do just about anything to keep their snouts in the trough - if they know a majority of voters is vocally passionate about keeping Second Amendment rights whole, they will vote the "right" way.

Get off your duffs and tell your Congress-Weasels what you think!!