OT: Assault Weapons Ban Could Return
From : azwiley1
Q: ok this is not meant to start the flames again i did however feel that it was information that a lot in here would be very interested in if they did not hear about it already. assault weapons ban could return... ...heres what you need to know. house bill h.r. 1022 the most aggressive gun control ban yet has now reached subcommittee. if passed h.r. 1022 would reinstate the 1994 assault weapons ban but with a much wider reach. h.r. 1022 would not simply restrict sales of our weapons and magazines to pre-ban items but would instead stop all trade regardless if item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. h.r. 1022 stops only one step short of government seizures and collections. luckily these infringements on your second amendment rights can be avoided by letting your congressman know of your discontent. give them a call send them an email or fax them a letter but let your voice be heard. a complete list of local congressmen can be found here. simply click on your state to find your representative. when the media gets it right. abcs acclaimed program 20/20 recently covered the hot topic of gun control. the piece wasnt the typical propaganda on how guns equate to rises in violent crime but instead a honest look at the issue. in this episode 20/20 dispels many of the common myths and falsehoods of gun control proponents. view the short video here and be sure to share this with your friends. .
Replies:
From : ed h
he has a mind hes the idiots sock puppet good point hadnt thought of that. ive seen chickens that can play tic-tac-toe. i guess it wouldnt be to hard to teach one to peck at a keyboard with the same wisdom beryl easy roll brings. .
From : ed h
toms because those in power cant fathom a legitimate purpose for citizens to own something theyre going to make its possession illegal plea also has to be abandoned somewhere between musket balls and missiles why .
From : roy
ok this is not meant to start the flames again i did however feel that it was information that a lot in here would be very interested in if they did not hear about it already. assault weapons ban could return... ...heres what you need to know. what are they going to do with those of us that own them now actually this would probably be a good time to sell it. .
From : tom lawrence
what are they going to do with those of us that own them now actually this would probably be a good time to sell it. theres a grandfather clause in hr1022 but its not worded very well and you know what kinds of confusion that leads to... .
From : roy
this should be fun to watch. i would add more but i know beryl easy roll has a closed mind on the subject. he has a mind hes the idiots sock puppet .
From : tom lawrence
ok this is not meant to start the flames again i did however feel that it was information that a lot in here would be very interested in if they did not hear about it already. yep - been following it since its introduction by the esteemed congresswoman from new york. while theres a bunch of co-sponsors that have signed on there doesnt seem to be much desire in the full house to vote on this bill. the democratic leadership realizes the sharpness of the back edge of the sword called gun control and many are not willing to get cut on that again as they did in 94. however that certainly doesnt mean that those who care about this should rest easy... this is still a very dangerous bill to the freedoms enjoyed by many americans. unfortunately my letters faxes and postcards fall on deaf ears of my congressional senators and representative one of my senators is frank lautenberg... enough said but for those with more moderate and sensible democrats and even a couple of woefully confused republicans perhaps there is the potential to make them aware of the opposing viewpoint. house bill h.r. 1022 the most aggressive gun control ban yet has now reached subcommittee. if passed h.r. 1022 would reinstate the 1994 assault weapons ban but with a much wider reach. the real danger in there is the phrase or anything that could function as a grip. interpreted the right wrong way that could easily ban every semi-automatic rifle out there. yep even the little ol ruger 10-22 could fall under that definition and be banned. .
From : beryl
azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. -- make friends with a few animals. then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- albert einstein .
From : lugnut
on fri 11 may 2007 124235 -0700 beryl terrapin@coolbits.net wrote azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. the musket has been replaced just like the gutenburg press. if we apply your logic to the 1st amendment you may not be able to express yourself beyond the sound of your voice. after all the pc high speed electronic presses and telephones had not been invented back then either. the us constitution is compatible with technological advancements of all sorts. lugnut .
From : craig c
beryl wrote azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. i believe the wording in the 2nd amendment is arms. a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. according to dictionary.com arm ahrm noun 1.usually arms. weapons esp. firearms. bear arms a.to carry weapons. weapon n. 1. an instrument of attack or defense in combat as a gun missile or sword. appears to me dick-cheese that there is no specific mention of which arms we can bear. take your communist attitude and shove it up your ass along with your boyfriends butt plug. craig c. .
From : azwiley1
on may 11 1242 pm beryl terra...@coolbits.net wrote azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. -- make friends with a few animals. then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- albert einstein go screw asshole i only passed on the info if you want ot be the typical douche bag that you are take it up with abc. .
From : tom lawrence
no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. and guarantees your right to write a pamphlet with a quill. does that mean the 1st amendment doesnt protect the right of someone to publish opinions on a web page for example i dont see musket in the constitution... i see arms. what are arms today if you look at our military forces the standard arms are an m4 carbine with a 9mm sidearm. oh and that m4 its a select-fire weapon meaning it meets the national firearms act definition of machine gun. national firearms act of 1934 gun control act of 1968 mcclure-volkmer act of 1986 specifically the hughes amendment import ban of 1989 assault weapons ban of 1994 what have any of these laws done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals nothing. what have these done to infringe on the not-to-be-infringed right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms plenty. none of these banned weapons are a threat to anyone when in my hands nor are they a threat when possessed by millions upon millions of other law-abiding citizens. the only threat is to those who have already decided to threaten our lives or the lives of our families. just once i wish these lawmakers would concentrate on addressing the real problem here... criminals who would do evil things with these tools rather than simply ban the tools themselves. to further make my point both new york and new jersey are poised to ban the ..50cal rifle nj in their stupidity was also poised to ban single-shot muzzleloaders and antique muskets too. why are they doing this because a terrorist could use them to shoot down an airplane or blow up a chemical plant. has any aircraft been shot down with a .50cal gun outside of war has any chemical plant ever been attacked has any crime at all ever been committed with such a rifle the answer is no on all counts. however since those in power cant think of any legitimate reason for one to possess such a device they feel they should be banned. let me say that again because those in power cant fathom a legitimate purpose for citizens to own something theyre going to make its possession illegal. if that kind of mindset doesnt scare the living hell out of you well... youre simply another in a whole crowd of short-sighted people with their heads buried firmly in the sand. .
From : ed h
yep - been following it since its introduction by the esteemed congresswoman from new york. while theres a bunch of co-sponsors that have signed on there doesnt seem to be much desire in the full house to vote on this bill. the democratic leadership realizes the sharpness of the back edge of the sword called gun control and many are not willing to get cut on that again as they did in 94. i hear that. im no better off with boxer and feinstein. at least my representative is a decent fellow. .
From : ed h
this should be fun to watch. i would add more but i know beryl easy roll has a closed mind on the subject. azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. -- make friends with a few animals. then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- albert einstein .
From : napalmheart
ok this is not meant to start the flames again i did however feel that it was information that a lot in here would be very interested in if they did not hear about it already. assault weapons ban could return... ...heres what you need to know. what are they going to do with those of us that own them now actually this would probably be a good time to sell it. better time to buy more ammo for it. .
From : azwiley1
on may 11 502 pm craig c. mcraig...@gmail.com wrote on may 11 638 pm beryl terra...@coolbits.net wrote why *thank you* punkin! youre edging up you outclassed craig c. this time. is this where you decide to start coddling me turd tickler. craig c. better you then me! bg .
From : roy
ok this is not meant to start the flames again i did however feel that it was information that a lot in here would be very interested in if they did not hear about it already. assault weapons ban could return... ...heres what you need to know. what are they going to do with those of us that own them now actually this would probably be a good time to sell it. better time to buy more ammo for it. have about 2k rounds that should do for a bit. .
From : beryl
lugnut wrote on fri 11 may 2007 124235 -0700 beryl terrapin@coolbits.net wrote azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. the musket has been replaced just like the gutenburg press. if we apply your logic to the 1st amendment you may not be able to express yourself beyond the sound of your voice. after all the pc high speed electronic presses and telephones had not been invented back then either. the us constitution is compatible with technological advancements of all sorts. lugnut hey two intelligent replies out of seven thats astonishing for this group. the other is toms also nicely done. youre right lugnut technological advances can be accomodated but they arent automatically guaranteed. somewhere between muskets and shoulder-fired missiles we have to say no. toms because those in power cant fathom a legitimate purpose for citizens to own something theyre going to make its possession illegal plea also has to be abandoned somewhere between musket balls and missiles. -- make friends with a few animals. then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- albert einstein .
From : beryl
azwiley1 wrote on may 11 1242 pm beryl terra...@coolbits.net wrote azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. go screw asshole i only passed on the info if you want ot be the typical douche bag that you are take it up with abc. why *thank you* punkin! youre edging up you outclassed craig c. this time. -- make friends with a few animals. then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- albert einstein .
From : tom lawrence
youre right lugnut technological advances can be accomodated but they arent automatically guaranteed. somewhere between muskets and shoulder-fired missiles we have to say no. well the nfa already covers destructive devices and shoulder-fired missiles fall under the definition of destructive device. explosives are also pretty-well regulated and without explosives any shoulder-fired missile is nothing more than an estes rocket. consider the irony in that.... hr1022 would potentially make a ruger 10/22 little .22lr target/plinking rifle illegal yet with the proper nfa paperwork one could own a stinger. toms because those in power cant fathom a legitimate purpose for citizens to own something theyre going to make its possession illegal plea also has to be abandoned somewhere between musket balls and missiles. do you understand that the ultimate goal is to completely disarm all americans thats not paranoia talking - thats fact straight from the mouths of several powerful democrats. now if you agree with that - then we have nothing further to discuss because neither of us will ever agree with the others ideas. if you dont believe in that then you must realize that to concede any further victories to the gun-control community is simply allowing them to get closer to their ultimate goal. if we were dealing with rational people on a rational level then yes - i can agree with your concept that there must be a line between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon. thats simply common sense. if we were dealing with rational people i could maybe even agree with some of the provisions of the nfa. i could deal with a properly functioning nics system. i could deal with a license for concealed carry. but were not dealing with rational people.... were dealing with people who want to bar everyone but themselves of course from being able to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm. thats not only hipocritical immoral and totalitarian... its damn-near treasonous. .
From : geekboy
azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. yes pump-kin think back 200 years... so that is what you do on halloween -- make friends with a few animals. then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- albert einstein .
From : napalmheart
azwiley1 wrote item was pre-ban or not. stiff penalties and jail time await those who produce or transfer guns that are currently protected by the second amendment. no punkin think back 200 years... the 2nd amendment protects your right to keep and bear a musket. dumb ass. .
From : craig c
on may 11 638 pm beryl terra...@coolbits.net wrote why *thank you* punkin! youre edging up you outclassed craig c. this time. is this where you decide to start coddling me turd tickler. craig c. .
From : craig c
phillip@yahoo.com wrote better you then me! bg bad speller or freudian slip now *thats* funny. craig c. .
From : forester yahoo com
azwiley1 wrote on may 11 502 pm craig c. mcraig...@gmail.com wrote on may 11 638 pm beryl terra...@coolbits.net wrote why *thank you* punkin! youre edging up you outclassed craig c. this time. is this where you decide to start coddling me turd tickler. craig c. better you then me! bg bad speller or freudian slip .