[Timmy]

First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything. It was a cosmetics bill that has already been sidestepped by all gun manufacturers. Remember, it's only a piece of paper. Why should Bush spend political capital on something that he cannot win the PR war on and which will accomplish NOTHING? Also, who knows if it will ever even get to his desk to sign?

[Timmy]

Golly, folks. A bunch of you are being ridiculous. The assault weapon ban defined assault weapons as "guns having one or more of the following characteristics:" which, if I remember correctly, were bayonet, flash suppressor, etc. etc. Extending this bill does NOTHING. If you are going to turn on Bush for this, you are fools. I, too, am a NRA member, and I assure you that most of us have more sense then to get too excited over this. Bush has been very good to gun owners and second amendment watchdogs, and you better not forget it.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

You are so completely uninformed about the effect of the assault weapons ban it is sad.

No semi-automatic rifle can be imported into America that holds more than 10 rounds and no magazine may be imported into America that holds more than 10 rounds. And you call this nothing out of ignorance.

There are few, very few US-made rifles along similar lines to the ones exclusivly banned by the language of the AWB. No-one can legally make magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Now, how is this not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment? Indeed, it is a severe infringement. Even if you believe no one needs a rifle that holds more than 10 rounds, it is STILL a severe infringement. Period.

[eskimo]

First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything.

It DOES incorrectly label some semi-automatic weapons that are not "selective fire" as "assault weapons" base on their appearance. If a precedent is set for banning weapons by appearance, how long before every weapon appears that it must be banned in the minds of political tyrants?

[Timesink]

How many people in this thread even voted for Bush the first time? And of those that did, how many only voted for him because they were still living in eight years of RAT Hell? How soon they forget.

[William Tell]

Timmy said: 'First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything.'

It most certainly does have the effect of convincing many that prohibition of firearms to law-abiding citizens is Constitutional.

This twisted thinking has helped encourage Kalifornia to outlaw certain semi-automatic rifles completely. The Kalifornia Supreme Court has ruled that I have no right to keep and bear arms. None of this would have happened if those who have sworn to defend the Constitution had upheld their oaths.

On the day that Bush signs an extension of the "assault weapons" ban, I will register as a Libertarian and never waste another vote on a Republican.

[Technogeeb]

First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything

Yes it does. Other than violating the fundamental principle that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", it also puts an absolute limit on magazine capacity. That means government bureaucrats get to have as many rounds as they want, while ordinary "civilians" (the term citizen being obsolete) can only have 10 rounds. It is a framework to get people used to the idea of such restrictions; and after the public becomes accustomed to the concept, they can lower the magazine capacity down (such legislation has already been proposed) until finally only single-shot weapons are allowed (after which, they too will be restricted, and then banned).

[IGOTMINE]

"First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything. It was a cosmetics bill that has already been sidestepped by all gun manufacturers. Remember, it's only a piece of paper. Why should Bush spend political capital on something that he cannot win the PR war on and which will accomplish NOTHING? Also, who knows if it will ever even get to his desk to sign?"

Your post betrays a charming ignorance. The AWB did a lot...it drove the cost of high capacity magazines through the roof. It drove the prices of "black rifles" through the roof". Most importantly, it gave the gun ban bastards a nose under the camels tent.

If this story pans out true, if the White House gets involved in renewing this odious legislation, it'll finally happen. I'll finally vote Libertarian. I won't be alone. W lost the popular vote in 2000, and Thank God, squeaked out an electoral college win. (Madison was a genius.) If he embarks upon this course of action and cross the NRA, he' ll be a one termer like Poppy.

Before you excoriate me on this, let me ask a question. Do you have a line in the sand? A place where politicans dare not tread? IF you don't, I think you need to seriously reassess you postions, and be sure to ask for a window seat on the train to the camps.

[Eaker]

"First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything.

You know nothing on this subject. If you are real quiet maybe folks will forget that you posted this.

[AdamSelene235]

First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything. It was a cosmetics bill that has already been sidestepped by all gun manufacturers.

Bravo Sierra.

Put a flash suppressor on your AR15 and you will sentenced as harshly as any rapist or murderer.