Skip to comments.
Assault Weapons Ban : not any more - its way worse.
NRA ^
Posted on 05/12/2003 4:56:44 PM PDT by OOPisforLiberals
All you anti-AWB people : listen closely. The "extended" assault weapons ban would ban TONS of guns, including ALL semi-automatic shotguns, ALL shotguns that hold < 5 rounds, M1 Garand, Mini-14, ALL semi-autos that can have > 10 rounds with or without fixed magazine.
Gives the attorney general the ability to declare a gun "not sporting" and subsequently ban it.
That's right folks, its the big one. They want 'em all. -Still- feel playing complacent about them not taking away your guns? If this goes through, handguns are toast in <= 5 years. 30 caliber rifles next. Then, there's not much left.
Its bad.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponban; awb; bang; banglist; nra
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-284 next last
To: xbar
Thank you.
I didn't really believe that Mr Paul would turn his back on our constitution.
121
posted on
05/12/2003 8:30:55 PM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(MY VOTE IS FOR SALE)
Comment #122 Removed by Moderator
To: Shooter 2.5
Hardly a gun-grabbing rights-trampling position.
I'll stand firm.
RON PAUL 2004
123
posted on
05/12/2003 8:34:35 PM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(MY VOTE IS FOR SALE)
Comment #124 Removed by Moderator
To: 11B3
Ever been called 8^? (Ate up.)
-------------------
I have been, and continue to be, called many things. None of those callings are substitutes for substantive argument.
125
posted on
05/12/2003 8:34:56 PM PDT
by
RLK
To: OOPisforLiberals
Ummmm, people--I think the Brady bill was bad too, but look at the NRA article--this is a PROPOSED NEW law by two liberal Democrats--which has no chance in passing.
Bush has said he'll support the CURRENT law being extended, not the new one these Dems want to push. As a matter of fact, extending the the time of the current law, may actually politically be the best current way to defeat a push for this much more restrictive ban. It gives the fence sitters "cover" so they can tell their soccer mom constituents they support "sane gun laws." If it gets rejected--the likelyhood of a more restrictive ban is actually more likely--politically speaking.
That's politics for ya--but until the Supremes rule recognizing again the 2nd Ammendment as applying to individuals (as it was written...) that's what we get.
"You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."
To: WhiteGuy
"
Hardly a gun-grabbing rights-trampling position.They kill off all the manufacturers and you don't think that's a gun grabbing position? Are you nuts?
127
posted on
05/12/2003 8:37:28 PM PDT
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: OOPisforLiberals
It's been sent to the House Judiciary Committtee.
I just did a comparison of the committee's membership with GOA's ratings (which are not as subject to political deals as the NRA's), and we have no room to be complacent.
There are seventeen A-rated members.
There are three B-rated members.
There are two C-rated members.
There are fifteen F-rated members.
Which means it's not a slam-dunk.
I've not been following the details of the legislative process in Congress, the way I have been dogging the Minnesota Legislature, but at first glance, it looks as if it might be most effective to put pressure on the B and C rated members:
Hart from Pennsylvania
Boucher from Virginia
Green from Wisconsin
Gallegly from California
Hyde from Illinois
Certainly it can't hurt.
128
posted on
05/12/2003 8:37:47 PM PDT
by
jdege
To: Drew68
Gun Hating soccer moms..
How many of these persons are there anyhow, 20, 30 thousand?. Are the dims still trying to play that old saw?.
129
posted on
05/12/2003 8:41:53 PM PDT
by
reloader
(Shooting- The only sport endorsed by the Founding Fathers.)
To: boris
Nice. The Python is back, so I might just hav to get one, you know, buy a gun, piss off a liberal.
130
posted on
05/12/2003 8:58:43 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(to hell with the spyplane - AC130 gunship)
To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
You can say that again. I work in the computer field. Hurting isn't the word. "Decimated" is. I'm one of the lucky ones with skills and money, but many guys have been out of work for months on end. I'd rant right now about foreign workers, but we all know the score.
131
posted on
05/12/2003 9:01:55 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(to hell with the spyplane - AC130 gunship)
To: Shooter 2.5
They kill off all the manufacturers and you don't think that's a gun grabbing position? Are you nuts?
NO and NO
Let me just say that our current president is far more dangerous to our constitutional rights as it applies to the "banning" of weapons than Congressman Paul
132
posted on
05/12/2003 9:07:06 PM PDT
by
WhiteGuy
(MY VOTE IS FOR SALE)
To: PatrioticAmerican
You can say that again. I work in the computer field. Hurting isn't the word. "Decimated" is. Reduced by 10%?
133
posted on
05/12/2003 9:10:03 PM PDT
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: OOPisforLiberals
If this thing gets even clsoe to passing I'm going on a shopping spree like there is literally no tomorrow.
134
posted on
05/12/2003 9:10:53 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: supercat
It was a preban gun still in circulation, I bought it around 97 or 98.
To: xbar
"I did it. I assume you stole mine. In the future, of course." Just don't blame me. I turned all of mine in for gift certificates at a gun turn in last year. You know, they never asked for ID and didn't give me any receipts. Go figure.
136
posted on
05/12/2003 9:15:28 PM PDT
by
Badray
(They all seem normal until you get to know them.)
To: Sender
If these bills pass, you can be arrested and imprisoned for 10 years just for having the folding stock in your posession along with the rifle. You don't have to assemble it. If that's the case you might as well go whole hog with a sawed off shotgun and fully automatic rifles. Why take 10 years for some sissy accessory when you can make machine guns ?
137
posted on
05/12/2003 9:18:29 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: Shooter 2.5
Someone said it best on another board:"... The Democrats, with this bill, are shouting "We want it ALL and we want it NOW!"
But before they can be laughed out of the capitol building, a respected "moderate" takes the floor and offers up the common-sense compromise of "We'll settle for what we have now."
... And the '94 ban is renewed under the spirit of bi-partisan "cooperation"..."
Which is how the 1994 Ban passed, for those who don't remember. Senator Bob Dole said 'Well, it was probably going to pass one day or another. Might as well be now.'
This bill DOA? I hardly think so.
The seats of dozens of Republicans in Congress hang in the balance.
Comment #139 Removed by Moderator
To: supercat
"...Reduced by 10%?" "Dodecimated", then.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-284 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson