Legislation Introduced in the Senate to Renew and Strengthen Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Join Together Online ^ | 7/24/2003

[hobbes1]

Actually this is a case of ginning up a campaign issue......

A bill like this would never escape Tom DeLays house alive....

They just need something to stump about.

[Dan from Michigan]

A bill like this would never escape Tom DeLays house alive....

But will it escape Hastert's? I'm not AS worried about the house as I am the senate(which has a slight Anti-majority), but if another Columbine happens where suburban white kids get killed, especially with a 'banned gun', then look out. I can see some 'compromise measure' passing.

[hobbes1]

Hastert may be speaker, but that is becausehe looks like Kind old Uncle Bob.

DeLay is the lynchpin.

[68skylark]

Maybe this chump should be taught the difference between semiautomatic and full automatic.

I suspect this chump understands the difference perfectly. He's deliberately fogging the issue for those who don't know the difference, and since it's worked very well him in the past he's going to keep it up and get louder.

The best advice I've ever heard for countering this type of ignorance is to "take a liberal shooting." They'll have fun, learn important safety lessons, and learn that gun owners aren't all knuckle dragging, wife beating racists that they're portrayed to be.

[SCDogPapa]

Boy,,,,that SUCKS!!

[jdogbearhunter]

They are designed to hose down individuals with a spray of lethal bullets.

Ah, now I get it!! I'm didn't realize they used leathal bullets. Shucks, I guess we better ban those leathal-bullet-spraying weapons of war.{/sarcasm}

[Joe Brower]

"Ashcroft has said that the ban is constitutional."

Well, besides this not being up to him to determine, I view this statement as a bold-faced lie. This is a typical propaganda tactic of the gungrabbers, in making blanket statements with no references to back them up, to be swallowed whole by an ignorant and unthinking public at large. To my knowledge, Ashcroft has said no such thing.

[vannrox]

[Ancesthntr]

Ain't that the truth.

[the lone wolf]

I repeat my earlier statement on this issue:

If any form of the AWB passes, I will never vote for GWB or any other Republican ever again. Period.

[King Prout]

oi! you could ping a fella.

[King Prout]

that's the general incremental idea.

[King Prout]

why are the republicans not responding with a counter-proposal to, oh, I don't know, repeal the 1934(?) restrictions on machine guns? If all they do is try to hold the line, they'll lose.

[El Laton Caliente]

I'd settle for a repeal of the 1986 ban on further manufactor of machine guns for sale to the public. That is what has the price up to ten-fold of what they were in the early eighties.

I don't like the NFA laws, but the 1986 ban is far worse...

[El Laton Caliente]

It is NOT about guns, it is about control. Even the term “Assault Rifle” is out of context. By military definition, any rifle that is not a fully automatic machine gun cannot be an assault rifle. They knew the general public would confuse these rifles with the military versions and think machine gun (OMG!). They also knew that the range snobs (the hunter / bench rest shooter with the $4500.00 bolt action) would not band together to prevent the ban (i.e. “What do need one of those things for…”). This is an example of divide and conquer.

They believe that they can take steps to remove one type of firearm after another until they have removed all firearms from the general public. It is safer for politicians that way, especially when the want to cram an agenda down your throat!

[El Laton Caliente]

Its' BS. John Lott has rebutted that one. Just more lies from the anti's.

[El Laton Caliente]

The real stat is less then 2% of all crimes involving a firearm. I doesn't mean they were used, just there. Normally picked up during the bust.

[templar]

"Assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed to hose down individuals with a spray of lethal bullets. They have no place in a civil society,"

I'm assuming, then, that Police and Law Enforcement will not be allowed to have these weapons either? Or are they not a part of a civil society? Doubt it!

I think a lot of our (gun owners) current problems with the type of firearms we can own began back when we (NRA actually) accepted the idea of justifying firearms as being for "sporting purposes". A .22 short target rifle would meet that test. Hard to justify an AK as sporting when a .22 will meet the requriement more easily.

Personally, I can't see strictly sporting rifles being protected by the 2nd. The 9th and 10th are for sports. But we're too busy trying to make the argument that an AK is really a sporting purpose firearm to worry about losing the word war in the arena of the general public (as in "you don't need an AK-47 to hunt Bambi").

[templar]

I don't like the NFA laws, but the 1986 ban is far worse...

FOPA. The Fireaarms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan himself. How can you possibly object to protecting firearms onwers? Or to anything that our conservative hero Reagan did?