Skip to comments.
What one company is doing about the AWB and its possible Sunset
Armalite website ^
| unk
| Mark A. Westrom
Posted on 10/31/2003 5:58:27 AM PST by Long Cut
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-206 next last
To: Eastbound
Hell I'm not ruling us out. That's just the point. Let's get this issue settled before I can't remember what the issue is.
To: Long Cut
122
posted on
10/31/2003 10:42:22 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Area51
That's exactly why the RKBA is our Rubicon.
123
posted on
10/31/2003 10:42:22 AM PST
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: Long Cut
Companies like this, who take a stance and actually DO something for their customers, should be supported. I just wish more of them would go public with stances like this. Absolutely - and I've had excellent luck with Armalite products and service, and would not hesitate to recommend any of their gear.
IMO Armalite makes the best production AR's available.
124
posted on
10/31/2003 10:44:30 AM PST
by
xsrdx
(Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
To: Eaker
Youre certainly correct too. Ill be interested to see where the NRA comes down on all this. Its a big issue and Bush has spoken frankly about how he going to act. To date the NRA hasnt really spoken to the fact that their boy in the WH is prepared to betray them. Then you have the 'sportsmen' who think only sporting FAs need apply. Their take is 'Why on earth would you NEED something like that?!?!'. In other words it looks bad. With friends like this who needs enemies?
125
posted on
10/31/2003 10:46:49 AM PST
by
556x45
To: Travis McGee
Dang, I didn't know my sister in law could read!
126
posted on
10/31/2003 10:46:57 AM PST
by
Eagle Eye
(I'm a RINO. I'm far too conservative to be a real Republican.)
To: Long Cut
P.S. The Imbels are NOT banned, the supply just dried up. Never fear, there will be more.
However, the BATF has issued new guidlines about how to destroy the dreceiver. Chopsawn in three pieces with one thrown away is no longer acceptable. The receiver must be torch cut in such a manner that it is impossible to screw a barrel on them or mount them on a lower.
127
posted on
10/31/2003 10:53:59 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Long Cut
If the AWB is not sunsetted, or is renewed and/or strengthened, I have sent my last dollar to the Republican Party; and I've told them so directly via e-mail and the US Postal System. From then on, my discretionary cash will go into other venues.....like ammo buying for target practice. Better to enjoy the remaining vestiges of a once-free America than to pretend its still viable. And damn all politicians to hell. For me, the renewal of this rotten piece of unconstitutional trash will be a watershed moment.
Alone I can't do anything about it except to protest; and my meager money donations to the Repubos probably doesn't mean much to them, they could get along without it; but I don't think they can afford to piss off several million of their base voters. And if they have any smarts at all, they will know that they can't win without this base.
If those 'distinguished gentlemen' are no different then the RAT-commies on the other aside of the aisle, then let's get it right up front and go to plan B.
128
posted on
10/31/2003 10:54:36 AM PST
by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: Rhoderic
Errr, this might be a stupid question but why would anyone want to have such a weapon? I'll bet the guy in front would agree that is a stupid question...
129
posted on
10/31/2003 10:57:20 AM PST
by
in the Arena
(Richard Thomas Kastner - KIA - Phuoc Long, South Vietnam - 15 November 1969))
Comment #130 Removed by Moderator
To: Rhoderic
How about this:
1- Not all people can work bolt or pump actions (like some people can't drive a car with a manual transmission).
2- These guns are unfairly profiled as "high-powered", my 30-06 has more power than most of these guns. A buddy has a magnum hunting rifle that has more power than any of these.
3- You can actually buy an old tank, but I believe they disable the guns. Also, an ordinary citizen can not get the munitions needed for the guns.
4- They do make great hunting and self defense weapons for women due to the lower power of the bullets used in most of them.
5- Where does it stop is a good question. If you mean by what is allowed to be owned, full auto firearms are owned by a few people that meet strict government regulations.
Where does it stop for the gun grabbers? It doesn't this is the first step towards banning all semi-automatic firearms, including my dad's, mom's, brother's and my hunting rifles (they are the traditional styled that do not look like military guns) along with my dad's shotgun (again not military styled). After that they go another step, then another, another,... until they have banned all firearms.
You say want to have, that is a little hard to determine. Why do men/women with children want to have a Corvette, Miata, motorcycle when they only have room for 2 people. That is a subjective decision made by people.
131
posted on
10/31/2003 10:59:04 AM PST
by
looscnnn
("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
To: 556x45
Ill be interested to see where the NRA comes down on all this Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, sent the following to members of Congress in response to a "Dear Colleague" letter from Representatives John Conyers and Carolyn McCarthy seeking cosponsorship of their "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003."
March 25, 2003
Dear Member of Congress:
You may have received a "Dear Colleague" letter dated March 10 from Representatives John Conyers and Carolyn McCarthy seeking your cosponsorship of the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003."
Unfortunately the letter repeated many of the tired falsehoodsas well as made some new claimsthat were used to deliberately mislead Members of Congress and the public when the current misguided law was enacted by a narrow margin in 1994 as part of an omnibus crime bill (P.L. 103-322). Please consider these facts:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal this law less than two years after its passage (H.R. 125 on March 22, 1996), a clear indication that while Congress supported the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994 there was not support for this ill-conceived gun ban. The House vote to repeal the Clinton gun ban was 239-173, including 56 Democrats.
The ban has done nothing for public safety. An Urban Institute study mandated by the original law stated, "At best, the assault weapons ban can only have a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders." Neither that study nor two follow-up studies by the same authors found the law to have any effect on attacks against police officers.
The only "evidence" for criminal misuse
was a lie. Advocates of the ban irresponsibly propagated figures from Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) trace data, ignoring the Congressional Research Services warning that: Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.
Literally dozens of studies by criminologists, journalists and federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have found that these guns are involved in only about one percent of crimes both before and after the ban was adopted.
There is nothing "unique" or dangerous about the characteristics of the guns that were banned. The law prohibits the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms with two or more features such as pistol grips, barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs; yet no advocate of the ban has ever proven the relevance of those characteristics to criminal activity. That hasnt stopped anti-gun proponents who want to expand these provisions even further.
True assault weapons were banned in 1934, not in 1994. True assault weapons machine guns or firearms capable of fully automatic fire were effectively banned through the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. The firearms banned in the Clinton Crime Bill were semi-automatic guns that look, but do not function, like actual assault weapons. These firearms only fire one round per trigger pull, are incapable of continuous fire, and thus should not be considered assault weapons.
As usual, gun-ban activists are going back on their word. The "grandfather clause," allowing possession of existing firearms, was included to ease fears that new restrictions would be imposed on those who already owned these guns. As Senator Diane Feinstein stated on the Senate floor, everything that is legally in possession is essentially grandfathered . . . All guns, lawfully possessed before the date of enactment, are exempt from this legislation. (November 9, 1993) Now they want to abandon that promise by banning even more legitimate firearms.
Gun-ban Members have a much broader agenda. This ban was first promoted by an anti-gun activist who was frustrated by his movements inability to ban handguns. It was expanded by Senator Feinstein, who told 60 Minutes that if shed had enough votes she would have sought to ban them all [guns]. And it was supported by the Washington Post, which admitted, No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be, if it turns out to be as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
The call by Reps. Conyers and McCarthy for further restrictions on the transfer of legally owned guns between law-abiding citizens, and for controls on sales of gun parts, confirms their broader agenda. We urge you to ignore their call for more restrictive legislation. Instead we ask for your support of common sense, rational proposals to reduce crime while protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens. At this time in our nations history, we need serious solutions to real problems, not empty rhetoric that makes Americans less safe and does nothing to reduce crime. As always, if you have any questions or need additional information about this issue, please call NRA Federal Affairs.
Sincerely, Chris W. Cox Executive Director NRA Institute for Legislative Action -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information read Chris W. Cox's article "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." Posted: 3/25/2003
132
posted on
10/31/2003 11:00:15 AM PST
by
xsrdx
(Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
To: EricOKC; Rebelbase
133
posted on
10/31/2003 11:08:47 AM PST
by
in the Arena
(Richard Thomas Kastner - KIA - Phuoc Long, South Vietnam - 15 November 1969))
To: Dead Dog
I would like a tank. Light wheeled armoured vehicles begin at around 10 grand. You can get a tracked amphibian at around 25 K. It goes up from there. Polish T55Ls with a 100mm main gun start at around $9000, FOB the Polish port of Stettin; shipping will cost about that much again. Shermans/ $150,000, Centurions/$95,000, M41/ $105,000- and most WWII Allied vehicles are available; some Axis vehicles are also around but there's a high demand for them; the Czech T38 is probably the most practical, though there's an early WWII Panzer II coming on the market.
Check *here*, and *here*, and *here.
So far as hunting goes, I do know of one paraplegic who hunts from a British Ferret. But most private sector armoured car/ tank gunners are more inclined toward target shooting. At a half-mile or so.
134
posted on
10/31/2003 11:08:50 AM PST
by
archy
(Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
To: Rhoderic
I know you have had 26 other replies to your interrogative, but I thought I might respond anyway. I note that you are new here, and that your posts to this point indicate that, while you may not be a troll, you are at the least confused as to what constitutes an individual's rights and responsibilities in a free republic.
The firearms limited by the AWB are functionally identical to other guns not touched on by the ban. They shoot the same bullets out of the same barrels at the same speeds and at the same rate of fire. The differences are cosmetic. Many of the guns not touched by the AWB are great hunting guns. Concordantly, many of the weapons banned by the AWB are great hunting guns, though they may have more black plastic parts attached.
But this ban is not about hunting. Nor is the intention of the AWB is not to make the streets safer, because anyone with any access to actual facts can see that "Assault Weapons" are not used in any other than a fractional percentage of crimes. Most are owned by guys like me, and other law-abiding citizens, who have, from a very young age been brought up to be responsible with firearms, and have had that safety-conscious approach drilled as an absolute.
The goal of the AWB was to get the camel's nose under the tent, or more accuratly, the entire camel into the tent. Look into the history of gun control in Britain and Australia and the stats for the current rates of crime in those countries for an eye-opening experience. England has very strict gun control now, and not coincidently, the most crime in western Eurpope. Other responses to your post have pointed out the history of taking firearms away from citizens/subjects ... no example in history of such a dynamic has ended happily.
Many here will say that the freedom to own these guns is essential to the responsibilities that free men have to not allow tyranny in any form, and I agree with that completely. This is not a question of an individual citizen being able to own nuclear weapons (or tanks, as you put it.) It is about our responsibility to "live free or die". Firearms, and an individuals right to self defense (in whatever form that takes) are at the crux of this issue. The freedoms that we have in this country cannot survive if individuals give up their responsibilities associated with those freedoms. Those freedoms (and the associated responsibilities) are being whittled away one piece of legislation at a time.
This 'ban' is where the whittling away stops. It sunsets, or we are well on the way to the next major internal conflict in this country.
135
posted on
10/31/2003 11:10:39 AM PST
by
spodefly
(This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
To: Jeff Head
What FAL variant do you shoot?
To: harpseal
Also, there was an interview with a former Soviet big wig (can't remember if military or other) that said that they were not afraid of the US military, but all the firearms owned by civillian.
137
posted on
10/31/2003 11:16:04 AM PST
by
looscnnn
("Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils" Gen. John Stark 1809)
To: Long Cut
"And please . . . don't say it's for hunting." Actually, the .223 round is an excellent small-game round. In 1966 while teaching tank gunnery to rookie National Guard tank crews, we had four deer run across the target line at Steele's tank gunnery range at Fort Knox. We immediately got a cease fire from the safety officer in the range tower, who then began to designate fire missions....tank 66, take the one on the left, six-three, the one on the right...six niner, take the buck in the middle, seven-three, get the doe with him. On my command, one five round burst co-ax each....
Our .30 Browning coaxial machineguns were in the same .30-06 cartridge as the '03 Springfield or the M1 Garand rifle, and if full-jacketed ball ammo is likely less useful for the project at hand that day, we were firing two short bursts...and we had 10x telescopic gunner's sights....
We ate good in the messhall that night.
138
posted on
10/31/2003 11:17:00 AM PST
by
archy
(Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
To: Big Mack
Okay, I got your point, and it's a good one. Even now, I'm having trouble hearing. I'll probably get shot by some JBT because I won't be able to obey an order because I can't hear. Lessee, I'll have to figure out what would be a neutral, non-threatening response if they come through the door. Should I pick up my rifle and hand it to them, or reach in my back pocket for my I.D? Mebbe put my hand to my ear when they say, "Don't move or I'll shoot!" ;>
To: Rhoderic
Errr, this might be a stupid question but why would anyone want to have such a weapon? Just because.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-206 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