Posted on 01/25/2008 9:59:59 AM PST by JRochelle
That’s just the fact. If you owned a gun that was listed in the AWB bill BEFORE the bill took effect, you could keep it. The ban was on the PURCHASE of the gun, not the OWNERSHIP of the gun.
I’ve never owned a gun, but I almost bought an AK-47 from a friend of mine right before the ban, just in case I decided I needed one later.
Let me know how that goes for you.
Gun grabber bump for later
He worked with the gun groups that would be effected by the compromise, came to an agreement everybody thought would be best, and implemented it.
Yes, in the real world where we all live, you sometimes don’t get everything that you want, and compromising is better than not.
It’s not about “rights he swore to uphold”. At this time, no court has found AWBs to be unconstitutional anyway, even if they should be.
Some people want to tilt at windmills.
ANYONE can drink the Kool-aid and many on this forum do.
No, I think instead I’ll just keep pointing out that every word out of your mouth is a blatant lie and that you support the only candidate running who supports amending the 1st amendment to the constitution and wants judge Wapner to handle Osama’s trial.
You’re welcome.
How can we protect the 1st amendment when your guy is blasting the 2nd?
OK. So John McCain gets a C+ for his record on 2nd AMDT. Jewelyannie is worse, Dems are worse than him. So who is your pick; Ron Paul?
Yeah, FReepers got a real conservative to vote for finally, one with the record to back it up.
But noooo...Oooga Booga! Cavemen half a world away is scaring them, so let's just vote for the RINO who'll protect us from these evil creatures. Never mind the fact that Paul still supports a strong military and will still leave behind a contigency of troops to specifically go after bin Laden.
It's absolutely sickening.
What Kool-aid?
Uh, without wanting to defend the AWB (I despise the very concept of gun control - check out my FR homepage, past posts and links if you don't believe that), what Charles said is accurate. The AWB banned the acquisition of certain named models, of firearms, or firearms with a combination of certain named features (no matter the name) manufactured after a certain date in 1994. Ditto for magazines of greater than 10 rounds in capacity. You could get anything manufactured beforehand (remember the huge advertisements for PRE-BANS), if you were willing to pony up between 2 and 10 times the original price of the items (which was, IMHO, the point of the whole exercise).
Please, let's deal with facts as facts. I didn't like the fact of the AWB and I don't like the fact that gun-banning SOBs are in Congress, running for President, in the bureaucracy, in the media, the churches and synogogues, etc., but those are FACTS. Work to change future facts, don't bad-mouth someone who accurately represents facts as they were/are.
That being said, I'm no Romney fan. I MAY still end up voting for him, on the theory that he's not as bad as the rest of those wuckfits running for President.
And if you think Mitt Romney is going to take your guns away, your bigger concern is probably the government putting floride in your water and brain washing you.
So he’s wrong about the price of Romney’s extortion. Myth is still wrong about the Second Amendment.
If you hate the Second, you hate them all.
Myth hates them all.
FReepers don't care about Paul's 2nd Amendment stand that'll put everyone else's to shame. They don't care about withdrawing from the UN and abolishing entire federal departments and agencies. As long as we continue fighting a war that should have been over and done with months ago is all that matters.
Two points. First, by then, the damage is done. Frankly, it would be best prevented in the first place.
Once they take your rights, You do not get them back. At least not since 1934. (Remember, the AWB was a rare exception--the only gun control with a sunset clause).
Second:
I would love to have the faith in the SCOTUS some here have, but who would have thought emminent domain meant for the government to sieze your property so someone else could tear down your perfectly good house to put in an upscale mall and condos because the public would benefit from the higher tax base? (Kelo).
So, until the decision is handed down and carved in stone, I'm not going to put all my eggs in the Court's basket, either. Firearms I can purchase here with no permit to buy run the gamut. Because I hold a Concealed Carry Permit in my state, there is no hassle and I leave with my firearm the same day. Any firearm I can afford, anyway (Still saving up my pennies for Class III).
So, by the standards of 'us hicks', Mass. gun laws are draconian. A compromise like that here would have resulted in a recall campaign.
Agreed. I'm a very disappointed Fred Thompson/Ronald Reagan Republican but, then again, I've been that way since very early in 1989 when Bush 41 stabbed gun owners in the back with his EO banning imports, the elitist, opportunistic SOB. But SOMEONE is going to be President, and without a clear difference between any of the Republicans on guns, I'll side with the person who seems to make the most sense on other issues. Heck, even if you believe Huckabee on guns, he's so Carter-like and such a nanny-stater and has so little knowledge about foreign affairs that I simply cannot vote for him. As far as I'm concerned, he doomed Fred's campaign by stealing away a lot of otherwise conservative people that make religious/social issues their most important factor in voting.
And they are ALL better than the Democraps, even McStain or Julie-Annie.
I saw the entire debate last night and I am satisfied with my decision!
Two points. First, by then, the damage is done. Frankly, it would be best prevented in the first place.
Ofcourse, we should elect members of Congress who are strongly pro-gun.
But we can roll back gun control laws as well as we have recently done.
Frankly, more heat has to be put on the NRA to stop compromising over these issues.
Once they take your rights, You do not get them back. At least not since 1934. (Remember, the AWB was a rare exception--the only gun control with a sunset clause).
Yes, but the states have been doing very well in passing pro gun legislation.
We have most states with a right to carry law.
Second: I would love to have the faith in the SCOTUS some here have, but who would have thought emminent domain meant for the government to sieze your property so someone else could tear down your perfectly good house to put in an upscale mall and condos because the public would benefit from the higher tax base? (Kelo). So, until the decision is handed down and carved in stone, I'm not going to put all my eggs in the Court's basket, either. Firearms I can purchase here with no permit to buy run the gamut. Because I hold a Concealed Carry Permit in my state, there is no hassle and I leave with my firearm the same day. Any firearm I can afford, anyway (Still saving up my pennies for Class III). So, by the standards of 'us hicks', Mass. gun laws are draconian. A compromise like that here would have resulted in a recall campaign.
I agree, that law would never fly in pro-gun states, but if the people of that state want it that way it is up to them.
As long as the gun laws aren't made federal, and left up to the individual states, I see no problem with dealing with them as such.
Now, hopefully, the SCOTUS might actually rule in our favor and overturn all of the anti-gun laws in those states as being unconstitutional, which is what happened in DC.
But the point is that any GOP President is better on this issue then any Democrat and as gun owners we cannot afford to let the Democrats regain control of the White House and we need to regain the Congress.
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.