HR 1022

A bill introduced on 13 February in the United States Congress proposes to not only reinstate the AWB of 1994, but also "improve" it, in order to make criminals more heavily armed than those of us who follow the law, apparently.

Quote`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

The above is may favorite part of this stupid bill.  The emphasized part particularly makes me mad.

By the way, I know some of you (maybe many of you) are not Americans and don't have a problem with banning guns that "look mean."  That's fine for your country.  And I don't want any of you mentioning "sporting purposes" as the only legitimate use for a firearm either.  Here in the United States, we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms.  THat's BEAR arms, not "enjoy a touch of fun in firearm sports."

Quote from: joewolzHR 1022

A bill introduced on 13 February in the United States Congress proposes to not only reinstate the AWB of 1994, but also "improve" it, in order to make criminals more heavily armed than those of us who follow the law, apparently.



The above is may favorite part of this stupid bill.  The emphasized part particularly makes me mad.

By the way, I know some of you (maybe many of you) are not Americans and don't have a problem with banning guns that "look mean."  That's fine for your country.  And I don't want any of you mentioning "sporting purposes" as the only legitimate use for a firearm either.  Here in the United States, we have the RIGHT to BEAR arms.  THat's BEAR arms, not "enjoy a touch of fun in firearm sports."

You're right for once. I agree completely and do believe that the second ammendment was put there to see to it that the citizens could, if need be, overthrow the government by force.

Looking at america today I think we can see why the founders may have wanted to make this possible.

Also, the second amendment is the second ammendment for a good reason: The 10 ammendments, AKA the bill of rights, were created in order of importance.

The founders believed that free speech, and the ability of citizens to petition and seek redress of grievance, was the MOST important thing, so it came first.

The second amendment is there to protect the first amendment bu giving the citizens the power to fight the government if it tried to impose on the first amendment.

Most people are too ignorant to know that, but I had a better teacher than most people did.

I've heard some policy geeks talking like it won't even get out of committee.  The Dems put a lot of gun-friendly people in the House.  Even they aren't stupid enough to go after guns without a friend in the White House.

Which is why I won't be voting for Rudy, BTW.

Not a gun rights guy, Fonkaygarry?

I also doubt it will make past committee, but it's still scary that they're trying something this awful!

Quote from: joewolzNot a gun rights guy, Fonkaygarry?

Dunno why you'd think that.  If it's what I said about Rudy, I understand that he's no ally of gun owners.

I'm not worried about the bill, myself.  Even with the dem victory in 2006, there were some modest gains made in the House WRT gun rights.

Not that I won't stock up on 30-rounders and a couple of AR lowers if the elections in 2008 should go poorly.

Quote from: fonkaygarryDunno why you'd think that.  If it's what I said about Rudy, I understand that he's no ally of gun owners.

I'm not worried about the bill, myself.  Even with the dem victory in 2006, there were some modest gains made in the House WRT gun rights.

Not that I won't stock up on 30-rounders and a couple of AR lowers if the elections in 2008 should go poorly.

As a Dem myself, I'm always confused when a Republican is anti-gun...but it happens.  Sorry.

Personally, the thing in that ban that worries me is the quote, but number two is:

Quote(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

I wonder how that will go down with some of the interchangeable mags like the Sig (I think) .40 standard 10rd. mag that doubles as a 12rd. 9mm mag.

This is another one of those stupid fucking ideas that I intend to ignore.

I firmly believe that the 2nd Ammendment is the reason Strunk and White are so harsh about misplaced commas and run-on sentences.  I mean, would it have hurt to split it up?

It won't get anywhere near passing.  The Dems that were voted in this term are overall much more gun-friendly in composition than people would think.

Do many people use assault rifles as sporting weapons?  How?

Serious question, I mean presumably people don't mow down deer with M16s.

I think the way of interpreting the second Ammendement means only that the people have the right to form well regulated militias would actually be more permissive of guns.

How can there be an effective militia without AntiTank rockets, 30mm Automatic Cannons, shoulder fired AA missiles , Sniper rifles etc.?

So for the letter of the law, I postulate US governement should allow all  infantry weapons.

Elsewise there can be no Militia that has any fighting chance.

Settembrini, that is my interpretation as well.

Goddammit, Sett posted my point while I was coming home from work.

But yeah, I was thinking about that. If bearing arms is prevention against governmental tyranny, what precisely is an automatic rifle going to avail you against a modern military? I mean, they can read your newspaper over your shoulder from orbit if it strikes them to, then proceed to drop a missile on you from miles off-shore; what chance will a group of militiamen have to move troops and supplies in the way a full-scale insurrection requires?

Quote from: Christmas ApeBut yeah, I was thinking about that. If bearing arms is prevention against governmental tyranny, what precisely is an automatic rifle going to avail you against a modern military?

Ask the Iraqis?

During the holocaust, the jews in thw warsaw ghetto held off the nazis for weeks with a few civillian firearms. In fact they resisted the nazis longer than some countries did.


Seems the nazis were afraid of going in after jews who could fight back.