"Assault Weapon" Ban will not come to the floor for a vote.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Joined
·
102 Posts
Quit all these hype about new gun laws. Put some real teeth into the current and enforce them no exceptions. Pull a gun to commit a crime - automatic 20 years and no parole. Take another persons life in the commission of a crime - automatic death penalty and no appeals. Sell a gun to a criminal, same penalty as the thug. Leave honest Americans alone.
Reb
Reb
Joined
·
178 Posts
Don't celebrate yet. Most considered the weapons ban to be a dead issue given the number of Dim senators from pro-gun states who didn't want any part of it. What is still alive and you need to fear is the universal background check, which effectively is federal gun registration. Along with that are the various provisions that allow a doctor to label you a danger and lose gun rights without due process, which many vets have already been victimized by. Stay vigilant!
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Hi GReents;
It is good news in that it means the odds of our beating the AWB this time around have just gotten better.
Don't get over-confident though. By separating the AWB from the main bill, this will allow Senators to vote for the unconstitutional gun bill (no private xfers, etc) while voting against the AWB (it will have a separate floor vote to attach it, and failing another high profile shooting will probably be defeated).
Thus they'll be able to vote to restrict our gun rights via an eventual registry of firearms and owners (compiled through the DROS that we can't easily side-step anymore) and at the same time claim that they protected us from the ban.
Hang in there guys, keep the email and letters to your congresscritters up and don't let them give up anything to the gun grabbers. Let's beat 'em cold and let 'em pound sand.
Best,
Grumpy
I never really gave the assault weapon ban a real chance. Dingy Harry has been cool to it all along. He knew the GOP would not philibuster and force the Dems to vote. The House would kill it if it passed the Senate and those 6-8 Dems from red states and swing states would be dead men walking as far as their re-election bids. Reid knew what the deal was and he wasn't going to let it happen.
Cruz and the rest are all pretty hip to the gun registration thing. It might pass the Senate, but anything that passes the House will exempt family and require no archiving of purchasing information. I don't expect magazine limits to get through either. Even so, my Ruger 20 rnd mags arrived today, so screw em.
The Dems are nervous about the 2016 elections. There is plenty of time for the masses to forget this little liberal tirade so they will vote for more Dems in 2016. They are sneaky little bas##### and won't forget the next time something happens. Just becuase teddy kennedy died did not mean they gave up on socialized health care. They will be back if we drop our guard. kwg
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
Don't worry, we are just as confused as you are. :huh:
The problem with the US system is that no matter how bad of a job they are doing, they cannot be removed from office unless they commit a crime. Even if they are doing everything the public does NOT want them to do, they are in office until the next election.
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Hi GReents;
Yep, that reminder wasn't directed at you, but is more a representation of my fear that we'll find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
And frankly I think now that the pro-gunners are organized again is the time to counter-attack by launching an effort to roll back some of our past losses such as the (un) Safe Schools Act that banned guns from schools at the national level and set us up for tragedies like the Newtown Massacre. It is being reported that the ************ who did that had planned it for years and picked a target looking for the highest body count. If not for the Safe Schools Act and the GFZ it represents, that school need not have been so woefully ill prepared.
Another area of attack is on the prohibited persons list. The whole thing really needs to go, but if there is such a list there must be a clearly established due process for getting off of it, and the idea of a lifetime prohibition is an abomination.
Ideally if we could start a roll back effort, instead of Bloomberg's billions buying some new antigunowner laws, he'll get the bitterest defeat possible. If so, we will not only have held our own but we will have rolled them back a bit on their agenda. And if we can roll 'em back a bit and put 'em on the defensive then they won't want to raise the gun issue for a good long while. Not for about 20 years or so would be my guess. Long enough for them to forget the drubbing this would represent.
But first we gotta beat 'em cold. I really want Feinstein, Bloomberg, obozo & company to bitterly regret ever raising the topic of civilian firearms ownership because they win no new ground legislatively and lose some of what that they have already taken in the past.
Molon Labe!
Grumpy
Amen brother! :beer:
Celebrate every victory, but keep on fighting until nothing remains of the gun grabbers self serving agenda but smoke and ashes. That and never forget the fight we're in now lest we have to fight the same battle again in the future.
Can someone explain to me why universal background checks are a bad thing?
This along with reprimanding criminals that cannot buy guns using the database the NRA set up would seem to keep a lot of illegally acquired guns off the streets.
And if you have a CCW permit you should be able to circumvent the background check. But yeah, and explanation would be great. Thanks fellas
EDIT: Should have explained one sentence better. "This along with reprimanding criminals trying to buy guns that legally cant using the database the NRA helped set up..."
This along with reprimanding criminals that cannot buy guns using the database the NRA set up would seem to keep a lot of illegally acquired guns off the streets.
And if you have a CCW permit you should be able to circumvent the background check. But yeah, and explanation would be great. Thanks fellas
EDIT: Should have explained one sentence better. "This along with reprimanding criminals trying to buy guns that legally cant using the database the NRA helped set up..."
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
dont feel bad i dont understand it neither and im pure cracker. it makes no ****ing sense some the **** they write looks like it was written by a Chinese lawyer. :wacko:
do they really think we are going to turn in or arms lmao.. ill die first.
Joined
·
178 Posts
First, the plan for universal background checks is that the feds are in charge, therefore they know of every gun purchase, and they way it is planned, also what you purchase - gun registration. This is especially bad if they get to include private sales as they're fighting for. If you don't know your history, this has always led to gun confiscation. You say it can't happen here? It already has, for instance the SKS thing in Kalifornia years ago. Gun registration is their totalitarian dream, therefore you automatically know it's got nothing to do with crime prevention. Why else do they need to know who's got what? You can't argue with me on that - lots of modern history on my side.
If the states run it, they are typically supposed to destroy records after a certain time. The feds, on the other hand, have already been caught keeping all sorts of records they were supposed to have destroyed, with no repercussions.
You're statement "keeping illegally acquired guns off the streets" makes no sense, because if they're illegally acquiring them that by definition means they're breaking existing law to do so.
I don't believe even the states should know when you buy a gun. If you want to keep mentally unstable people from buying guns through dealers then what you establish is a database that a dealer can do a lookup against. Perhaps add people who've had violent felonies in recent years (every day 50-60yr old guys are turned down because they had a fight or something in their twenties, yet have been clean since). To keep dealers from getting nosy and "roaming" the database for their neighbors, ex-girlfriends or whatever you force a login by a limited accounts, with limited lookups, or some such scheme. True, if there's a lookup, the state can presume that person bought a gun, but that's the best I can think of if there's got to be some check. Certainly in my state, if a paid background check is run, then they can pretty much guarantee a purchase happened.
Why is it that crimes committed with guns get special charges? You may hear about an assault charge, then some add-on charge about being committed with a gun. How is that worse than a knife, axe, blowtorch, etc? In my mind it violates the equal protection clause by creating a special class of criminal based on it being a gun, part of the establishment anti-gun bias. You murder someone, regardless of weapon, you should get the same punishment.
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
+1000000000
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Hi Pet Rock;
There are several issues involved with background checks.
1. What is a sale or transaction? Everyone keeps talking about "we need background checks for all sales", but this applies to all transactions, not just commercial sales. In other words, what things require a background check? If Schumer's bill passes, you won't be able to hand a rifle to your buddy on your back yard range. In rural America there are plenty of people who lend out guns to friends and neighbors for hunting and target shooting. Why not? Here everyone has a gun of some sort or other. The point in lending/borrowing is to try out that particular model. All sorts of other ramifications for self defense too - if my buddies are over here and they're not heeled, I damn' well am willing to hand 'em rifles, pistols, or shotguns as appropriate if some home invaders pick that time and place to do their thing. Nope, its illegal under the law as written.
2. As of now, if they ever do get a confiscatory law passed at some time in the future, I'm sure that you already sold your guns at a gun show, wink wink. They could actually be buried in your garden, or that 10 acres of scrub land you have, or....wherever. But officially you "sold them at a gun show". Prove otherwise and show me your warrant. The lack of registration acts to keep effective confiscations from ever happening on a large scale. We need to keep the gov't from ever compiling an effective and useful registration list or we will have confiscations at gunpoint in the future.
3. The NICS "prohibited person" list has a lot of potential for abuse, such as Schumer's "no fly no buy" idea (if you're on the TSA's s*** list no guns for you! Turn 'em in you suspected terrorist, you!). Frankly the whole idea of a background check doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since if we know someone is dangerous why are we allowing him or her to walk around loose? Bluntly anyone who is too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to walk the streets publicly. Gasoline, knives, etc. are as or more dangerous for offensive purposes than are guns, though of limited or no utility for self defense. Don't believe me? Look up the Happyland Night Club fire of 1990. 87 dead from $1 worth of gasoline in a container that the loser boy found. Improvised as all heck, and 3x as many dead as that ******* in Connecticut could manage with years of preparation and the best weapons money could buy, courtesy of mommy dearest who couldn't bear to see her little darling put away where he belonged - until it was too late.
4. Its going to sound crass, but any victory we give the gun grabbers, no matter how small will both be exploited (the original "background checks" is being turned into a registration system in Schumer's bill) and help them build momentum. The Brady Bill passed in '93, the AWB in '94 - coincidence? Nope. The lefties had been trying for an AWB from Jan '89 and we beat 'em every time but once they built momentum with the "Brady Bill" they were able to go over the top the following year. I do NOT want them to do the same thing, even if it costs 'em both houses of congress in a repeat of '94. The first AWB was an abomination and this one will be worse. Beat 'em now, beat 'em completely, and not only don't give an inch, let's take some back just to teach 'em a lesson for picking this fight in the first place!
Molon Labe!
Grumpy
PS Know one of the best places for crooks to get guns? They steal them. Sometimes from packages in shipping, sometimes from your home. This won't keep anyone in the criminal class from having one.
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
holy **** he was born during the clinton ban lols.. maybe he was born to fight it lol
join the resistance...
join the resistance...
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
No problem Pet Rock;Thanks for the in depth responses guys. At 19, I was born in '94 so no memory of the AWB lol
All this gun ban business sounded a bit crazy until I saw how far Feinstein wanted to go and what NY and CA are doing. Looks like I gotta lot to learn
We all learn as we go along, some quicker than others (okay progressives never learn a damn' thing ever but that's because they think they're smarter than history and "this time it will be different").
Here's the thing - a lot of what they're handing you sounds good until you really think long and hard about it. Like the bit about "background checks" - sure we don't want bad people to buy guns, but *ahem* if we have a big list of bad people why are we letting them run around loose? And that list grows as the definitions change - always in a way that puts more people on the list.
It was about the time you were born, that this jerkoff named Lautenberg passed a bill that made anyone ever convicted of misdemeanor "domestic violence" a "prohibited person" for life. A few years before then, one of my best friends was on the road to a petty DV via a severe miscarriage of justice when his life was cut short (long story and painful, not going into it in a public forum, sorry). He's been dead for well more'n 20 years now and I occasionally find myself wondering how it would have turned out if he hadn't been taken from us so suddenly. He was a great shooting buddy, but if the pending case had gone the way I think it was going, he would have had a chicken**** suspended sentence kind of DV and he never could have gone shooting with us again, once the Lautenberg thing passed in '97. Even letting him handle one of our guns in private would have been a big bad felony, and you know what? When I was a young man we never locked up our guns when we were home. We had rifles, pistols, shotguns, laying out. Cleaning 'em from the range, getting ready to take 'em to the range, or just plain to show 'em off to our buddies. And looking through shotgun news to decide what to buy next. "Group buy, guys? Lets talk to the LGS and see what kind of deal we can cut if we order 4 of 'em from him all at once...." Guns were as much a part of life to my generation as a laptop computer or cellphone is to your generation.
As far as I'm concerned, to hell with any and all background checks. Hang the killers and rapists, and give 20 year sentences to the thieves and burglars. If someone commits a lesser crime and is "out" then give 'em a chance like anyone else. How can we expect them to "integrate into society" if one of the principle functions of free men (self defense) is denied to them? And the crazies? Lock 'em up and give 'em the treatment they need. If we get the real criminals and the crazies off the streets, background checks make no sense at all. Unless you're Chuck Schumer and your real goal is banning guns one little step at a time.
Best,
Grumpy
This makes the most sense to me, great way of doing things! I also think that the more people CCW, the safer everyone in society is. It also seems that the more the media follows the crazies doing mass shootings, the more the other crazies try to get their name in the history books via the same method, like this most recent guy from CFU. None of it makes sense to me, and I wish they would seek help instead of ending things like they are. Anyways, enough rambling for me
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
