Assault Weapons Ban

The problem is with terms.......

and what you think they mean, as opposed to what others think the same term actually means.

"Assault weapons" are semi automatic firearms, with certain combinations of cosmetic features. This was defined in law, in 1994!

"Assault rifles" is a definition used in the military and firearms world, and was basically defined in 1944, by Adolph Hitler!

"Machine gun" is also a legal term, defined in law, back in 1934!

I'm all for an "Assault Weapons Ban"... for a certain definition of "assault weapon" that is mostly already covered by existing law,
Click to expand...

And just what "Assault weapons" would those be, Joe?

they referred to 5.56 M4 carbine as a "Machine Gun"...
Click to expand...

Any firearm that has a full auto capability is a machine gun, under US law.

I suggest you do some further research, and reconsider the accuracy of your opinions.
 
I think you folks are looking at the wrong problem ...

Obama doesn't need the AWB ... the interamerican treaty that's been unratified for several years just needs to slide through the Demo majority Senate and the dirty work is all but done ... or the UN gun-banners, who finally have a sympathetic ear in the white house, will work their magic ..

And those who are expecting rationality from politicians are in for a sad awakening ... no such thing ... you can truck out all the stats you want showing how much better citizens CHL holders are and how crime has plunged in states with a shall issue law ... if that worked, it would have worked already ...

I personally think our gun rights are teetering on the edge ... two appeals courts have already rejected the 9th's ruling that Heller applies to the states ... including the 2nd, from where we will soon be seeing Sotomayor departiing for the Scotus ...

got a note today from a knife group I belong to ... some fed agency is considering an action which would outlaw all onehand opening knives ... that would leave you with your boyscout knife and a sharp stick ..

I'm very pessimistic ... if the right doesn't regain control of Congress in 2010, I think we're doomed ... they'll pick and poke, ammo taxes, serial numbers on each round, this gun restricted, that one can't be imported ... Congress isn't the only way we can lose our rights and I think that's what Obama and his leftie flunkies are planning ... time will tell ...
 
That treaty has no shot at passing. Gun Rights are pushing forward full speed ahead right now. There is no appetite for gun control legislation, ESPECIALLY one as sweeping as that treaty. Don't be paranoid. Be weary and vigilant, but not paranoid.
 
Obama doesn't need the AWB ... the interamerican treaty that's been unratified for several years just needs to slide through the Demo majority Senate and the dirty work is all but done ... or the UN gun-banners, who finally have a sympathetic ear in the white house, will work their magic ..
Click to expand...
An outright gun or ammo ban like the one in the treaty would fail so spectacularly that it would make Prohibition look like a walk in the park. Senators voting for the gun-banning treaty would have to face the music when they're up for re-election. The Senate has a larger number of members from pro-gun states than the House since pro-gun states outnumber anti-gun states. Those senators are not going to commit political suicide for reasons of party loyalty.
And those who are expecting rationality from politicians are in for a sad awakening ... no such thing ... you can truck out all the stats you want showing how much better citizens CHL holders are and how crime has plunged in states with a shall issue law ... if that worked, it would have worked already ...
Click to expand...
I think that the Democratic Party's recent sweep of the Presidency, House, and Senate is the result of a very rational strategy wherein the party has emphasized moderate positions that appeal to independent voters. This strategy is borne out by party leaders' refusal to use gun control as a litmus test in deciding which candidates to back for congressional seats.

It's very difficult to prove that shall-issue CHL laws are in any way responsible for the drop in crime in shall-issue states. This has been recently discussed in other LACR threads. I strongly support shall-issue CHL laws for protection of myself, but IMHO the overall effect on crime is debatable.
I personally think our gun rights are teetering on the edge ... two appeals courts have already rejected the 9th's ruling that Heller applies to the states ... including the 2nd, from where we will soon be seeing Sotomayor departiing for the Scotus ...
Click to expand...
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered the most liberal court in the country, recently backed incorporation with the Nordyke decision. Furthermore, the recent 7th Circuit anti-incorporation decision used shaky logic that can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to punt the case to the SCOTUS.
That treaty has no shot at passing. Gun Rights are pushing forward full speed ahead right now. There is no appetite for gun control legislation, ESPECIALLY one as sweeping as that treaty. Don't be paranoid. Be weary and vigilant, but not paranoid.
Click to expand...
I'm with him. The recent direction of U.S. gun rights has me encouraged, albeit not quite ecstatic. :)
 
I believe within a few days of the statement referenced in the OP there was a press conference with B'Obama and Dianne Feinstein stating that they had informed Mr. Holder to "Enforce the laws that are on the books"; while reminding the audience that it was the job of Congress (and most certainly Mrs. Feinstein herself) to pursue such avenues of legislation.
 
Last edited:
44, that was a good read! Well spoken, and fair enough. I, like you, don't think it will ever happen, but I wouldn't mind it at all! And ditto on the death penalty. We have gotten to soft.

As for me, the problem I had with the first AWB was not even the definition of an "assault weapon." Folding stocks? The guns are easier to be accurate and deadly with when aimed and fired from the shoulder. High capacity? Fine. Limit my mags to 10. I'll just carry one more than usual. Same number of rounds on my belt. It just didn't make sense and didn't really accomplish anything to me other than wasting my tax money to hear Congress debate about it when none of them knew jack about firearms.
 
And a letter from 65 Congressional Democrats.
We have been winning so BIG in the last year that someone simply has to pinch me.
Click to expand...
Very true. We've swayed a large portion of the legal and academic communities into reading the 2nd Amendment literally. Even if they don't know the specifics, the general public now knows that the original AWB was hooey.

We've finally received a Supreme Court ruling that dispels the "collective rights" interpretation of the 2A. The 9th Circuit (that's California, folks) has ruled that the 14th incorporates the 2nd against the States, and the issue is now headed to the Supreme Court. We have some amazing legal talent on our side.

As little as 15 years ago, none of this would have ever been conceivable.

We're living under an administration whose prior words and actions betray a serious fetish for gun control, yet they're terrified to say anything about it in public, and they're quick to reprimand those who do. Remember how both Democratic candidates fell over each other professing their "support" for the 2A last campaign.

...and you wanna know why the DC Voting Rights bill hasn't passed yet? :cool:

We're in hostile waters politically, but we're actually making gains, and that's what we need to be focused on: supporting those who are making this possible.
 
There is not going to be an AWB or any other gun or ammo ban. Now please sell back the ammunition and reloading supplies that you've been hoarding. (That is not necessarily to the OP or any other specific person. The people that my message applies to know who they are.)
 
There is not going to be an AWB or any other gun or ammo ban. Now please sell back the ammunition and reloading supplies that you've been hoarding. (That is not necessarily to the OP or any other specific person. The people that my message applies to know who they are.)
Click to expand...

I think you are correct for at least the next 3-4 years. That doesn't mean we need to be any less vigilant.
 
i read somewhere that the brady bunch and the illustrious Ms. Clinton (thats the one, right?) "cited" a "source" that claimed 90% of the guns used against police and govt in mexico by cartels came from USA. The REAL number is 17%... and how many of that 17% were Foreign Military Sales?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top