New HR 1022 Assault Weapons Ban - threads merged
- Thread starter Gixerman1000
- Start date
There is the problem
Yes, we need lots of posts regarding this matter. It is amazing that a member would actualy compline about too many postings on the issue of the assualt weapons ban. we should all be talking about this. this affects everyone, even those that don't support the use of Ar, Aks, Galils, and other type rifles. if this is pasted then it is easiler for guns to become banned completely. EMAIL your congressmen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, we need lots of posts regarding this matter. It is amazing that a member would actualy compline about too many postings on the issue of the assualt weapons ban. we should all be talking about this. this affects everyone, even those that don't support the use of Ar, Aks, Galils, and other type rifles. if this is pasted then it is easiler for guns to become banned completely. EMAIL your congressmen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Appears to be the same old bill as before with a few more names on the list.
Actually, it's worse. You didn't read it? Just off the top of my head...Shotgun Minister said:
If your gun has a detachable mag, then it can have only ONE additional evil feature, not 2 like the original... This is in addition to all the new guns added to the list.
Want to sell your "grandfathered" AW? You will need to go through an FFL.
Can't let a kid touch it, or you can get 10 years!
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
Read between the lines of HR1022 very carefully.
How about the “barrel shrouds" bit? As defined in the bill a shroud is, “attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.”
While the bill was obviously written by someone who knows as much about firearms as I do rocket science, I can only assume that a “slide that encloses the barrel” is talking about slide (pump) action rifles and shotguns. The part about “does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel” means virtually any rifle or shotgun that does not have a full-length stock. If one was to literally interpret this passage, Marlin and Winchester lever-action rifles have barrel shrouds!
The truth of the matter is the final decision on if a lever-gun (or any long arm with a two-piece stock) will be on this list will be up to a bureaucrat in Washington. Yeah, I’ll bet my way of life on that!
Don't even get me started on why a vertical pistol grip is included.
This bill is MUCH worse than the AWB of 1994
How about the “barrel shrouds" bit? As defined in the bill a shroud is, “attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.”
While the bill was obviously written by someone who knows as much about firearms as I do rocket science, I can only assume that a “slide that encloses the barrel” is talking about slide (pump) action rifles and shotguns. The part about “does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel” means virtually any rifle or shotgun that does not have a full-length stock. If one was to literally interpret this passage, Marlin and Winchester lever-action rifles have barrel shrouds!
The truth of the matter is the final decision on if a lever-gun (or any long arm with a two-piece stock) will be on this list will be up to a bureaucrat in Washington. Yeah, I’ll bet my way of life on that!
Don't even get me started on why a vertical pistol grip is included.
This bill is MUCH worse than the AWB of 1994
So with Iraq going on and other political stuff would you bet the family farm he wouldnt sign it? He needs some favors from the Dems...
The question should be is this something the Dems really want to do with another election coming up in 2008? It cost them the congress in 2004 elections. Chances are they will probably rattle the sabre the holdup might be the Senate. If the Dems win the White House in 2008 look for it.
It might be that the Republicans need to come back to the folks that put them in power in 1994 like the Dems did in 2006.
I dont see any co-sponsors signed onto the bill yet?
You kinda missed the point on that one entirely. Prior to these last elections it didn't matter who was in the whitehouse. Now it does. At best we have GWB or his repub successors which we really don't know what they would do, at worst, Hillary or Obama and we know what they would do.
Besides, the dems wouldn't lose very much political capital at all for a new AWB since 90% of people that oppose it don't vote for them anyways.
When I saw the way the elections were shaping up and it was becoming clear that the Dems were likely to win I immediately started saving up for my rifle. I could see this one coming from a long way out.
Honestly does anyone believe that the democrats have any problem with your kids getting shot. After all people die every day from all manner of things that the Dems are actually in favor of. They sure don’t have any problems with putting cop killers back on the streets or illegal aliens who have committed murder or raped children back on the streets. The only reason these people are concerned about weapons is that they have a different vision for the future of this country and it looks something like Hugo Chavez’s vision for America. So when things start to get ugly it’s going to be real inconvenient for large segments of the population to be armed. Why do you think they keep coming back to this even after they see that it’s a losing proposition time after time. No it is because it is very, very important to their agenda. By now nobody should be buying that it’s “for the children” I’m sorry but they have just tried to push through too much evil stuff under that banner.
Honestly does anyone believe that the democrats have any problem with your kids getting shot. After all people die every day from all manner of things that the Dems are actually in favor of. They sure don’t have any problems with putting cop killers back on the streets or illegal aliens who have committed murder or raped children back on the streets. The only reason these people are concerned about weapons is that they have a different vision for the future of this country and it looks something like Hugo Chavez’s vision for America. So when things start to get ugly it’s going to be real inconvenient for large segments of the population to be armed. Why do you think they keep coming back to this even after they see that it’s a losing proposition time after time. No it is because it is very, very important to their agenda. By now nobody should be buying that it’s “for the children” I’m sorry but they have just tried to push through too much evil stuff under that banner.
That same thinking cost them the Congress in 1994. Its a scarier world now than it was in 1994. A lot more folks know that the government is incapapble of providing them security, especially during disasters. Firearms sales have been going up and a lot of states have passed pro firearm legislation. Keep in mind that this legislation is supported by the liberal wing of the Democratic party. The question for the Dems is do they want to make this a landmark issue for the 2008 elections knowing what happened in 1994? If it passes every Democrat in every state will be assured of having to face this in the next elections. It will even be a presidential election issue. If I was a Dem I think there might be better things to make the Issues for 2008.
Go to the presidential candidates for 2008 and see how much print is given to gun control. I didnt see any in the official Hillary site.
Same old nonsense. Do a search of the arguments back in 2004. People were saying that Bush was going to sign an new AWB. When he made it obvious that he would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to push the bill, the anti-gunners called him a liar, but he got no credit from the puritans.
Then they said that we were suckers, and that the Republicans would pass one after the election. Never happened, despite the conspiratorial predications of the tinfoil hat crowd.
The fact of the matter is, this bill would have no shot in hell under a Republican Congress. But, hey, the Republicans weren't perfect, so we shot ourselves in the foot. The same "all politicians are the same" folks will be saying that the Republican Presidential candidate is "just as bad" as the Democrat soon, and they will do their damndest to make sure we have all Democrat Executive and Legislative body. You can kiss your guns goodbye if that happens.
Then they said that we were suckers, and that the Republicans would pass one after the election. Never happened, despite the conspiratorial predications of the tinfoil hat crowd.
The fact of the matter is, this bill would have no shot in hell under a Republican Congress. But, hey, the Republicans weren't perfect, so we shot ourselves in the foot. The same "all politicians are the same" folks will be saying that the Republican Presidential candidate is "just as bad" as the Democrat soon, and they will do their damndest to make sure we have all Democrat Executive and Legislative body. You can kiss your guns goodbye if that happens.
In 1994 the Assault weapons ban passed the House by a vote of 216 to 214.
So it wasn't a landslide. I think it was 52-47 in the Senate. This was with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. It wasn't a slam dunk then.
Some folks in the Congress betrayed the NRA and changed their votes. Hell hath no fury like the NRA being lied to...That 900 pound gorilla was mighty pissed. Two that come to mind are Jack Brooks and Bill Richardson. The NRA gave them some payback.
So I wonder if those newly elected Democrats in conservative precincts got a call from the NRA yet reminding them about the vote margin and the endorsement?
So it wasn't a landslide. I think it was 52-47 in the Senate. This was with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. It wasn't a slam dunk then.
Some folks in the Congress betrayed the NRA and changed their votes. Hell hath no fury like the NRA being lied to...That 900 pound gorilla was mighty pissed. Two that come to mind are Jack Brooks and Bill Richardson. The NRA gave them some payback.
So I wonder if those newly elected Democrats in conservative precincts got a call from the NRA yet reminding them about the vote margin and the endorsement?
I'm interested to see if the "Blue Dog" Dems will let this thing out of committee. They seem to have helped the Dems ride to power with the understanding that gun control was a political loser. Let's see how short their memories are...
And those of you who are represented by these "Blue Dogs" would be well advised to refresh their memories.
All this noise we make here on TFL is nice, but let's contact our reps. Bring the pressure.
And those of you who are represented by these "Blue Dogs" would be well advised to refresh their memories.
All this noise we make here on TFL is nice, but let's contact our reps. Bring the pressure.
Let me just say, I actually agree that this bill is a long shot. I am more worried about a "reasonable compromise." Perhaps a 94 ban without the mag limits, or something like that. I can see people voting for that. Especially since the "it is just a matter of cosmetics" argument cuts both ways.