End of the Year Assault Weapons Ban

After posting NLBS 03.07: Radical Right Wing Terrorism; That's Right, We Said it. I've noticed a lot of threads talking about President Obama taking your guns.

Here's one by Neo: White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

Here's another recent one by xuenchen Obama Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

After the supreme court refused to hear France v US, an assault weapons ban case in Chicago, your "unlimited" guns rights have never been more at stake. And nobody is talking it.

On December 16, David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island introduced H.R. 4269 The Assault Weapons ban of 2015.

“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that -

is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action
has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
is an antique firearm, as defined in Section 921 of this title.
(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to -

(1) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of Law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty)

(2) the importation for, or sale or transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

(3) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon-

Just thought you should know.

a reply to: theNLBS

So, what is your position on the subject?

What part of "shall not be infringed" are people not understanding? Are our leaders and judges all illiterate? Are they ignorant? Oh, that's right , they don't give a damn.
Thanks for lookin out NLBS

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: theNLBS

So, what is your position on the subject?

Since you asked... Personally, I like guns and really enjoy shooting them. I ultimately believe that the gun rights issue is a state issue. In Arizona everybody is strapped and that's fine - but here in NYC, I'm glad everybody isn't.

Note: Video contains NSFW language :-)

originally posted by: theNLBS
After posting NLBS 03.07: Radical Right Wing Terrorism; That's Right, We Said it. I've noticed a lot of threads talking about President Obama taking your guns.

Here's one by Neo: White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

Here's another recent one by xuenchen Obama Planned Gun Control Regulations to be Incrementally Imposed After the Holidays

After the supreme court refused to hear France v US, an assault weapons ban case in Chicago, your "unlimited" guns rights have never been more at stake. And nobody is talking it.

On December 16, David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island introduced H.R. 4269 The Assault Weapons ban of 2015.

“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that -

is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action
has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
is an antique firearm, as defined in Section 921 of this title.
(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to -

(1) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of Law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty)

(2) the importation for, or sale or transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

(3) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon-

Just thought you should know.

In an overview, I believe Obama needs the 'right' to be pushed past mere legal responses and state nullification.

He requires the justification for increased Executive actions against the traditional America. To take attention off of Isis, the ME, in general, immigration, jobs and the economy.

He needs an excuse, is the simple explanation. So far the right has well restrained any 'untoward acts'. Let's hope that strategy continues.....

Notice how everyone in the video above is using two hands? That's gun control, everything else is disarmament.

I think it's ironic that those who possess so called Assault Weapons are the ones who are least likely to simply give them up. Quite the opposite actually. Any sort of ban on possession and maybe even purchase would likely result in armed resistance and lots of dead people.

Then again Obama and his Progressive puppet (whoever they are) masters don't care about dead bodies, be they civilian or government, he just wants power.

originally posted by: ApparentlyStupid
What part of "shall not be infringed" are people not understanding? Are our leaders and judges all illiterate? Are they ignorant? Oh, that's right , they don't give a damn.
Thanks for looking out NLBS

Agreed. Thats why they chose the word "infringed" for the second amendment. Like eroded and encroachment, they understood how corrupt governments enslave their peoples, a little at a time.

So when is the gun grab beginning?

Almost eight years of the same banter, uh, when is this going to start?

At least when the world ended in 2012 (sucks to be dead, right?), people picked a date for it to never happen on.

This? This goalpost has been moved into an entirely new stadium.

2016? 2015?

Honest question, there are over 350 million registered firearms, how many unregistered?

Who is going to be the ones to confiscate the 350 million plus guns?

Obama's secret army?

I'm always for a good conspiracy - and believe me, I detest the federal government, the partisan-paradigm, but the gun grab is irrational non-sensical fear based mongering, in my opinion.

Muslims/terrorists/communists/socialists/climate/they'recomingforyourguns/IS - FEAR FEAR FEAR.

However, I could be absolutely incorrect, and there could indeed by some sort of gun restriction/control that HAS been in the works. And, and pardon my cynicism, if this were the case, what chance in Hell do "we the people," stand against NATO, space-based weaponry, armored vehicles, sound and frequency based weaponry, nuclear warfare?

I am just not buying into this, "they're coming for your guns." I'll be honest, back when Sandy Hoax - I mean Hook, occurred, I was nodding in agreement to, "they're using this to come after law-abiding citizens guns," but a few years later, and a myriad of other mass-casualty events, and as another poster has mentioned, (again, cynicism at play), it's just part of the American lifestyle.

That's what it boils down to, no? To even suggest some sort of stricter/tighter control on access to firearms is credibility insta-kill. Obviously, you're a freedom-hating American-hating coward if you feel as if there should be some sort of change(s) in the way of accessing firearms. So, I believe it shouldn't come as a surprise whenever you read/hear about someone not mentally stable, getting weapons, and using those weapons to kill/maim/destroy/whatever it may be.

However, let's say guns are "banned," are we truly that naive as a species to think that those who are not mentally stable would not resort to using other weapons to carry out their actions?

Anyway, one thing I would personally like to see - all of these people vehemently rallying for the 2nd amendment, should truly take a look at other amendments that have all but been trampled by the federal government.

And lastly, there is a massive push for pro-2nd amongst the media's "push," for tighter gun control laws. I find this pathetically ironic, that the 2nd amendment is an "unalienable right, shall not be infringed," THEN - these same people go on to rally against the legalization of cannabis, for the "dangers of addictions, potential of misuse, drugs shouldn't be accepted or legal, it's destroying the moral fiber of America, etc etc."

This may not be comparable, but to me - it's telling.
Guns? That's mah right, who are you to tell me different?
Cannabis? You're not allowed to put that in your lungs, only Oxygen is supposed to go into your lungs!

In my opinion, this is saying something. We absolutely should have the right to own firearms - and even though there are multiple instances of people using guns for murder and to commit crime - we can't let the "few, bad apples," represent the whole of reponsible, law-abiding gun owners.

But cannabis? How DARE you do what you want - harming absolutely no one (other than yourself), in your own free time, in your own home. Dirty drug addicts with no work ethic or personal responsibility!

a reply to: intrptr

Our Founding Fathers, Jefferson in specific, vehemently spoke out against the dangers of Central Banking, attributing them to be more powerful than a standing army.

We've had a central bank for how many years now?

How does it go again... "Taxation without representation?"

Our Founding Fathers, if alive today; would have marched on D.C., and Wall Street, decades ago.

I think Obama is going to push gun control as far as he possibly can in his last year. We've seen his pen and phone in action and has a bad habit of whipping them out when he can't get his way. Given his love of EO, I honestly don't put it past him and his cronies to ignore Constitutional law and just do whatever he can get away with. What we should also look out for, is the incoming Dems who preach "common sense" gun control now, then take up his agenda when they get in office. I think the whole issue is coming to a head and I don't see the anti gun crowd winning.

To Texas for allowing open carry starting Jan 1st!

originally posted by: theNLBS

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: theNLBS

So, what is your position on the subject?

Since you asked... Personally, I like guns and really enjoy shooting them. I ultimately believe that the gun rights issue is a state issue. In Arizona everybody is strapped and that's fine - but here in NYC, I'm glad everybody isn't.

Note: Video contains NSFW language :-)

Ironically, the Bill of Rights are the few absolute preclusions to state authority.

Can I assume that you believe that anything not specifically constitutionally enumerated is to be left to the states or the people?

These bills pop up a lot from the anti-liberty pro-tyranny contingent in congress.

They never pass.

...and that banning them was the city’s best effort to prevent a massacre.

What a derp statement. I guess he's never heard of 3D printing.

It's easier to 3Dprint more advanced guns. And 3D-printed guns are already pretty advanced. In recent months, we've seen metal laser sintering technology produce 3D-printed guns that can fire thousands of rounds and are practically indistinguishable from manufactured guns. We've seen durable rifles that are entirely 3D-printed. Heck, we've even seen custom bullets that are specifically designed to work with 3D-printed guns. The inventor hopes to use them to produce semiautomatic and even fully automatic 3D-printed guns.

Link

In order to prevent you from continuing to break the law, we've devised even more laws that will make breaking the previous laws even harder. Did I mention that these are "common sense" laws? Even a criminal can understand!

a reply to: eisegesis

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

-Ayn Rand

a reply to: DAVID64

And we don't have gun registration in Texas............and we never will!

originally posted by: RomeByFire
a reply to: intrptr

Our Founding Fathers, Jefferson in specific, vehemently spoke out against the dangers of Central Banking, attributing them to be more powerful than a standing army.

We've had a central bank for how many years now?

How does it go again... "Taxation without representation?"

Our Founding Fathers, if alive today; would have marched on D.C., and Wall Street, decades ago.

Not necessary, just stop paying tax and enlisting in the army.

Literally, starve.

Its a huger strike. Like Gandhi used to do. Protest on a guttural level. You start marching and shooting, you won't get far. That plays right into their hands.

Anyone that starts shooting today is labeled terrorist, squashed like insects by hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Frog pond almost boiling.

THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ERR GURNS!!! Seriously they may eventually take our guns.

Wow, the bad looking rifle kills 200 per year but the cheap handgun kills 6000+. I think they should band any handgun that cost less than 600 bucks...hehe Need to band hammers too they are deadlier than rifles...

Here's a link to all the cosponsors of the bill if anyone is interested. I found one senator from my state. Unfortunately they're not in my district...

Cosponsors: H.R.4269 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)