I told you it wouldn't be long.

www.govtrack.us...

Go to the above and take a look. I just love these Demorats! Not really.

Roper




(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

If this bill gets passed the end is near. I can't believe this.


Im a law abiding citzen with no felonys. That bill makes it against the law to even transport "assault stlye weapons". So that means when I move to a new house, I will be breaking the law if I take my guns with me.

I can't believe this.

The laws in the UK have been a lot stricter for a long time now. We couldn't even dream of owning an assult weapon far as I know. (p.s sitting on the fence on this one!!)

The woman that introduced the bill is the one that her husband was killed on a train in NY. The gunman could have been stopped by a civilian if someone had a firearm. The gunman wasn't a good shot and even changed mags.

What this type of legislation is, is revenge, pure and simple. Now I don't expect it to get out of committee at this time but just wait until we have a Dem. in the White House.

It won't get out of committee because of the '08 election the Democrats know that those of us that support the 2A and the rest of the Constitution won't vote for them.

I think it critical that we ask point blank questions to those running of their position on the 2A.

Roper

first, i want to ask
why do we need assault weapons?

Originally posted by Roper
The woman that introduced the bill is the one that her husband was killed on a train in NY. The gunman could have been stopped by a civilian if someone had a firearm. The gunman wasn't a good shot and even changed mags.

the guy would have been stopped if someone had the common sense to beat him over the head with their briefcase...

going into hypotheticals isn't the best way to prove your points, especially on this issue because it can go both ways


now, don't give me that whole "second amendment" speech
the clause that involves the right to bear arms is very very vague
it doesn't state for what reason we bear them
it doesn't give a level of arms

should we extend it to the right to bear military jets?
or the right to bear ICBMs?
or the right to bear suitcase nukes?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the guy would have been stopped if someone had the common sense to beat him over the head with their briefcase...

going into hypotheticals isn't the best way to prove your points, especially on this issue because it can go both ways

I'm glad you added that last sentece, because it, too is a hypothetical.

now, don't give me that whole "second amendment" speech
the clause that involves the right to bear arms is very very vague
it doesn't state for what reason we bear them

The commonly accepted interpretation is that it grants individuals the right to bear arms.

it doesn't give a level of arms

How could it? Either:
1) Arms were so primitive at the time it was drafted that this was not a consideration

or

2) The authors, in their infinite wisdom, foresaw the futility of drafting a level of arms.

I'm curious as to what is vague about this...

"The Right of the People to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

??????????????????????????????????

(Emphasis mine)

Why is this only vague to some people?

It is as clear to me as a STOP sign, and yet, some argue the meaning.

WHY???

Personal agenda, nothing more, nothing less.

Semper

semp, it's quite vague because back then "arms" were something that were also used as tools

the rifles they used were also the same rifles they'd hunt with

these days, an "arm" can also be something that is only a weapon
there is no use for artillery other than the taking of human life

it's vague because arms these days include things like assault rifles, tanks, stealth bombers, unmanned aerial combat vehicals, and weapons of mass destruction

i don't see why anyone would need any of that stuff
what use does a civilian have for an assault rifle?

I actually understand your consternation. But that is because you are trying to hard to "over think" it.

The FF's knew that to give anyone governmental entity too much power, was to take control away from the people and to once again find themselves in the position they fought to be free from.

Their solution, power to the people. See; an armed populace is difficult to impossible to control. Even now with all the massive technology, the government would have their hands full if they ever decided to declare war on the people and change the government. Yes, they could probably now do it, but it would not be easy in anyway, and many many people would flee into the backwoods and fight skirmish campaigns. HOW, with our weapons....

The Government MUST be limited. They have too much control as it is. They tell us far too often what we can and what we can not do.

The statistics from crime and LEGAL weapons do not justify additional legislation. Just enforce the laws we already have and put the criminals away that use them illegally.

All that said, they are just fun to shoot.... I go to several shoots a month and own numerous such weapons myself. I compete and meet with others such as myself all the time.

It is just fun...

Semper

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
semp, it's quite vague because back then "arms" were something that were also used as tools

the rifles they used were also the same rifles they'd hunt with

these days, an "arm" can also be something that is only a weapon
there is no use for artillery other than the taking of human life

it's vague because arms these days include things like assault rifles, tanks, stealth bombers, unmanned aerial combat vehicals, and weapons of mass destruction

i don't see why anyone would need any of that stuff
what use does a civilian have for an assault rifle?

I take issue with your original statement:

now, don't give me that whole "second amendment" speech
the clause that involves the right to bear arms is very very vague
it doesn't state for what reason we bear them

Emphasis added.

That's what semperfortis is arguing, and that is also my objection.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

There is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be in anyone else's mind, as to what the 2nd Amendment protects. This shouldn't even be a discussion. It's been cut and dry, black and white, since day one.

I could go on and on about my personal view, or my interpritation of the 2nd Amendment, as to why it's there, and to what extent... but I'll get flamed from the "uneducated" for not having sources to base my statements...

So....

Militia: 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Infringe: 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive verb : ENCROACH

QUOTES FROM FOUNDING FATHERS AND REVOLUTIONARY THINKERS ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

THOMAS JEFFERSON

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.

Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

THOMAS PAINE

"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ... the weak will become prey to the strong."

Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War


RICHARD HENRY LEE

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress
source

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
source

And, let us not forget one very important part of this bill. Sec. 7(b)(1)(B)(4) makes it clear that this bill will be "in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General"... of which this is the guy that thinks we don't have a Constitutionally protected right to habeas corpus.


I feel safer already knowing that there are those out there that are willing to allow the government more power to put the people in the position of tyrannical control before that step is formally taken.

As well, this law will only be followed by law abiding citizens... not criminals... of which those arms are rightfully ours to possess to protect ourselves against them.


Don't forget to tip your waitress... I'll be here all week.

Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link



[edit on 25-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Madness said"i don't see why anyone would need any of that stuff
what use does a civilian have for an assault rifle? "

Assault rifle? There really isn't such a thing. Assault rifle is a term that the news media coined, to criminalize firearm owned like me in their move to a socialist government. Now when the term assault rifle is used, it brings to mind the dreaded black rifle, the AR-15, FN-Fal and AK-47.

Now I just sighted in my AR-15, it will be used for coyote control ( we're calving now) prairie dog control and if some social problem occurs then I'm good to go.

I believe that the short barrel, pistole round, full-auto, like the MP-5, etc would come close to the assault weapon.

Roper

PS Madness you could check out this thread. www.abovepolitics.com...

I'm tired of the blanky, blank, blank, blank. They are always trying to take away our weapons.
The only people that will be hurt by this are the normal people.
The criminals will still get these weapons. Now the Normal people will not
be able to defend themselves.


Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.


I honestly don't understand they whole anti symbol thing. What word did I form??? I just hit caps and punched a bunch of numbers. I wasn't actually forming a word, by doing this.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by Royal76]

I feel a lot more comfortable with people owning assault riffles than I do handguns.

When you point a rifle you "point it" you don't accidentally "wave" it around. I know there is always the chance of someone with an AK going to a bank with drum mags, or going to the post office. All I will say is I have been robbed twice in my life, both with cheap handguns.

If you want to own handguns I can't stop you but if I had children I damn sure wouldn't have one in my house! Say what you will but the taking away from everyone does more harm than good. I personally feel comfortable with people in general owning assault weapons than without.

I have a SKS with one nice feeding mag. I have shot one deer with it, other than that it has seen no action. On the same token, if someone(s) kicks down my door at night I can pull it out from under my bed and easily take down ten people before they get half way up my staircase.

Even worse if the government decided to have their way with me, I have recourse. Not that I wish to take that recourse but I have it. Good luck going up against traitors with assault rifles with a 9mm handgun.

People will do what they do with guns but handguns make me alot more nervous than rifles in general, no matter who has them. How can you play a par five with a putter and expect to have a chance?

I don't care if they are illegal, I don't draw attention or cause problems. The criminals will have them and I will to even if it means being a criminal. I can shoot the tits off a hog at 100 yrds (not with my sks) and I was raised with safety with firearms being paramount. I know there are others like me out there and to take their rights away because people decide to do stupid stuff is well, stupid.

in history when they take your guns its cause when they are going to kill you , they do not want you to shoot back......

Consider what the country would be like if we took away the right to bear arms from law-abiding citizens.

It is then that you had better begin to live in terror, because you would have absolutely no defense against those who would do you harm.

Just think about it.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by shizzle5150
I feel a lot more comfortable with people owning assault riffles than I do handguns.

This is the crack in our armor that the anti-self defense politicians exploit.

I know hunters that feel the same way about handguns, other hunters that feel the same way about the black rifles and short barrel shotguns.

Once we the gun owners start to fall away from each other, then we are all doomed and so is the USA.

Roper

Our right to bear arms has nothing at all to do with "sport" or "hunting." It doesn't matter what any of you useless, short sighted, dangerous liberal wusses "think we need" because in my opinion it is YOU people I may have to protect myself from!

The second amendment is our constitutionally garaunteed RIGHT to bear arms for self defense from our own government! I may not be allowed to drive an M1A1 down the street, but we need to be able to send rounds down range at a rate that's actually helpful to us in combat with our own gov't.

I love the post above asking "why do we need assault rifles anyway?"

I dont need one. I want it. Thats good enough.

Pools in yard kill more kids than guns in houses. Why do any of us need a pool?
Ban private pools.

Cars kill way more people. Why do I need a car? Why not ban big cars, fast cars, scary looking cars?

Does anyone really need to bench 350lbs? Lets ban large men. Their scary and could hurt me.

Any movenemt to ban any gun is pushed by people who dont understand anything about them. They didnt grow up around them, theyve never handled one, the only time they see one is on the news. These people shouldnt be allowed to mention the word gun let alone legislate them.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I love the post above asking "why do we need assault rifles anyway?"

I dont need one. I want it. Thats good enough.

Pools in yard kill more kids than guns in houses. Why do any of us need a pool?
Ban private pools.

unfair comparisson
how many people own pools?
how often are pools used?
pools can be used for excersise
they aren't WEAPONS

Cars kill way more people. Why do I need a car? Why not ban big cars, fast cars, scary looking cars?

um, again, cars kill more people because cars are used far more frequently than guns
again, the primary fuction here isn't a WEAPON

Does anyone really need to bench 350lbs? Lets ban large men. Their scary and could hurt me.

um, that's a body issue
lifting 350 lbs can actually come in handy (wouldn't you want that guy to help you move?)
a gun can only kill things

Any movenemt to ban any gun is pushed by people who dont understand anything about them. They didnt grow up around them, theyve never handled one, the only time they see one is on the news.

um, i grew up around guns
i'm a decent marksman
i've actually participated in competitive riflery

actually, i have handled plenty of guns
modern and antique rifles (my favorite to handle was the M1 garrand)
modern and antique machine guns
i've actually handled an assault rifle (an AK-47) which is why i don't want them around
there isn't a point to having them




not a member of the NRA (not the club joining type)

These people shouldnt be allowed to mention the word gun let alone legislate them.

and you're assuming that certain people don't understand weapons
hell, you're inferring that i don't