What do youguys think about the new gun ban?

Question

I was wanting peoples to let me know what they think about Obama stomping all over the second amendment?

The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right

Answer 1

Hey one of mine made number two on the list.

Well when they show up to take it i will simply say it fell out of the boat while I was duck hunting with it.



The chances of getting the guns from those who know we may someday need them is ZERO Obama and the rest can go p i s s up a rope.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Defend your home? You know there are better ways to protect your home. I wouldn't want a gun around my house, especially when you hear sad stories when a child shoots his sibling. Or he decides to take it to school to show it and accidentally shoots another kid. And even if you have a firearm safe they still manage to somehow get into it. You actually legalize assault weapons? What's wrong with your country? lol. God next you will want to own tanks or fighter jets, you've already got military standard weapons, don't you think you all have enough? Your gun laws need more restrictions on who gets what. eg if a person has a small history of violence, or a minor assault charge against them. THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO POSSESS A FIREARM! And I'm sick of all of these gangs that think that they are top dogs because they have firearms, take it away from them, and they are nothing more than a bunch of puss$#^. And what good is a gun against a martial arts expert, up close you would be f^&#%, you would probably end up looking down the barrel of your own gun!



Australian gun control wasn't perfect and was quite expensive, but at least there aren't maniacs out there shooting up colleges or high-schools! Columbine, Virginia Tech, that Gym were 4 people were shot, There's a long list I could go on you know! There are better ways to protect your home, why not get roller shutters, or at least invest in them! They are impossible to damage and breakthrough. The Police in Australia work hard to stop importation of illegal weapons, and to keep them off the streets, since its a criminal offense to carry a weapon in public, regardless if it is concealed. Guns should only be used by occupational shooters, recreational shooters, antique collectors and sportsmen. Assault weapons that are kept in Aus have to be deactivated.

Answer 4

Thank you for your rant. Now I can see that the usual crap of the people who know nothing about guns come here and show us there ignorance for the first 1-2 answers. They wish to do a ban but it is not politically possible. They may try in the future.



You need to get off the threeper blogs kid. We already know all this stuff. Your just finding this out now? I have to ask where you got this from. I suspect either a threeper blog, ron paul site, or conspiracy theory site. Hysterics of something that isn't a current issue hurts us and takes our vision away from what we should be caring about now when it comes to guns. Such as HR 45 and the gun show loophole bills and the gun show regulation bills. All are right now are pretty much DOA but they are current. And a ban could not make it through either house. The dems want to keep their seats too much. No republican will vote for a ban and many democrats don't like the idea either.



We have actually gained many more gun rights these past several years than most would know. We won right to carry in parks and were only 2 votes from national reciprocity on concealed carry. We have gained concealed carry in all but 2 states and have made massive gains in state levels. We would of got national reciprocity passed in the senate if it was its own bill. The president would of never of signed it.

Answer 5

I would not be surprised at anything the Community Organizer tries. He is just a tool of the One Worlders and big banking anyway. He is already cramming his 0bamacare down our throats when the majority of Americans don't want his medical control over them.



An acquaintance of mine e-mailed our Senators (NC's: Hagan and Burr) several months ago and asked them what would happen if BO tried to resurrect the Assault Weapons Ban. Hagan (the Commie) responded that she would support it and in her e-mail to him said Police Officers supported the AWB. He posted this on a message board I belong to. I e-mailed her back and set her straight pointing out that weapons bans only protect criminals and street cops are gun owners themselves and don't want her garbage fantasies about disarming Americans either. I (and everyone else that read her response) e-mailed her and told her we would fire her if she tried it. I doubt she would listen to us, the politicians don't listen to us now anyway.



Here is a great video to watch, especially all these people that don't know a legal rifle from a machine gun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeyS6LYIx4

Answer 6

I wish i had the right to arm myself, if they banned privately held weapons in that manner then rapes burglaries and robbery would go through the roof criminals would have absolutely no fear about breaking into a homeowners property knowing more than likely the civilian isn't armed and what are private contractors supposed to arm themselves with? slingshots? retired cop security guard in a bank is meant to stop a robbery with his bare hands against a loaded weapon!





Baz below, not even chuck norris could defend himself against a bullet. Give me an ak any day over a piece of cloth denoting my expertise in martial arts. Yes weapons to defend the home are the answer to stop scum breaking in. If i had the right to arm myself i pity the sucker that broke in when i was standing naked in front of the mirror polishing my AK47 (if i had one) chomping on a cigar just like arnie. Guns are way cool when i get rich i'm gonna have me an ak47, tech 9 an uzi a lite barret.50 249 saw .50 cal desert eagle i'll go shopping with a bandilier wrapped around me just to buy more ammo

Answer 7

most of these anti-guns freaks dont know the difference from select fire and single fire rifle.

Answer 8

nothing but more feel-good-ism crap. i mean think about it. whats the point? most people who commit crimes will use a small concealable handgun.

Answer 9

There's no need to own an AK-47. If you can't regulate weapons in any way which you are clearly in favor of why can't people own large machine guns like you would have on a helicopter, or why can't they own a military helicopter or tank, and if they can own a tank and the government can't do anything about restricting their arms why can't they own a nuclear weapon to "protect" themselves against foreign nations or terrorists?



And would you mind pointing me to your questions or comments regarding Bush and the Republicans eliminating nine of the ten Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights so I know you aren't a partisan idiot? Thanks.

Answer 10

That bill was 2 years ago and went cold and died ...



There is no new bill ...just you stirring a pot



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Answer 11

Good old IMI - to be fair though, if you don't want to kill people, why the hell would you want to own an uzi? or a Tavor?

Answer 12

only assault rifles should be banned. Although its not illegal to have an modern day machine gun huh?