In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

One Man's Opinion...

HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
edited February 2004 in General Discussion
One I happen to agree with....

The AWB Fight is NOW

Posted 2/24/2004 from Geek Rants
"This is the Big One.

I don't want anyone to have any illusions. This is the watershed moment of this generation, and it is here and it is now. Although their fruit will not be entirely seen for some time, the seeds of the trees of Liberty or Tyranny will be planted in the next few days.

If the AWB dies, it will be a significant victory in the ongoing battle between those who would disarm the People, and those who preserve the People's ultimate contigency.

Make no mistake: THE AWB MUST DIE.

The Second Amendment is about nothing less than preserving the People's means and ability to make war if the circumstances indicate it is necessary and just to do so.
Plenty of gunners delude themselves, thinking that the AWB is merely symbolic, and that the evil features aren't all that important, but once you clear out all the smoke, smash the mirrors, and sweep out the glass, the AWB is nothing less than a direct challenge to the principle that the People are the ultimate authority from which government derives its authority.

Quote:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Consent can not be meaningfully granted by a generally unarmed people, for they are subject to any and every sort of intimidation and duress, and have not even the hope of effecting their own salvation.

Any renewal of any sort will confirm that the Second Amendment is not an effective restraint on the power of government, and if that's true, then all bets are off.

Accuse me of hyperbole if you want, but the bottom line is that the AWB threatens to unravel the whole cloth of our Republic."

You can read the complete story at:
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_geekwitha45_

Comments

  • DancesWithSheepDancesWithSheep Member Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:
    Make no mistake: THE AWB MUST DIE.

    Make no mistake: IT WON'T.
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    Hope springs eternal, though. It's an election year and lots of Senators and reps are up for re-election. In the current political climate, a lot of folks won't risk looking like tyrants by voting to disarm folks while preaching for the need for more "homeland security." After all, voters may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. Even Democrats know that guns cost Gore the election, so to press the issue would be political suicide.

    Let's just hope gun owners keep the pressure up and give them no chance to slide it in under the voters' collective radar.
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    The percentage of firearm owners whom think no one needs an 'assault rifle' is high, our own don't fully support the 2nd Amendment.

    The Ruger Mini14 has been added as an 'assault rifle', many people use them in some states to hunt with- they don't even know it is subject to the new ban.

    Amendments have been added to Senate Bill 1805 that will re-classify ammunition, anything that can penetrate a bulletproof vest may be banned whether the bullet has steel in it or not. How they intend to test ammo and against what level of body armor is unknown. But bet your rears a 30-06 will defeat Level IIIa, maybe all 30-06 ammo will be banned. Level III will stop a 30-06 and Level IV will stop a 30-06 Armor Piercing round- their tactics may ban YOUR HUNTING RIFLE AMMO!

    Yet no hunters really care as they merely think this is an 'assault weapon' issue and they own no rifles with pistol grips. They don't even know rifles without pistol grips will now be called 'assault weapons'.

    Our worst enemy may very well be our colleagues in the firearms sport.

    kabalogoshadowed.gif
  • bigal125bigal125 Member Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Red223: yes, amendments have been added to the bill (S1805), BUT...they haven't been voted on yet. The VOTE is scheduled for Tuesday, 3/2/04, and that's when we find out whether our Senators have been listening to us or not.

    What we want is a "clean" bill...NO amendments attached to it. Let your Senators know this, please.

    Big Al
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    that is true red, this bill has already been ruined without AWB in it. The words I wish to use to describe how I feel about politicians and their inability to do ANYTHING good/right, are not allowed here. Urge your Senators to vote NO on s.1805 if it can not be stripped of the amendments. It was a good honest fair bill when it was clean. Maybe all the victims of drunk drivers should start suing GM/Ford/and the rest?

    ________________________________________________________________________

    "If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine

    If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    I agree but I repeat, how many hunters know that rifle hunting ammo may be banned if the amendment proposed is voted on and approved?

    Likely....zero.

    kabalogoshadowed.gif
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    William Rawle; US Attorney appointed by then president, George Washington.
    "In the second amendment, it is declared....that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could, by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. A flagitious (flagrantly wicked) attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a State ligislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either the State or federal government should attempt it, this Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

    George Mason;Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Father of the Bill of Rights
    "Forty years ago when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, theBritish parliament was advised to disarm the people. That was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually."
    Also...
    "I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil...Divine providence has given to every individual the means of self-defense."

    Noah Webster;Revolutionary soldier, Legislator, Framer of Article I, Section8,paragraph 8 of the Constitution.
    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed-as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. (Was this written over 200 years ago or yesterday?) The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed."

    I have more, or maybe you would like to hear some of the early laws that required you to own a firearm and ammunition and carry it, or face fines for offense of any of these? And if you couldn't afford one, THE GOVERNMENT would purchase it for you until you could pay it back.



    ________________________________________________________________________

    "If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine

    If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
  • Big Sky RedneckBig Sky Redneck Member Posts: 19,752 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:The percentage of firearm owners whom think no one needs an 'assault rifle' is high, our own don't fully support the 2nd Amendment.

    Big reason for this and the guy from OOIDA I was sparring with a few days ago proves it, it's not so much that they feel we don't need them it is they feel that giving them up will protect their "huntinh guns", it is a trade off by the "sportsmen", a hunting gun is more PC and far too many are following the lead. Where are the non hunting gun owners? It seems we hardly ever hear from them in the political ring. 75% of the folks battling for gun rights are sportsmen but not collectors and shooting enthusiests and I know the shooters and collectors outnumber the hunters, where are they? Hiding in the corners sucking their thumbs, Out in the back 40 digging holes to bury their AKs? They need to be heard if they wish to keep them!


    line2.gif
    email2b.gif
    hillbilly.gif
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Nut: inform you hunting buddies that they have already approved an amendment to s.1805 that will ban most if not all hunting ammo because of its' ability to compromise body armor.
    On second thought....I'm a "bowhunter"....why should I care?? Nevermind[;)]

    ________________________________________________________________________

    "If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" -Thomas Paine

    If the people have become so apathetic that they will not vote out all the liberal scum (republican and democrat alike), the only solution is Constitutional Convention II the sequel. Let's get it right this time.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    NRA CRAIG...co-daddy of the bill..can kill it at any time.But the 'clean-bill' people,NRA included,have accepted at LEAST 2 riders...already.
  • dheffleydheffley Member Posts: 25,000
    edited November -1
    AMEN!

    How you doin'!wolf_evil_smile_md_wht.gif
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    The thing that will determine which way it goes is which voting bloc the senators think is larger. It depends on who is the most vocal. Is it "gun owners" or "anti-gunowners"? The ones whom the senators think will provide them with the most votes, wins. Same with the Pres.
Sign In or Register to comment.