2004 and the assualt weapons ban?

cwinn

My question is regarding the lapse of the assualt weapons ban. I dont understand what is going to be made legal again once the ban is invalid. Does this mean that manufactuers will legally be able to produce high-cap magazines? this is all assuming that G.W. doesnt sign the bill. any help is appreciated

pat1

Bush will sign the bill. He will use the excuse "Homeland Security".
I'm sick of hearing about Homeland Security. Why don't they
just tell everyone to "ARM Themselves". You never hear a politician
telling anyone to take up Target Practice. My 2 cents worth.

gunphreak

Homeland Security is a crock of BS. If they want to help us, they should allow us to help ourselves. It is, after all, US they will be attacking, not THEM.

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

edamon

anyone know if this is gonna happen in CA too? I'd love to buy an
AR-15 - post ban one even.

-d

gunphreak

The Sozialist Republik of Kalifornistan will probably never lift their ban, and to my knowledge, it is on the books with no sunset date. The only way it will happen is if many of the Kommies in office now are voted out and the laws are repealed.

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

daddo

Gun laws are illegal-null-void, as they are an "infringement" on a "right" given by the "creator" not a privilige by the government. The sooner we adhere to our rights and refuse illegal laws the better.

S&W Man

Just remember - as far as "Homeland Security" goes:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin

As far as the sunest legislation goes - they will do something to make sure we are deprived of as much of our rights as we are nof IF NOT MORE!!

The second admendment GUARANTEES the other nine and the Constitution!

gunphreak

Back in the days of the Framers, one thing was true, and still is true today. The most effective way to deal with criminals, terrorists and tyrants alike is to be armed. By being disarmed, we become prey for them all. It is proven throughout history that criminals attack the unarmed. Terrorists attack the unarmed. Tyrants enslave the unarmed. People kill the unarmed. These people are all of them COWARDS!!!!!

In the American Revolution, the minutemen were armed with the exact same things, essentially, as the redcoats. Each side had single shot, top loading muskets. Should another revolution occur, the fedcoats, or any other invading force will be armed with machine guns, and we will be armed with whatever we can come up with, and probably not machine guns. This was never how the Framers intended.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Not in one instance, nor one single word of this Amendment says anything about hunter's rights.

"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

-James Madison, June 8th, 1789

"What, sir, is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing Army, the bane of liberty."

-Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, August 17th, 1789.

Does it sound like they were talking about hunting to you???

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

Liberty_Freedom

gunphreak

Ain't that the truth!!!

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

ithaca-37

I get a kick out of people waving the 2nd ammendment around and exploiting certain phrases out of it. You have to remember when it was written, over 200 years ago, when a militia was warranted. Now we have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard well equipped to handle most any threat. Now dont get me wrong Im not against gun ownership, I have several myself, but that doesnt mean that I should own an assortment of assault rifles with folding stocks, flash suppressors, grenade launchers and whathaveyou. The purpose of weapons are to shoot something or someone or in some cases, be collected. What are you going to do with an AK-47???? If you ask me there should be a ban on assault rifles, there is no place in the general public for them. People also state that they need such weapons for defence against terrorists, HELLO!!! how is an assault rifle going to stop a 747, or a carbomb, which is how terrorists work (as we've seen). Next time take a closer look at both sides of a topic before picking one because you like a phrase out of an ammendment.

nitrouz

Ithaca 37, you really think we have a Military that is well equipped? How naive, less see some facts on our well equipped military.
1. We are now leasing military vehicles because the penny pinchers think it's going to save funds
2. All of the Logistics/ Industrial backbone of the U.S. Armed Forces is contracted out or is scheduled to go soon. Food, transportation, construction for our soldiers is done by the lowest bidder wherever the need is. Did you know that the Bin Laden family constructed our military base in Saudi Arabia?
3. Most of the aircraft, trucks, equipment the military has right now is in thanks to President Reagan, IT is keeping us going.
4. Military forces being flown into combat zones are know flown by World Airlines, it's either the cheapest bidder or a CIA function-not sure as of yet. Either way the aircraft don't have chaff for self defense.
5. Our military has such a pi$$ poor retention rate that military members must be bribed with up to $60,000 to re-enlist.
6. Effective immediately any military member who is from another country serving in our military immediately can get U.S. citizenship-no more 3 year waiting period. If I was a terrorist I would sign up for the Army, do 1 year, get my citizenship, get kicked out.
If we have such a well equipped military, I'd like to see where. The current military Operation seems to have CIA involvement more than anything.


And for your blatent disrespect for the AK-47, and saying it is utterly useless and should not be owned by man.
Tell that to the men who died at Khobar Towers, Dahran Saudi Arabia who died watching a terrorist drive a truck loaded with explosives through the base fence and into the dormitory killing U.S. soldiers. If one of those people who watched the terrorist drive right at them had A AK-47 with 30 rounds of ammo, bet your rear many lives would of been saved.

If North Korea finally get's it's chance to overrun South Korea and keep going to Kalifornia- you try defending yourself with a single shot shotgun. I'm gonna watch you die and get a warm feeling in my heart at your stupidity.

gunphreak

I hear that, nitrouz.

how would a gun stop a 747??? Easy, if you're one of the passengers on board a hijacked plane.

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

salzo

Ithaca 37- What I love, is when people do not focus on history when spewing such nonsense. You seem to think that the second amendment has become obsolete, because we have such a large military. Do yourself a favor, and read some of the documentation that is available with respect to the ratification of the bill of rights and the constitution. The one theme, that can be found in all documentation with respect to the second amendment, is that all of the founders, and the state legislatures expressed that armies are a danger to liberty, and should not be kept, except in cases of necessity.
Of course, we do not honor the intent of the founders. We have military coming out of the whazoo. So the fact that we have decided to ignore the intent of the founders, which was to have a military that was only to be kept "when necessary", we are now supposed to forfeit the right to bear arms, because we no longer need it, because the government does not adhere to the constitution or the founders with respect to "standing armies". Does that make sense to you.
Because the government keeps standing armies during peace time(which just about all of the states and founders were opposed to)the second amendment is no longer necessary. And since the founders always mentioned there opposition to standing armies, when speaking about the need for "the right to bear arms", it seems to me that the fact that the government is going overboard with standing armies, that would certainly suggest that the second amendment is more important than it ever was.

"Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
-Bill Clinton(MTV interview)

ithaca-37

I'm sorry... I dont remember saying anything about getting rid of #2. All I am opposed to are assault rifles. I also never said they were useless. As for not haveing respect for it, having one fired over your head in a live fire excersise, trust me, there is no disrespect here. All I said was there is no place in the general public for them, and to say they should be is just asking for more "News at Noon in LA" about bank robbers armed with autoAK's. As for your so called facts, where did you get them, Guns and Ammo. Lets also look back at another comment..when #2 came out. The weapons available did not excede 3 or 4 rpm.. unlike now they can do that in less than a second, and you want those on the streets. In order for North Korea to reach the U.S. they would have to cross a lot of water which is where, oh I dont know, the NAVY patrols. If they chose the air.... you get my point. But wait you want to get rid of the military until they're needed. About the idea of not having a military unless needed, if thats not asking for an invasion. Do yourself a favor "think before you speak". Weapons on airplanes??? nuff said. Gun fanatics seem to think that since we "have the right to bear arms" means we should be able to own any gun made, I think there are enough "other" guns to go around.

gunphreak

Ok.. what happens when a tyrannical leader decides to turn that standing army loose on the citizens it was originally designed to protect??? What do we do??? This has been done in LARGE countries several times throughout the last century. Is it possible?? Even in the greatest country in the world?? It can't be ruled out.

Within this last century, 56 million people died at the hands of gun control. 170 million died at the orders of their own governments. Ours doesn't seem to be too sympathetic about the populace owning guns. Coincidence??? Hell no, it isn't.

Why does it matter what law abiding citizens have, anyway?? Should it matter. All gun control ever does is remove weapons from the hands of a sect of persons that obey the laws, and really aren't the cause of crime or terrorism.

And mark my words. You think they'll stop at "assault" weapons?? Guess again. Since, in all seriousness, handguns are actually used more often than "assault" rifles, they are actually in the crosshairs of antigunners more feverishly than the "assault" rifle. Your hunting rifles, the bolt actions with their scopes are, of course, the favored weapon of snipers. We can't have that. And what about your beloved shotguns. You do, of course, realize the barrels can be sawed down to make quite a destructive short range weapon, right?? They will not be satisfied with "assault" weapons, I guarantee it.

Hey Salzo, a salute from yours truly. That was absolutely beautiful.

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

salzo

I'm sorry... I dont remember saying anything about getting rid of #2. All I am opposed to are assault rifles.

If you are opposed to assault rifles, then you are opposed to the second amendment. The words are very clear "shall not be infringed"-which means the federal government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. If you feel that the federal government has the "right" to ban assault weapons, then you do not believe in the second amendment. The bill of rights is not an enumeration of rights, it is a document that specifically states limits placed on the federal government.The federal government cannot get into the business of making laws dealing with guns. Not only the second amendment says that, but article 1 section 8 of the constitution, which enumerates the powers granted to the federal government, makes absolutely no mention, direct or otherwise, giving authority to the federal government to prohibit certain arms. Banning ANY guns, restricting usage of certain guns, is unconstitutional(see article one section 8 of the constitution. Also, see second amendment of the bill of rights).

As for your so called facts, where did you get them, Guns and Ammo.

Actually, I do not read guns and ammo. I got my facts, from, among other things, the Federalist and anti federalist papers, and most important, the papers and documents that the states prepared in ratification of the constitution and the bill of rights. Find a copy of "elliots debates", which contains the texts of the debates that took place in the individual states with respect to the constitution


Lets also look back at another comment..when #2 came out. The weapons available did not excede 3 or 4 rpm.. unlike now they can do that in less than a second, and you want those on the streets.

So what? The purpose of the second was to defend liberty, and as a last resort, to defend against tyranny(dont take my word for it, Jefferson and Madison both spoke great lengths about why it was necessary to have the right to bear arms). It seems pretty obvious, that if the second amendment was included to defend against tyranny(which it was, notwithstanding your "guns and ammo" sarcasm, again see Jefferson, Madison, Elliots debates)it is certainly apparent that the people should be equipped with arms equal to the professional military. The federal government does not have the authority to decide to what extent we can enjoy our right to bear arms.They are prohibited from doing so.(see article one, section 8 of the constitution).


But wait you want to get rid of the military until they're needed. About the idea of not having a military unless needed, if thats not asking for an invasion. Do yourself a favor "think before you speak".

Actually, it is certainly necessary to have a military force in this day and age, which can repel foreign invasion. But is it necessary to have every government agency(most unconstitutional, see article one section8)to have a little army which carries those same weapons that you wish to prohibit. These agencies are used by the government to enforce the rule of law(even though the laws are more often than not unconstitutional(article one section 8)on the citizens of this country. If the government feels that it is necessary to have agencies such as the IRS,the EPA,the BATF, be armed with asssault rifles, to keep the people in check,then it is certainly reasonable to expect the citizens be "allowed" to arm themselves with weapons that the government uses to enforce its laws on the people(however unconstituional,or tyrannical these laws may be, or become), so that the people can keep their government in check.


Gun fanatics seem to think that since we "have the right to bear arms" means we should be able to own any gun made, I think there are enough "other" guns to go around.

Personally, I do not worry about those guys. I worry about a government that does not adhere to the constitution.
You might think that there should be restrictions on what type of guns can be owned, but that does not kmatter. What is supposed to matter, is that the federal government is constitutionally prohibited from allowing the people to keep any gun they wish.




"Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
-Bill Clinton(MTV interview)

nitrouz

To ithaca who said that North Korea would have to cross the Pacific to get to the U.S. by sea and the Navy would stop them, wrong. Ever hear of their Da-Dong dual stage rockets? They can hit Kalifornia and Alaska. If they add one more stage they can hit anywhere's in the Continental U.S.
For who ever was saying they are against the assault weapons becuase they have no sporting ability and can only be used for self defense or by criminals (where they get their publicity). Back in the 1700's when the settlers of America were fighting the British the British considered the muzzleloaders we had assault weapons because they had rifling in the barrels enabling long shooting distances with accuracy. If American's only had smooth bore muzzle-loaders (shotguns) as most of the British had we would not be, The United States of America.
Furthermore, when the world oil supplies start getting low, don't you think you will need a assault rifle to keep other countries from invading us, taking our oil reserves and natural gas that is being held from use right now?
As for the U.S. having a large military, your a fool, look at the total number of military members in each branch of service and add them up. China could overrun us faster than we could shoot them. Do you think every man and women in our military has a weapon or each base/fort has enough weapons for each of them to use? Again you would be a fool to say yes.
The sad truth is when World War III starts it will end up on American soil and you folks without an assault weapon will be either be killed, taken hostage, or be starved in suburbia and that makes me warm inside to think that one day justice will be served. I'm not coming to help you.
A. Because I'm an American and respected your right to think that guns are bad, therefore you asked to die for your belief
B. I don't feel sorry for a man that thinks his opinion justifies a law that is Constitutionally illegal
C. The simple law of nature 'survival of the fittest' always prevails

ithaca-37

You people are pathetic. Wishing the death of fellow Americans because the have a different opinion than you, no matter how wrong you think they are. In regards the the military arsenal, I wouldnt feel at ease knowing that people had access to LAWs, bazookas and laser guided rockets. As for not having enough weapons to support every troop, you're the fool for thinking that. For every base I was assigned, I was issued a new weapon, as was everyone else. But I did forget about the pilots, then again they had planes, which by your standards, everyone should have one of those too. To further my point, how many farmers from the revolution have you heard of whining about their right to bear arms when they couldnt own a black powder cannon. As for your Da-Dong dual stage rockets, ever hear of a Patriot Missile, they work wonders. Furthermore, I dont understand how you can take the idea that I dont like assault rifles(in the general public) and turn it into that I dont like all guns. How typical of narrowminded individuals who only have a one sided opinioniated mind.

gunphreak

I hear that, nitrouz.

I defend the innocent, not the weak.

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

nitrouz

Sorry Ithaca, forgot about the Patriot Missile Battery set up in Los Angeles.....NOT! We have them set up Israel, Prince Sultan Air Base, and the White House...there may be some other classified locations with them but that's about it.
So I'm pathetic to think that I need a, let's say a car that will do 160mph from the factory, or a motorcycle that will hit 220mph from the factory (Suzuki Hayabusa)- can I go that fast on a public road, heck no. So why buy it? I'm a God Da%&ed American Jerky, and you have no right to say 'No Nitrouz can not own a vehicle that will do 220mph because he could go fast and hit someone on the road splattering them like a bug on a windshield'.
I don't think you were in the military either as you used the term 'base' which most in the military that use that term are Air Force, army calls their home a fort, marines usually a camp, and the navy calls home a port. You say military pilots don't get weapons but I think they do, they usually get issued a pistol so when their plane goes down in hostile areas. So you got issued a weapon at every 'Base', well here in the military we have a thing called the armory which is where all the weapons are stored, they aren't issued out for use except for your shift unless you are a Combat Controllers, special investigator.
Do I think everyone needs a LAW Rocket or a Laser guided rocket(bomb)? You are grously ridiculing the people of the United States of America. I can legally buy a Fully Automatic Weapon in my Home State of Pennsylvania and I can legally have a Silencer on it. Let's let that bother you in your sleep.

gunphreak

So now that we have the fact that our military is a powerful one imbedded in the pixels of cyberspace, who would like to issue the possibility of that same military being turned loose against the American people???

I will. Throughout history, since the beginning of man, tyranny has risen and fell. Many casualties resulted. In just the 20th Century alone, the death toll for those that gun control targeted was approximately 56 million (if any wish to dispute this, then reveal your source.) Here's another one. Throughout that same century, 170 million died by the orders of their governments. Some of those same nations suffer even today.

When the Second Amendment was written, it was written by people who struggled against a tyrannical monarchy, and knew what tyranny was all about. They wanted us armed, now, and forever.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall Not be Infringed."

These people also knew that Standing Armies were the bane of Liberty. For you to tell me the Second Amendment was written to provide hunters with rights, then I would say two things:

1. That must mean the First Amendment was written specifically so we could read the sport page in the paper.
"What, sir, is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a Standing Army, the bane of liberty."
-Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Mass. 1st Annals of Congress, August 17th, 1789.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion... in private self defense..."
John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA.
DOES IT SOUND LIKE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DUCK HUNTING????

2. Hunters have privileges, not rights. That's why licenses are given, and their is a crime of poaching out of season. If it were a right, the people could hunt things to the point of extinction, legally.

Our Founders wanted us armed with WEAPONS SIMILAR OR EXACT TO WHAT WAS USED BY OUR MILITARY. That way, in the event of an invasion, we could fight alongside the military, or we would have weapons that fire the same ammo, and could be retrieved from our own Army in the event of our own military turning against us, as others, most noteworthy, the German Army, have done. Those citizens laid down their arms in compliance with tyrannical edicts, only to be exterminated.... wiped from this world like excremate from a boot. I believe Salzo pointed this out in earlier posts dealing with the Founders, and any that lay down essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither, and can die a coward's death.

Even in the Bible, Jesus is found to tell his disciples in Luke 22:36 to arm themselves. He was not a pacifist. Throughout the Bible, God destroyed and ordered cities and people destroyed for immorality. The Bible is not a Pacifist manual any more than the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is.

Hey Nitrouz, here in my state, we can legally own assault weapons with silencers, too. Hurray for our side!!!!

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

snake-eyes

The whole banning fuss gives me justification for my wife to buy now while we can. My kids will never have to buy a gun or go through the hassels in the years to come. Daddy will have a secret room in the house with a cache of relics from 1950-2000 and plenty of ammo if that ever gets banned. I don't worry about the problems, all we can do is vote for the best loser running for office.

*If there is one gun for every 7 people in the world, I'm saving alot of people money*

gunphreak

I hear that...

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

jnkreeb

I am very new to owning firearms and have not yet had an opportunity to study the 2nd Amendment at length, though I know the basic premise it was founded on as well as my own rights in respect to owning firearms.

I have heard the argument that the laws banning certain weapons are unconstitutional, and I'm sure this will come off as sounding naive or even stupid, but has anyone challenged the laws, or if someone did, what was the outcome?

I definitely have become a firm believer in the right to bear arms, and also believe these bans are ridiculous to the effect that they only pertain to law-abiding citizens, because those that do not abide by the laws, namely the criminal element of our society, will find ways to own any gun, assault rifle etc. because they do not care about the laws in the first place. These bans do not prevent criminals from having firearms, only those of us who have respect for the laws, but if these laws are not "legal", how is it that they are allowed to exist?

Not trying to stir the pot here and sorry if I haven't completely done my homework, but am only seeking further education in the ways of pursuing my right to bear arms.

snake-eyes

Challenging a law on the books claiming it is un-constitutional is expensive and a long drug out process. No every day joe can challenge it. Any one else have any input?

*If there is one gun for every 7 people in the world, I'm saving alot of people money*

salzo

I think that the general consensus with respect to courts is that they are almost god like, that they are there to defend the constitution, and their opinions are based solely on the constitutionality of the issue. The courts are in bed with the other branches of government. They are just as wrong as the other branches with respect to the second amendment and constitution. So if someone is looking for a court case, to free us of the second amendment opression that is going on this country-you can forget it. The courts will side with the government.

"Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
-Bill Clinton(MTV interview)

gunphreak

Many things come from our own government that is not good for the people. Our own political dissidence, they call it "incorrectness", is at the heart of it all. Try looking in history books to learn what happened in other countries with dissidents in it. Many were rounded up and KILLED!!!! Others live in ostracism. It is not a kind or forgiving life.

Actually, now, if one was to look in history books, nothing would be found on that subject, anymore. Feds don't want us knowing what we should know when to do so drives a wedge in their ultimate goal.

The separation of Church and state, being completely misused, was originally meant to ensure denominal neutrality, but has since become eradication of all things religious in schools and in society. In its place, we are led to believe that alphabet soup agencies, politicians, and celebrities really care about you, and thus making them our new source of religion. Like worshipping money, worshipping security by those who promise us this is just an illusion of a greater source.

Yes, it is very expensive to challenge laws already in the books. Many people have went up against the laws and nothing changed, because tyrants now litter the books with a bunch of arbitrary laws, immunity from responsibility laws, oppressive laws, "reform" laws, malefactive laws, and other laws by a minority speaking with a forked tongue concerning the majority that freedom will only come with the price of vigilance and the blood of tyrants to secure the deal.

Sad state of affairs...

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

pappy1600

What is the definition of a "Assault Rifle"?

The first true assault rifle was used by the minute men during the revolutioanary war,At which time they used unconventional gorilla tactics to engage the enemy and secure a free country from the British
regime.The assault weapon of choice for the day was; a Musket


The term assault rifle is a term made by the anti gunners out there trying to instill fear in the misinformed general public (Liberals)

Ithica I believe you have been listening to much to the bias media reports.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people ,what needs to be done here is to enforce the 50k gun laws in effect and arrest those who disregard the laws and enforce harsher sentences on illegal firearm
crimes and not give them slaps on the hand like most states do.

I am a Police Officer and also a FFL dealer and believe all law abiding citizens have the RIGHT not the privlage to own a firearm legaly be it an AK or a single shot 22. Assault weapons is not a word in my opinion all firearms are classed as such, Firearms nothing else.

And I served in the armed forces also,and damn proud of that.Don't fall victim to the liberal mumbo jumbo the antigunners and the misinformed are trying to feed you.



Edited by - pappy1600 on 10/18/2002 01:44:31

gunphreak

There are many words used to demonize guns and their owners. I can remember one day hearing the same liberal garbage. I believed that gun laws were not malicious to us, and were necessary. Some of the figures that are synonamous with gun control I found to be the wisest people....

Then I woke up. These people have agendas, and care nothing about us, only themselves and their best interests and lives. I can remember a feeling of betrayal and enlightenment when this day arrived. Now, I am the antithesis of that which they stand for.

Victim disarmament legislation is all it equates to. Don't fool yourself.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

U.s.M.c. 54

Hello to all , kind of new at this , but , not new to the world , being an old Marine I have heard much on the topic of an armed people , with out the "people" being armed over the years as they have been , we would not have even the limited freedoms that we have now ! as far a covering the guys butt who does not want a firearm , yes I would do so , if that person is an AMERICAN , I belive in the "2nd" and most of all the one that says don't mess with the above (not sure the # sorry ! ), we all have a choice......I WISH TO BE ARMED to protect mime , and my Country !! ....and even at my age would do so if called...........USMC 54

kissgoodnight

To my knowledge the 2nd ammendment was to protect the people against a tyranny, it did not specify what tyranny. Who knows, it could be your own local form.

gunphreak

It was listed what kind of tyranny in federalist and antifederalist papers. Enemies both foreign and domestic.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak