Can an AWB pass the US Senate
- Thread starter Girodin
- Start date
- Status
Geneseo1911
Member
leadcounsel said:
I don't disagree with you, but let me try to give you some hope:
-We also have the internet. THR and a thousand other sites of gun enthusiasts who talk, watch the .gov, and react INSTANTLY
-We have concealed carry in all 50 states (OK, not IL yet, but it's looking hopeful for January, and several states are severely limited, but still...) resulting in millions of armed, responsible citizens who don't want to give up their guns, and who understand that a citizen with a Glock and 17 round magazines is the solution, not the problem
-Support for gun rights has been increasing for a decade and was at its highest point ever this summer.
-Gun ownership among minority groups (who, ironically were the ones the Democrats were originally trying to disarm through "gun control"), is increasing as they realize that the only way to protect themselves in increasingly violent neighborhoods is to take responsibility for themselves.
I view gun rights as one of the, if not the only, thing that I support that appears to be moving in the right direction. I too am worried about the direction that economic and religious freedom appears to be moving, but I am less worried so long as I have a legitimate means of self defense.
Not to get too far off topic....Girodin, have you compiled a spreadsheet or list of the votes as you see them? FWIW, this is exactly how lobbyists work. Make a list of all the votes, segregate those who will come down solidly for or against you, and work the best deal you can to get the guys in the middle.
Zeke/PA
Member
The MOST important thing to be brought out in the upcoming "debates" is the issue of Mental Health and how to deal with it.
Banning weapons and high cap mags are a mere window dressing as we all know.
A mag switch/change can be done in 3to4 seconds and the semi-auto thing means NOTHING to someone bent on hurting people.
To prove this particular point to some non-believers I did thus a few years back:
Using a '03-A3 issue Springfield and 5 shot stripper clips I put 20 shots into the chest/head area of a silloette target at 100 yards,shooting off hand, in 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Of course I began with a loaded rifle and had to reload three times.
Guns have been here for a long time, the shootings because of Nut-Cases , a relatively NEW thing.
Banning weapons and high cap mags are a mere window dressing as we all know.
A mag switch/change can be done in 3to4 seconds and the semi-auto thing means NOTHING to someone bent on hurting people.
To prove this particular point to some non-believers I did thus a few years back:
Using a '03-A3 issue Springfield and 5 shot stripper clips I put 20 shots into the chest/head area of a silloette target at 100 yards,shooting off hand, in 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Of course I began with a loaded rifle and had to reload three times.
Guns have been here for a long time, the shootings because of Nut-Cases , a relatively NEW thing.
Zeke/PA said:
With the exception of the 1927 Bath, Michigan school bombing, ALL school massacres in the US have followed the passage of the The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 (CMHA). As far as US history goes, it IS relatively new, but the root of problem has existed for almost 50 years.
Hassan, Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza were ALL crazy as ****house rats, and it was obvious to everyone who came into contact with them.
OilyPablo
Member
Bob2222 said:
Is this true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
ApacheCoTodd
member
Senate? Absolutely.
But hopefully not the House.
But hopefully not the House.
OilyPablo said:
I haven't through over the whole list but I'm not surprised if school shootings pre-date the Declaration of Independence.
Particularly in large cities with large amounts of gang activity today.
By "massacre", I meant incidents notable as Charles Whitman's massacre at U of Texas in 1966 who killed 16 and wounded 3. He had a malignant brain tumor, so the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 probably didn't have anything to do with it. But there was an obvious cause for his abnormal behavior.
Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill achieved significant momentum the 1970s. The libs and lawyers approved, and state governments approved (because it's cheaper). The sane majority, unfortunately, is paying the price.
JN01
Member
So I guess in his world, banning a large category of firearms isn't gun control. Must be like the "oral sex isn't sex" thing.
bigmouth
Member
I don't live in the States but sometimes you can see issues clearer from the outside looking in than from the inside looking out. It appears to me that the reactive anti-gun hysteria has waned while the media is desperately trying to escalate it. As every media in the world is controlled to some degree by their governments, the U.S. strongly. this tells me that this escalation is either privately or gov't. controlled. My guess is the latter considering the economic mess and every government's fears of an armed populous. I do not belong to the NRA but suggest that a conscientious member point this out to their staff.
OilyPablo
Member
I'm sure I agree with this.
RX-178
Member
You know I hadn't even thought about it, but I just realized I've actually had to deliberately search for 'sandy hook', 'gun control', and similar phrases to get news articles on them. Even on the front page of the major news networks, I have to go over them with a fine tooth comb to find it.
What I'm seeing instead?
Airbus' new fuel-saving wing design has icing problems
Fiscal cliff debate
Egyptians close to a new constitution
Italian President dissolves parliament in preparation for general elections
OilyPablo
Member
And people wonder who we should write letters and emails to. The wobblies. I'm not going to argue about the rigidity of their spines, they just need to be convinced and now.
The only thing we have in our favor, "unfortunatelly", is that the fiscal cliff problem may take center stage if they don't get this thing straightened out. Plus they will once again have budget problems soon again, and the stock market may just dump and take everyones mind off of guns. None of these are good things, but they are all in the process of moving along. They can't even agree on a defense budget, or a tax rate, why should they agree on gun laws, In a few months, this too will lose it's political capitol.
The longer it takes the better for us.
Plus there can be no enforcement as there is no money to do anything along those lines regaurdless of what they come up with.
It's not like there is a standing army that is going to go from house to house. This will have to be a "take your word for it" type of thing, and since you can buy and sell your guns in most states without consulting anyone, who is going to say who has what.
I know that my collection has changed 10-15 times in 40 years, I have none of the weapons I bought through gun stores.
I would imagine most folks have the same situation.
The longer it takes the better for us.
Plus there can be no enforcement as there is no money to do anything along those lines regaurdless of what they come up with.
It's not like there is a standing army that is going to go from house to house. This will have to be a "take your word for it" type of thing, and since you can buy and sell your guns in most states without consulting anyone, who is going to say who has what.
I know that my collection has changed 10-15 times in 40 years, I have none of the weapons I bought through gun stores.
I would imagine most folks have the same situation.
henschman
Member
I'm counting on Sen. Paul to filibuster anything that gets proposed in the senate. Hopefully the yeas will be less than 60.
Queen_of_Thunder
member
In the 2014 election there are 20 Democratic Senators and 13 Republican Senators up for reelection. So it's time to find out what Democrats are up for election and join the fight to replace them.
breakingcontact
Member
This is the best thread I've read on the matter as it's based on known statements/positions from elected officials.
TenDriver
Member
The fiscal cliff issue is scary. It appears to me Obama wants to dive over the cliff, knowing the GOP will get blamed. When that happens, there's a good chance we lose the House. I hate using the term "perfect storm", but the potential is there. The upside is it gives us two years before anything occurs if we believe the current makeup of the House will not pass an AWB. The downside is that's two more years for a whack job to shoot up another public forum. Our rights WILL NOT survive another attack with Dems in the House and Senate.
bigmouth
Member
Now I hear talk of compromise. That is another word for surrender.
mljdeckard
Member
I don't think at all that going over the cliff will lose republicans the house. They just WON the house based on the principle of standing fast on taxes and spending. We aren't going to fire them for doing exactly what we told them to do.
FRIENDS, here and abroad.
Several key Senators have been pointed out. Now specifically the most key Senator who needs ALL YOUR ATTENTION:
Your Senator.
They are being contacted. Lobbied. Massaged by media and party bosses. Think about it, regular politics bad on a good day, now on agenda-driven high potency steroids.
No contact by you=bad vote. Period.
PERIOD
Several key Senators have been pointed out. Now specifically the most key Senator who needs ALL YOUR ATTENTION:
Your Senator.
They are being contacted. Lobbied. Massaged by media and party bosses. Think about it, regular politics bad on a good day, now on agenda-driven high potency steroids.
No contact by you=bad vote. Period.
PERIOD
bigmouth
Member
Have you considered the idea that the gun hysteria is to smoke screen economic collapse rather than the other way around? Why do you gun enthusiasts ignore the propaganda term, "assault weapon", when it should be called a, "defense weapon"? The radical media won that propaganda action without even even a call of "foul". Armies do not have to turn in assault weapons for defense weapons when they go on the defense. That issue was allowed to pass without a wimper & now is the standard battle cry of the radicals. The Germans signed an armistice (compromise) which precipitated WWII & eventually the "Cold War" as well as other troubles that cost more millions of lives. Call things for what they are or it will come back to slap you in the face. I may not know all the answers, but I can sure see the mistakes! American gun owners have allowed themselves to be put on the defensive when positive thinking wouldn't have let that happen. Get it together & bon chance.
bigmouth
Member
Presidents declare wars without the consent of congress! Maybe I'm the only one who considers throwing away 10's of thousands of lives without Congressional approval a major transgression of power?
commygun
Member
Obama's a tool but he's also a hyper-attuned political animal. He'll make the right noises but I seriously doubt that either him or Reid want a big gun control debate. Democrats lose when they talk about gun control, Republicans lose when they talk about abortion. For exactly the same reasons.
Ignition Override
Member
Would the "gun control" politicians' (possible) enactment of an "AWB" imply that only specific features would be banned, or is there a fairly high chance that they would attempt to ban future sales of several actual semi-auto guns with military styling and detachable, "normal capacity magazines" such as the AR, AK, Vz-58?
Even though this last possibility seems very remote, wouldn't such a theoretical prohibition block only Future sales of guns with such features?
Similar guns which we now own would need to be allowed/'grandfathered'.
Even though this last possibility seems very remote, wouldn't such a theoretical prohibition block only Future sales of guns with such features?
Similar guns which we now own would need to be allowed/'grandfathered'.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked