H.R. 6257 - Assault Weapon Ban Re-authorization Act of 2008

[makanut]

Remember folks, If it doesn't have a "happy switch" it's just a rifle. The messiah says "Nobody needs an AK-47." I would submit that almost noone can afford an AK-47. Unfortunately, ignorance on firearms abounds among the general public. Democrats have exploited this and continue to do so. AKs cost about the same as a low end SUV (Dealer Samples), out of my price range. AKs are so rare in the US, banning them shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[thebucket]

We need to oppose any upcoming AWB's by specifically emphasizing that most murders are comitted with handguns, 7,361 to be exact, versus 450 with rifles in 2007. We know from Heller that a ban on handguns would be unconstitutional as that was the exact subject matter they dealt with. With assault weapons, banning them may be considered "reasonable" regulations. Any defensive strategy needs to highlight that AK-47's and other "assault" weapons are not the most common murder weapons and that they are used for sport, self defense and many other legal purposes. We need to tear down the idea that guns are only used by criminals and fight the claims that "assault" weapons are dangerous weapons only used by criminals.

 

[hags]

I think the race of folks who commit heinous crims is immaterial, as is the tyep of weapon they use.

The thing we really need to worry about isnt a ban but a law that embodies reasonable restrictions, a loophole heller has left wide open.

Like ammo capacity regulations, or prohibitively costly licensing, or AMMO taxes./ arsenal licenses.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head!

Most Americans don't need to drive a full-sized SUV. They use enough gas to fuel two or more economy cars, is heavier on the road (thus making road repair more frequent), and can be potentially fatal to someone who they get into an accident with who is driving a smaller car. But we do it anyway.

I wouldn't mind a ban on SUVs. You wouldnt' even need an outright ban just enact some sensible fuel standards and enforce them.
Most people I see driving a Hummer, Excursion or Aviator do so as status symbols. I usually see one person only in these vehicles. That's not good for anyone. It would benefit not only the enviorment but save me tax money and strengthen my country as well by reducing the amount of money we send to the Bin Ladens.

Some people think a crucifix in a jar of urine is "freedom", I don't, I think it's offensive and has no place anywhere let alone sponsored by taxpayers.

Remember folks, If it doesn't have a "happy switch" it's just a rifle. The messiah says "Nobody needs an AK-47." I would submit that almost noone can afford an AK-47. Unfortunately, ignorance on firearms abounds among the general public. Democrats have exploited this and continue to do so. AKs cost about the same as a low end SUV (Dealer Samples), out of my price range. AKs are so rare in the US, banning them shouldn't even be an issue.

You can argue semantics all day. Let's face it, the definition of an assault weapon has changed. A (semi-auto) AK47 has no place in modern society, everyone involved knows what Obama is talking about. Explaining the definition of assault weapon in the hopes that the opposition will "wake up" or realize they're wrong is delusional.

 

[Big45]

Some people think a crucifix in a jar of urine is "freedom", I don't, I think it's offensive and has no place anywhere let alone sponsored by taxpayers.

The crucifix in the urine is not freedom. The act of doing it is called freedom of expression. Your verbal opposition to it is called freedom of speech. You've been in Illinois too long. The rest of us, who drive SUV's and burn American flags, live in America.

 

[hags]

Ok, I'm guessing you missed my point, so, I think the crucifix in urine represents freedom for many. How's that for semantics?

Plenty of SUVs here, usually with one person in them. I find burning the American flag offensive too.

You keep arguing semantics and make cutesy talking points while they're taking your rights away.

Please check out the link in my sig. How far away is forced confiscation with that kind of mindset?

 

[Big45]

Who has taken any of my rights away? Who is the mysterious 'they'?
Who? What have 'they' done? I open carry all day long. I have stacks of guns and tons of ammo. I shoot whenever I want. I could go buy an NFA if I could afford one. I go to gun stores and gun shows. I make private party sales and trades with no paper trail.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? I feel like I'm in gun heaven. I am only limited by my funds.

So how I am being restricted? Who is taking away anything from me? Let's hear it.

HOW'S THAT FOR SEMANTICS.

 

[hags]

Well, you could check the title of this thread for one.

 

[Kino74]

I really worry about the 2A when gunowners act in disbelief about a ban. It was only 4 years ago that the AWB sunsetted and yet we have gunowners acting like it never happened. Every year we have had another AWB, worse than the first one, drawn up and I see nothing that says we will not see another one brought up in Congress, especially since the Democrats will have at least a commanding number of Senate and House of Representative seats and possibly have the most anti-gun POTUS with them.

 

[X9ballX]

still dont they realize more guns less crime.the crininals wont give a **** if guns are legal or not.

 

[Killian]

As Obama says "you don't need an AK47".

Too kill someone, maybe I don't. But as I often tell liberal friends, those extra shots give me the option of firing WARNING shots.

Would Korean storeowners in Los Angeles have failed to protect their stores if "all" they had were 12ga 870s? No. They'd have just faced the mobs of people and shot to kill instead. With an AK they could pop some shots into the ground or into the air in order to warn away people intent on causing them harm.

No reason why the same thing couldn't be done for other situations. With a surplus of 30 rounds, I don't have to worry shooting two or three in the ground. With only 10 rounds in the clip, I might not take the risk of shooting two or three that I might feel I will need if the person(s) confronting me don't comply with my instructions.

So remember...the extra bullets are not there to KILL more people, they are there so I don't HAVE to kill people.

 

[sig228]

Yall are assuming that this bill is a Democratic product. Click the above link... HR 6257's sponsor is a Republican, as are all 4 co-sponsors.

Sponsor:
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]

Co-sponsors:
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]

Whats unbelievable is that Ros-Lehtinen is rated a C+ by the NRA. Big rating downgrade needed here for being a co-sponsor. I'm shocked the NRA hasn't figured that out yet.

 

[Big45]

Is it just me or does anyone else here not give a flying f*@k about this dead, non issue,4 month old bill that had 4 sponsors?

I'm calling out the shop owners. STOP THE PARANOIA.

 

[moooose102]

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? I feel like I'm in gun heaven. I am only limited by my funds.

move to gustopo michigan, then you wont feel so free. and we are not as bad as it gets, there are states out there that are way worse. once all of my family dies off, i am moving next door to you! i would love to be able to strap on a gun to my hip, walk out the door, and not fear being hassled, or arrested by the cops for something that is legal. its legal, and they still arrest you, how is that for freedom!

 

[X9ballX]

and still nobodies answering my question about wether or not a single shot 50 cal would be affected by this

 

[misANTHrope]

and still nobodies answering my question about wether or not a single shot 50 cal would be affected by this

Did you ever consider reading the text of the bill yourself? I found the answer to your question on about the third line.

(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

And a bit further down:

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

(B) any firearm that--

‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;

 

[X9ballX]

i was worried about rules on caliber i read that part

 

[marklbucla]

Even more restrictive and specific than the original expired Bill.

It appears to be the same thing. How is it different?

 

[Lonest@r]

Let's keep the politics out of this one
It is unfortunate about the political affiliations of the sponsor and co-sponsors, but, be that as it may, can we please keep the party politics out of this.

As a recent member, I have noticed several threads closed down at the mere mention of politics and/or party affiliations.

My question to you is: In order to protect our RKBA (2A), how can we inform or be informed on how to vote without mentioning politics?

I understand if it was to get out of hand.

 

[hso]

Well, this one sure got off the rails.

Perhaps someone will want to start and keep an Activism thread going on this piece of legislation instead of derailing the discussion?