Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

I think many people were misled by Mr. Obama's campaign pledge. It seems you thought it was "Obama For Change", when in reality it was "Obama For Chains". Just my two cents worth.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by djvexd
Well my email went off with a phone call to follow.
" Dear Mr. Grayson, I am writing to you to express my extreme concern for a planned AWB coming up in the form of HR45. As one of your constiuents I am urging you to not vote for this ban. First and foremost the bill as written does not define "assault weapons" clearly as mere cosmetic changes to a hunting rifle can give the impression of a so called "assault" weapon ( i.e. banana clips, plastic heat diffusers , plastic tactical stocks, etc.). The premise behind Mr. Obama's proposal is that it will help curb the influx of illegal weapons flowing into Mexico to be used by the cartels. In every news and print report the problem is not the semi-auto, quasi-assault weapons sold here, rather fully automatic, military-grade weapons and grenades. The last I checked unless you are thoroughly licensed and have a legitimate reson for owning such weapons it is illegal to purchase and own them. Why are the Amercian people being summarily punished for the bad behavior of a neighboring country? Infringing upon OUR constituional rights at a time when our military is deployed overseas is asking for trouble, especially as violence from the same people being cited is spreading across our borders. Mr. Grayson, I emphatically implore you to vote no on this bill and hope that you understand that defending constitutional rights is paramount to allowing knee-jerk domestic policy to pass under the guise of protecting the American people. Regards Charles "

Will be calling later this afternoon when I get home from work.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by djvexd]

HR 45 isnt going anywhere. it has no cosponsors, and has been pushed into commitee 2 times already. it wont pass.

Feb 09, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Jan 06, 2009: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced on Jan 06, 2009.

www.opencongress.org...

reply to post by reluctantpawn


Good change to his little saying.
Star for you.

reply to post by innerlogik


Shhh! We are having a good conversation here!
Youre not supposed to ruin our fun.

More Gun talk!!!

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


You forgot one. US murder rates, while admittedly still too high, are actually at their lowest levels in decades. The murder rate is about half what it was in the late 80s. Apparently, we're doing something right, even with those eeevvvvviillll guns and their horrible, awful, immoral owners.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by hotrodturbo7

 

You forgot one. US murder rates, while admittedly still too high, are actually at their lowest levels in decades. The murder rate is about half what it was in the late 80s. Apparently, we're doing something right, even with those eeevvvvviillll guns and their horrible, awful, immoral owners.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by vor78]

That's because most of us have this sign:



I know I do.

Does this mean I cant own a tank???????

reply to post by runetang


There are no true AK's that shoot .225's as far as I know...maybe you're talking about the israeli golani galil? it looks alot like an AK and has similar action, but shoots .223's. No AK or variant is going to shoot nato rounds as far as I know.

Anyway, for the question earlier about taking a life...hell yes, i would actually probably enjoy killing scum who prey on the innocent. I know that would make me a monster in some kind of philosophical manner, but whatever, I'll be that. Just like the Punisher. I've often wished I was in places like Mumbai and such with some of my guns at the times people go on killing rampages so I could do what the helpless citizens in that country couldn't because of laws like these. F them, and F anybody who tries to push the BS. This is the USA, we were BUILT on the little people standing up for themselves, if only we can find the fortitude within us as our founding fathers had.

Originally posted by Bushi
Does this mean I cant own a tank???????

Even under the AWB it was perfectly legal to own a tank.

There is an annual gathering of tank owners in Kentucky I think.

If you're rich or a criminal the law doesnt apply.

reply to post by 27jd


Here here my friend! I rightfully uplifting opinion on owning a gun! I present to you a Star.

Originally posted by Bushi
Does this mean I cant own a tank???????

Please enjoy this web page!
7 things you wont believe are legal!

reply to post by 27jd


Yes there are 223 AK's. Not 5.45, but 5.56 NATO

.223 AK

I told you guys. The admins yanked my post and all I said was be careful.
ATS is a government shill.

reply to post by Tentickles


Sweet, now does anyone wish to donate us $4.35Mil???

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks alot for the info, but now I want one of those too, lol. Easier to get rounds for it, i'm sure (at this point anyway).

reply to post by 27jd


Ooooops... I see hotrod beat me to this sorry folks!

There are A.K. .223 variants but they are a rare find.
www.ak-47.net...

Funis Duo

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Snisha]

Originally posted by Bushi
Does this mean I cant own a tank???????

No you can own tanks...just no live guns with a DD license. However, you cannot import any US Made military armor into the US. I know you were kidding.


My mom hated guns, and she is avid hunter now. Strange. So, some people can "change" (I hate that word).

1) the right to bear arms is necessary to keep the government in check. Was valid when the difference between military weapons and what the public could get was the barrel lenght of the frontloader. Now what is an assault rifle going to help you agains a tank? an aircraftcarrier 500 miles off coast? nothing. So thats no reason to keep guns

2) Conflicts where both people have guns escalate easier. Its simple logic. If your opponent shoots first you have a high chance of being dead or at least incapacitated. Therefore you need to fire first. If you dont kill/subdue your opponent he has no choice than to fire back. escalation wich would not have happened if one opponent was unarmed. Now if one side is unarmed the other side can threaten with the gun, and never need to use it. But thats impossible if both sides are armed.

3) Nobody wants your life. First of all you cant take it, and if you coould you cant sell it. it has no value whatsoever for persons other than yourself. If you get killed in a robbery you weren't killed for the precious life you had, but because you were an obstacle to getting something other.

There are no arguments for private gun ownership that dont topple if you nudge them gently.

Well.. the white nationalist crowd/militias/ex mil/the people who'll end up fixing USA are not happy about this one bit.

Obama and co are playing with fire now.. and they will get burned. Violence is a last resort but if you push the populace with rubbish like this they'll eventually get to a cliff - that is the cliff of decisions. The decision is this: fight and live free or live as a sheep.

reply to post by Snisha


Yes, for some reason Norinco's good stuff like 5.56 AK's and 20 inch Coach guns are hard to get in the US, but flow freely in Canada?