suporters of the awb??

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by tommy20/69, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    i was looking up the awb that pelosi is preposing and i was looking at the long list of senators i think its like 67 or 68 maybe but anyways osoma ain't in there??? whats up with that??
  2. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    He is a supporter of the AWB, don't let anybody tell you differently!!!

    posted in another thread:

    From his website:

    Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
  3. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    He ain't there because he never did any work while he was in the senate. Why would he put his name on something that might hurt his run for POTUS?
  4. RaymondPeter

    RaymondPeter Simple Man

    My aunt lives in Chicago and said nearly the same thing to me just a few weeks ago. Hardly did anything for the state because he was busy campaigning for the presidency almost as soon as he took the senate seat...
  5. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    ok from what i read it says making the old awb permanant that would mean the old clinton ban right so thats basicly back to the no flash supressors and bayo's. I think he might have trouble banning the guns of forgien wars even if he does that would still give us all our american made guns like the m14/ar15 and so on because they are american made plus any other american made gun . we might be able to find a loophole if there somewhere.
  6. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    I have another idea. Just say No!!!!!! Ohhh let's see what we will be allowed to keep. Lets weld our clips so they can't come out and block them so they only hold 10 rounds. Let's bow down once again to our new "Mastah".
    BS!! Never again!
  7. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    we can say no all we want but when was the last time you can say that a senator acually listened to what we had to say?? they do what they want not what we want.they tell us what we want to hear to get into office and then wam!! it's screw the public i'm here and they can't really do a damn thing to me now.
  8. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    They can pass all the laws they want. A law that violates the constitution is not a valid law at all. Just don't obey the damn law. When they try to implement their unconstitutional laws that's when you say No!
    You want to ban the possesion of .50 cals, belt feds, magazines over 10 rounds? Ok. Come and get them!! Molon Labe!
    There has got to come a day when the sheep in this country stop trying to find loopholes, stop laying down and whining and stand up and just say NO MORE!!!!
  9. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    I have had that line drawn in the sand now for years. I did not obey the first AWB and I won't obey any subsequent one either. Every rifle I built during the first one had all the evil features that I wanted to put on them. Their compliant parts can kiss my rump. Molon Labe!
  10. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

  11. E.L.

    E.L. Moderator of Lead Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I celebrated my freedom to vote by putting in an order for five AR lowers.

    Come and get them you bastards.
  12. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear single shot duck guns with a minimum barrel length of 36" having neither detachable magazines, bayonet lugs, nor pistol grips, shall not be infringed.”

    That doesn't sound quite right, does it? It doesn't sound right because it isn't the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; it's the Second Amendment of the Brady Campaign, of Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Diane Feinstein, the Million Mom March and the Violence Policy Center. In other words, it's the Second Amendment of gun control extremists. These are the terms in which they want to frame the discussion of our civil rights.

    Their current jihad targets the mythological beast often referred to as the “assault weapon.” Now, we’re not quite sure what defines this monster, but we do know that unless the fraudulent “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 is extended, these deadly tools of mass destruction will suddenly flood our streets, and turn our schools and ghettos into killing fields. This is all, from stem to stern, a complete fiction – the terms, the description of the law, and the imagined consequences of non-renewal. Not a word is true.
    The “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994, a.k.a. the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,” is one of the great scams of the Clinton era. It is a masterpiece of double-speak and equivocation. In reality, the law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grips, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or threads to attach a suppressor, or a grenade launcher. Further, it banned the importation of foreign-built rifles having some or all of these characteristics, and it banned the ownership by civilians of high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds) produced after 1994. (Notice that a rifle with a 100-round drum magazine and a grenade launcher could be completely legal under the AWB as long as it did not have a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock or pistol grip).

    Notice also that AK-47’s, M-16’s, Uzi’s and MP5’s (real assault rifles and submachine guns) are not addressed by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Guns capable of automatic fire have been controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934 for the past seventy years. Contrary to the overheated rhetoric of the gun grabbers, the AWB will have no impact whatsoever on the presence of AK-47’s and Uzi’s on our streets. It never has. The gun control jihadists lie because they know their agenda will fail in the light of truth. Were the gun grabbers serious about fighting crime or violence, they would be focusing on weapons that figure prominently in the violent crime statistics of America. Military-style rifles do not.

    The real agenda is to ban military-style rifles because they are seen as being vulnerable to these emotional, non-rational appeals. Next will be semi-auto handguns, then revolvers, and so on, until we’re down to single-shot duck guns. The agenda is to disarm and force the cult of victimization on the free and self-reliant citizens of America.
    The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It never has been. It’s about freedom. It’s not about Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Donna Dees-Thomases or Josh Sugarmann telling me what kind of rifle I need or should have, and for what purposes. It is about responsible citizens of this republic making conscientious decisions for themselves about the tools necessary for their own security, safety, and recreation.
    If we are to counter this campaign of disinformation, our response needs to be more than technical lectures about the fine points of firearms nomenclature. We must define the terms, but more importantly, we must shape the discussion in terms of civil rights, individual liberty, and the inalienable right to self-defense, and that includes the bearing of arms which are on a par or superior to those which might be used against us.

    September 13, 2004 The Sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban

    The “Assault Weapons Ban” does not go gently into that dark sunset. Its swan song is accompanied by a wild chorus of phony claims, political recriminations, unearned chest-thumping from some gun rights organizations, and dire prophesies from gun grabbers and opportunistic politicians. One statistic that has intrigued me through this latest round of the debate is that a significant percentage of NRA members are supposed to support renewal of the AWB according to polling by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center. While I don’t pretend to know what these folks are thinking – and no doubt a significant sub-percentage of this group may be attributed to the way the questions are asked and misunderstanding about what the AWB actually does – I can’t help but wonder if the NRA supporters of the AWB support its renewal precisely because they do understand it. They have done their homework and know what a toothless and hollow piece of cosmetic legislation it really is. Perhaps they prefer this feel-good hodge-podge of cosmetic restrictions to another more restrictive ban which could appear in the future. “Lessee, how does it go? I can have a 30-round mag but no grenade launcher; or I can have the grenade launcher as long as I don’t have the bayonet lug. No, I can’t give up my bayonet – I may need it to hold off the next banzai charge by the IJN marines lurking just the other side of the Stop-N-Shop.” It’s just silly unless you understand that it’s about symbols and images.

    The AWB is about conditioning people to accept incremental prohibitions on guns based on features, and we know where that goes. It is about demonizing civilian ownership of military style rifles (“…no one goes deer hunting with an AK-47”). It is about characterizing anyone who wants to own a military rifle or even a high capacity semi-auto pistol as a “domestic terrorist” or a potential mass murderer. Remember the historical setting that produced the AWB. Following Ruby Ridge and Waco, membership in civilian militia groups was expanding rapidly and the Clinton administration feared these groups in a way that was completely disproportionate to the actual threat they may have represented. Military rifles are only rarely used by street criminals and drug gangs. They were the preferred guns of the civilian militias. Symbol, image and politics – the stuff the AWB is made of.

    Another statistic that has been bantered around is that crimes with “assault weapons” have decreased since the ban because “we have gotten these weapons of mass destruction off the streets.” Makes for a great sound-bite, but it suffers from a fatal flaw in logic. Nothing has been removed from “the streets” as a result of the AWB. Has anyone had any difficulty in buying a semi-auto military rifle or procuring high capacity magazines for their M9’s during this ten years? No. If you could buy a five-shot snubnose revolver, you could buy a semi-auto Kalashnikov clone. And for that matter, if you were willing to pay the inflated prices and go through the red tape, you could buy an honest-to-gawd selective fire assault rifle or submachine gun. If crime with “assault weapons” has decreased, it is because of other forces, such as demographic changes and the fact that all gun crime has diminished since its statistical peak in the late 80’s and early 90’s. The AWB had nothing to do with it.

    The AWB has always been about symbols and politics. It still is. I will make two predictions: nothing will change in terms of crime statistics as a result of the AWB sunset, and it will be back. When it comes back, it will be far more obnoxious, restrictive and unconstitutional than the old, dead AWB it hopes to replace.
    <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" i-checksum="13152" endspan -->​
  13. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    well people can get all hot under the collar at me for saying this but to me Clinton did us a favor when he had the first awb because what he did was ban a few cosmetics of the gun he didn't ban the gun/mags or anything else. and after he passed the awb everyone shut the hell up about them until they became legal again but the truth was they was always legal the only thing that was illegal was the flash hider/bayonet/grenade launcher. Now to me i could care freakin less about any of them things it's the gun i want. If i'm close enough to use a bayonet then i haven't done my job of shooting straight, but now that the old ban has exprired they want to pop up and do a whole new one now we will actually loose the whole gun this time. And don't sit there and just say "say no" thats a laugh they will ban the importation and ban the making of them so you just can't have them . You would have to have everyone stand up and say no and i don't think that would happen. Why you ask because listen to what people are posting, they're posting about buying guns that ain't registerd??? Why are they doing that?? Maybe because they plan on turning in their registered guns if told to do so maybe??
  14. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    There already is a ban on importation of UZI's, AK-47's, FN-FAL's, H&K 91/93's in there original configuration passed by George Bush SR. in 1989. However, you can still buy these rifles in original configuration(pre-ban) and clones of the same platform made here as long as they are 922r compliant. When are people going to realize that any kind of ban is just baby steps towards banning of other firearms and/or cosmetics?

    If we give an inch they will take a mile.
  15. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    yes and all i hear is alot of people saying they ain't gonna take it but they do????it's like a kid telling his friends i ain't gonna do this or that when my dad tells me to but as soon as his dad says son come here and do this the kids says yes sir right away!! they are gonna ban the guns whether you like it or not bush proved that the president can do what he wants . he can pass what ever paw he wants .to many people gave the second bush to much freedom to do what he wanted now obama is gonna exploit that and go even further. to me i think if obama says to give up the assault weapons most people will roll over and turn them in.
  16. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    I'm not going to disagree that .gov could ban guns whether we like it or not because Obama could just write an Executive Order and we'd be screwed. It would certainly save time, rendering any comments to your elected officials useless on how they should vote on it. Depending on the severity of the ban would determine how most gun owners would react. He would have a slam dunk if he just passed an AWB because most gun owners agree with it, not sure why but they do. However, if he tries to ban all semi-automatic firearms and all handguns, he will have a fight on his hands in my opinion.
  17. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    the bad thing about a assault weapon ban is how do you tell the difference between the two guns?? both guns are semi auto both use mags/clips. people need to open their eyes before they allow them to take one gun because one gun is just like another just looks diferent thats all. they say guns that are used in foriegn wars well there goes the semi auto hand gun because they can say the foot soldier carries a semi auto handgun as a sidearm "berreta" they also carry pump shotguns too!!if obama words his ban correctly and passes it he can sneak it by and wam!! the next day damn near every gun as we know it is now illegal. that "guns of foriegn wars" shit has to be taken out. this ban that he is gonna propose is gonna make the clinton ban look like a cake walk.
  18. CRC

    CRC Survivor of Tidal Waves | RIP 7-24-2015 Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    I got this in my email today.....The video is 23 minutes long, but well worth watching....I'm including the whole email...

    This deserves to be on every talk radio and tv station, shown in every
    school, on every Constitutionally inspired website in the nation.

    It is WONDERFUL!

  19. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

  20. tommy20/69

    tommy20/69 Monkey++

    the hunters think their guns are safe just because they are hunters .the trueth is nobodies guns are safe.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary