Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So tell me again, isn't this a cute way to ban ALL semi-auto weapons?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So tell me again, isn't this a cute way to ban ALL semi-auto weapons?

    A lot of people over last few days told me that my fears were unfounded and no one is taking away my 2nd amendment rights. Guess what? It almost did happen.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2650087
    The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    Well, almost all modern handguns except revolvers are semi-automatic.

    At one point, many gun control advocates like to tell us that they're not trying to ban all kinds of guns, just these big bad "assault" rifles. This bill goes much further than that. It bans semi-automatic handguns as well. It even bans semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grip.

    Luckily for us, Republicans still control both chambers of Congress.

    What if it had been a Democratic-controlled with Hillary Clinton in White House? We would saying good bye to 2nd Amendment.

    This is why I joined NRA.
    Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

    "Aim small, miss small."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
    A lot of people over last few days told me that my fears were unfounded and no one is taking away my 2nd amendment rights. Guess what? It almost did happen.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2650087
    The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

    Well, almost all modern handguns except revolvers are semi-automatic.

    At one point, many gun control advocates like to tell us that they're not trying to ban all kinds of guns, just these big bad "assault" rifles. This bill goes much further than that. It bans semi-automatic handguns as well. It even bans semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grip.

    Luckily for us, Republicans still control both chambers of Congress.

    What if it had been a Democratic-controlled with Hillary Clinton in White House? We would saying good bye to 2nd Amendment.

    This is why I joined NRA.
    The left likes to lie, quite a bit.

    Glad to have you part of the NRA now.
    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
      A lot of people over last few days told me that my fears were unfounded and no one is taking away my 2nd amendment rights. Guess what? It almost did happen.

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2650087
      The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

      Well, almost all modern handguns except revolvers are semi-automatic.

      At one point, many gun control advocates like to tell us that they're not trying to ban all kinds of guns, just these big bad "assault" rifles. This bill goes much further than that. It bans semi-automatic handguns as well. It even bans semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grip.

      Luckily for us, Republicans still control both chambers of Congress.

      What if it had been a Democratic-controlled with Hillary Clinton in White House? We would saying good bye to 2nd Amendment.

      This is why I joined NRA.
      The people that want to ban firearms completely and those that only wish to restrict 'assault weapons' are no different.

      The ones who want an outright ban know perfectly well that an assault weapon ban will not put a stop to massacres. In fact they are counting on it to move towards their goal of eliminating the 2nd amendment. Those that only want an assault weapon ban already believe guns are the cause of massacres, there for if a massacre occurs again then the restrictions will need to be expanded.

      I can see the justification in banning weapons such as AR15s. But I also think the NRA is justified in their stance against any restrictions at all. Only a fool would think that the people who dislike and fear firearms in the hands of citizens the most could ever possibly compromise on the issue.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
        A lot of people over last few days told me that my fears were unfounded and no one is taking away my 2nd amendment rights. Guess what? It almost did happen.

        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2650087
        The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

        Well, almost all modern handguns except revolvers are semi-automatic.

        At one point, many gun control advocates like to tell us that they're not trying to ban all kinds of guns, just these big bad "assault" rifles. This bill goes much further than that. It bans semi-automatic handguns as well. It even bans semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grip.

        Luckily for us, Republicans still control both chambers of Congress.

        What if it had been a Democratic-controlled with Hillary Clinton in White House? We would saying good bye to 2nd Amendment.

        This is why I joined NRA.
        you should read the article and stop fear mongering No way this bill would pass with even a majority Dems. Did you check out the numbers. It one of those bills idiots in the house put out there to make it look like they are doing something Both sides do it.

        On the other hand they do have a point about semi automatic pistols been awhile since I shot but my reload times were 2 seconds or less

        which is why banning AR s is semi pointless although most shooters may not be skilled and not able to reload effienciently

        Comment


        • #5
          Like what craven said...


          One needs first to know abut the legislative process in order to resist fear mongering...


          https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us


          The vast majority of bills are essentially dead upon arrival. In any given two-year session of Congress, ten-thousand or more bills are introduced. But only about 4 percent of them become law. Take away bills that do things like naming post offices and designating days of the year as commemorative holidays and it s probably more like one percent.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post

            What if it had been a Democratic-controlled with Hillary Clinton in White House? We would saying good bye to 2nd Amendment.
            She would have appointed judges that would have interpreted "People" to mean the community made up of individuals instead of the founder's definition of individuals that make up the community.

            Not only would you have kissed your Second Amendment rights good bye, but also your first, forth, ninth, and every other place in the Constitution where the word "People" is used.
            “Breaking News,”

            “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
              She would have appointed judges that would have interpreted "People" to mean the community made up of individuals instead of the founder's definition of individuals that make up the community.

              Not only would you have kissed your Second Amendment rights good bye, but also your first, forth, ninth, and every other place in the Constitution where the word "People" is used.
              Exactly, no collective for me ever!!
              Last edited by Trung Si; 27 Feb 18, 20:21.
              Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                Exactly, no collective for me ever!!
                They are The Progressive Borg, You will be assimilated.....
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jazsa View Post
                  The people that want to ban firearms completely and those that only wish to restrict 'assault weapons' are no different.

                  The ones who want an outright ban know perfectly well that an assault weapon ban will not put a stop to massacres. In fact they are counting on it to move towards their goal of eliminating the 2nd amendment. Those that only want an assault weapon ban already believe guns are the cause of massacres, there for if a massacre occurs again then the restrictions will need to be expanded.

                  I can see the justification in banning weapons such as AR15s. But I also think the NRA is justified in their stance against any restrictions at all. Only a fool would think that the people who dislike and fear firearms in the hands of citizens the most could ever possibly compromise on the issue.
                  An interesting point-of-view coming from somebody from Melbourne.
                  We don't have ,"firearms in the hands of citizens" to anything like the same extent around here.
                  Should we ,then ?
                  "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                  Samuel Johnson.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There was an assault weapons ban in force from 1994-2004.

                    Question: Are weapons already owned going to be confiscated? If so, that is something to be worried about. If not, then no.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                      ...Republicans still control both chambers of Congress.
                      They might not come November and the mid-term elections...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                        We would saying good bye to 2nd Amendment.
                        How?

                        As has already been explained, it is very difficult to get rid of a Constitutional Amendment.

                        It has only been done once, and that was to repeal one that was put in place and was very stupid to boot.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          There was an assault weapons ban in force from 1994-2004.

                          Question: Are weapons already owned going to be confiscated? If so, that is something to be worried about. If not, then no.
                          Yeas there was. The middle of the ban also coincides with the first of the modern school mass killings. So the effectiveness is not in doubt.......it wasn't.
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            There was an assault weapons ban in force from 1994-2004.

                            Question: Are weapons already owned going to be confiscated? If so, that is something to be worried about. If not, then no.
                            Stop cutting into their paranoia and conspiracies, they'll starve to death without them.
                            Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Banning assault weapons like the AR-15 the preferred weapon of mass killers lately wouldn't have stopped them from doing what they did there are plenty of other semiautomatic weapons they would have used instead.
                              Improving the US mental healthcare system and enforcing the laws like the one that could have stopped the Texas Church killings and armed deterrence in schools would stop more from happening.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X