Military Arms Channel - AWB 2013 Video

Just to clear something up that was said in the video; our conceal carry handguns won't fall under the ban as long as they don't have a threaded muzzle or other military features exc. exc. Her legislation states a detachable magazine and one military characteristic (instead of two like the last AWB in 94'), thus, your standard Glock or other common handgun will be fine. I am in no way defending her, but I feel we should get our facts straight just as much as they should. Great video as usual MAC.

I drafted and sent a letter to my congressmen and senators, and I hope if they get enough they will change their minds. I emphasized how many voters were gun owners, as I think that might hit home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDusmc

I don't think that whatever does pass, if anything will be nearly this restrictive...but like the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...something like this would create more outlaws.

---

Honestly, I do not think we can afford to think this way anymore if we want any rights at all. The intention is to pass it with teeth. They have momentum, emotion, and the media all running together.

We must stand up now and speak loudly and often. We must also let others know the risk, so spread the word. Not just the second amendment. It is our rights overall. Do we need more proof of where this is going? Look at everything around us. How many said ObummerCare would never happen. Let me know how that is working out. Talk to me about your paycheck after the first of the year.

It is all cranking up and it is no longer conspiracy theory. It is a movement and our rights are loosing.

Join NRA now. Write letters now. Call Now. Talk to friends and family. Be informed!! Just do not sit back and watch it happen.

Sorry, this video really makes one think and it is just the beginning!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDFan4010

My point is do something!!! We can't sit on our hands anymore and whine. I'm no longer apart of the Silent Majority. Glad to hear your involved in the process, good work.

---

Don't know if you saw this commentary yet or not... Very profound. http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...ml#post2514078

About 5-6 years ago (during the campaign for Obama's 1st term), I was talking to a former co-worker of mine (Marine Corps combat vet) who is about 10 years older than I am. People were talking about the possibility of another civil war... I said, "I'm getting too old for another shooting war. If something like that ever happens again, I wish it would have happened when I was a lot younger." He said, "Are you ever too old to do what's right?"

The commentary in the link I provided above, reminded me of that conversation.

No one want's anything like that to happen again. But we've all seen one nation after another fall to disarmament. Great Britain, Australia and Canada comes to mind. And plenty of disarmed people from those nations keep telling us, "Don't let it happen to you!" None of those nations had anything like the 2nd Amendment as part of their country's constitution, and they are worried we are going to sit back the way they did and let it happen to us.

After this last election, I really can't say what American's will do.

Thanks to TZ expat for the post and to MAC for helping us get a grip on the parameters of the ensuing debate. :thumbup:

...
Of all the absurd things I have ever written I like this one the most.

They wont get it through. Too many law-abiding gun owners. Also they're risking their political careers on this issue. I think personally this will go no where in congress and get shot down (No pun intended) I'm still keeping my ears and eyes open but I'm not too worried. Just take the initiative to contact your local congressmen and senators and let them know how you feel. Don't bring your attitude be polite and respectful. You don't want to come off aggressive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maximpactguns

They wont get it through. Too many law-abiding gun owners. Also they're risking their political careers on this issue. I think personally this will go no where in congress and get shot down (No pun intended) I'm still keeping my ears and eyes open but I'm not too worried. Just take the initiative to contact your local congressmen and senators and let them know how you feel. Don't bring your attitude be polite and respectful. You don't want to come off aggressive

---

While I agree somewhat, they also have a bunch of innocent bodies to stand atop and use for their propaganda. This same tactic successfully outlawed firearms in the UK and Australia so the idea that it just can't happen here is probably not safe for any of us to adopt too fully.

One very important thing to remember is the current president won't hesitate to sign anything. His political career is finished anyway and the public speaking and private sectors that will bankroll the rest of his days won't care about any firearm legislation that he enacts. I guess my point is every politician local, state and federal that answers to you as a constituant needs to hear from you. Even the ones (and in some ways especially the ones) who you know would vote for this, or similar, legislation. They need to understand that their job will be on the line if they follow their party agenda as opposed to their constituants agenda. It may not bother the president much but everyone else wants to keep their jobs after the next election.

Now that is frighting........

Letters sent and forwarded to all my non-sheeple friends and family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErnieNWillis

There is an estimated 90 million gun owners in the US right? They better start building more federal prisons.

---

Unfortunely, if America would ever ban all weapons the overwhelming majority of gun owners will freely turn them in.... Main reason, obeying a law they might not agree with is better than going to prison.....

Something else we need to keep in mind.... Prohibition comes up often as an argument against more gun controls. While the argument is valid it means nothing. The mood of the country at that point in time wanted it and it happened regardless of the arguments against it then. Prohibition lasted 13 years during which the criminal empire grew due to Prohibition. Taking Senator Feinstein's proposed bill lightly could be a fatal mistake. I seen where some elected Washington officials that are pro 2nd amendment wavering(or starting to) with statements that usually come from the anti gun folks. Such as "I don't not see a need for such weapons you can't use them to hunt." While they might support 2nd amendment causes they do not seem to grasp it. The 2nd amendment does not say the people have a right to keep and bear certain weapons. The part of the amendment giving the people the right to keep and bear arms literally means the "arms(weapons) of the day". Meaning whatever arms the aggressor(be it "bad guys" or a tyrannical government). The writers of the Bill of Rights were not so naive to believe arms(weapons) would not change. Yet over the years Congress, Supreme Court and state law makers have made a mockery out of "... shall not be infringed." Shame on the lot of them. If the founding fathers were alive they would be taking the lot of them "out behind the woodshed" rightfully so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowman

Unfortunely, if America would ever ban all weapons the overwhelming majority of gun owners will freely turn them in.... Main reason, obeying a law they might not agree with is better than going to prison.....

---

I fear you are totally right there... Most citizens are law abiding or otherwise need only to see a police officer hint at losing patience with us to fold like origami and comply..that's the truth of it.

It strikes me as tyrannical to even suggest banishing those few arms that give us any fighting chance of upholding what the spirit of the 2nd amendment intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAm_Not_Lost

Just to clear something up that was said in the video; our conceal carry handguns won't fall under the ban as long as they don't have a threaded muzzle or other military features exc. exc. Her legislation states a detachable magazine and one military characteristic (instead of two like the last AWB in 94'), thus, your standard Glock or other common handgun will be fine. I am in no way defending her, but I feel we should get our facts straight just as much as they should. Great video as usual MAC.

I drafted and sent a letter to my congressmen and senators, and I hope if they get enough they will change their minds. I emphasized how many voters were gun owners, as I think that might hit home.

---

I hope to see this bill in detail but as of the writing of this I understand it to also include handguns that can accept magazines (fixed or removable) in excess of 10 rounds, also in addition there are make/model of firearms stated plainly, exclusions of 1-military feature as opposed to 2 (tossing out a useless bone no doubt).

She intends to have us with derringers, revolvers, lever guns and bolt-action rifles.. She seems to want to roll back civilian access to firearms back 150-years. This seems a ready focus on everything semi-automatic with a removable magazine. She even suggested some device or change in a trigger that would forcefully slow down its rate of fire because at present even with semi-autos you can shoot as quickly as you can pull the trigger so the discharge of lots and lots of bullets that could harm innocents is still a great concern..

I still hear her say nothing whatsoever about mental health services..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowman

...The part of the amendment giving the people the right to keep and bear arms literally means the "arms(weapons) of the day". Meaning whatever arms the aggressor(be it "bad guys" or a tyrannical government). The writers of the Bill of Rights were not so naive to believe arms(weapons) would not change. Yet over the years Congress, Supreme Court and state law makers have made a mockery out of "... shall not be infringed." Shame on the lot of them. If the founding fathers were alive they would be taking the lot of them "out behind the woodshed" rightfully so.

---

Oh, I don't think they'd be taking them "out behind the woodshed."

More then likely they'd be lining them up against a wall with blindfolds!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pearl

I hope to see this bill in detail but as of the writing of this I understand it to also include handguns that can accept magazines (fixed or removable) in excess of 10 rounds, also in addition there are make/model of firearms stated plainly, exclusions of 1-military feature as opposed to 2 (tossing out a useless bone no doubt).

---

While you may be correct, I don't read it that way. Her law is based on the 94' AWB format, with some additions. One of those additions is the fact that it now only takes having a detachable magazine, AND 1 military feature to be considered an 'assault weapon'. The keyword is "and". So as long as your handgun is just a standard run of the mill handgun it will not fall under the assault weapon category. Again, while you may be correct, I have done quite a bit of research on this and that is how I read it. Either way it sucks.

Here's a shorter version of the video, literally 1/2 the duration. It should be friendlier for sharing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj1PycmPEXI

Sent my letter.