There is no AWB because...
This is a discussion on There is no AWB because... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So other than Ms. McCarthy's definition in H.R. 1022, what is an assault weapon? Hand me that spoon over there and I can use it ...
February 26th, 2007 05:56 AM
There is no AWB because...
So other than Ms. McCarthy's definition in H.R. 1022, what is an assault weapon? Hand me that spoon over there and I can use it as a weapon to assualt you...Get the idea right...I know me = preacher...everyone here = choir...Anyway...
Please call this the military style rifle ban, the military looking rifle ban, the black rifle ban or something along those lines.
We are letting the anti-rights people frame the debate and the terminology of the debate. If we start using AWB or assault weapons as a term then we will lose again. We were lucky last time in that there was an expiration on it. This time she has proposed it with no expiration.
Thank you...I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.
February 26th, 2007 10:08 AM
the most profoundly stupid thing about this "military style rifle ban" is its direct contradiction to us v miller (1939) which many anti-gunners have used in the past. facts don't seem to matter much these days, no matter what stance you have on a subject...
February 26th, 2007 10:54 AM
VIP Member (Retired Staff)
Indeed they don't - fiction, hype and spin is soooo much more successfull
Facts don't seem to matter much these days
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member. "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."http://www.rkba-2a.com/
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
February 26th, 2007 02:24 PM
Exactly. According to the Miller case, a sawed-off shotgun was not protected for keeping and bearing because (in the court's ill-informed view) it was not a weapon suitable for military use (even though it saw use in trench warfare). So a gun that was not useful to the military is not allowed.
Originally Posted by echo5tango
Now McCarthy says that guns that ARE useful to the military are not allowed.
There is no rational sense to what gun-prohibitionists believe. We have always known that.
February 26th, 2007 02:38 PM
spin is just another word for lie. Any thing can be used as a weapon.
February 26th, 2007 11:32 PM
Doesnt matter if you call it a potato and I call it a potato its still a potato!They not only want to ban Military Looking weapons but also Rifles with detachable mags.Sound like maybe Remington 760 Some Brownings,Savage bolt action and a few others that do come in a military caliber How bout Military AMMO could that also be included.308 caliber We Need to stick together instead of bickering and send as many letters as you can to as many representatives as you can.GET THE WORD OUT.Remember the Red Coats are coming
March 5th, 2007 07:43 PM
March 5th, 2007 11:26 PM
Its not about "assault weapons".
Its about a piecemeal attempt to ban the private ownership of weapons.
One class of gun at at time.
Need instructions of how it happens ?
Look for the "how to" in Britain,Canada or Australia.
The antis will never stop until their goal is accomplished. Whether it takes 1 year or 1 decade is irrelevant.
hecks...the next step towards registration and confiscation.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/
March 7th, 2007 11:29 AM
Its all about guns!!! They want them all!!! Steve48
March 8th, 2007 12:30 PM
Convicted felons are allowed to vote in at least 38 states. They are one of the largest voting blocs in the Democrat scalawag constituency. Liberal Democrats do pander to criminals.
March 12th, 2007 08:35 PM