This is a discussion on HR 1022 has 41 co-sponsors now within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by OPFOR How can she be a 2A supporter AND a co-sponsor of this garbage? This statement caught me off guard as well, ...
"I surrounded 'em"- Alvin York
"They're ain't many troubles that a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six"- Jeff Cooper
Ahh... I get it now, thanks :)
"You can't shake the devils hand and say you were only kidding"
lucky 13 from my home state of Kalifornia. And I do write my legislature to let them know I'm not happy with them screwing me over BOHICA!!!!
To those that paid for my freedom,
I WILL NEVER FORGET.
As with all statements I've made and All that I will make, please check your local laws to verify accuracy. (and if i'm wrong let me know as I like to be right in the future) After all I'm just some goofball posting on an internet forum.
As for the first, Rep Ginny Brown-Waite has always been pro-2A. She was a part of those who pushed for civil liability immunity for gun and ammo manufacturers (S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act).
The representative I've contacted is not one of the names you will find on that list of co-sponsors for HR 1022. She is someone, though, who will have the ability to put her voice against it, and I'm giving her as much ammo as I can for when she does.
ETA: Aaaah, I think I see the confusion. I didn't notice that you were in Colorado, I was talking about Florida.
Thanks for the clarification, BAC...I was a might bit confused there...
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
If that's the case, then I fear that the people are in dire danger from their own police forces, who have these weapons and more (they have FULL AUTO!!). I mean, surely we don't want the police having the ability to "kill more people, more quickly," because those people would be "The People"!! Please, Ms. Slaughter, pass legislation right away that would ban the police from having these very same killing machines -- unless you disagree and feel that it is the job of the police to be executioners.The Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, reported that,"assault rifles were originally developed to provide a lighter infantry weapon that could fire more rounds, more rapidly." In short, they were intended to kill more people, more quickly.
Um, the weapons are already IN the neighborhoods. Do you plan to also suspend the 4th Amendment and enable police to just rove through homes at will to seize these weapons?I am one of several cosponsors of H.R. 1022 because it will keep military-style assault weapons out of our neighborhoods and ensure that law enforcement is not outgunned by criminals wielding weapons of war.
When these terrorists can get abundant ammunition and AK-47s from arms bazaars in the middle east, why on earth would they come here where they cannot even get full-auto weapons, and where they will pay far more for whatever they do get?After the fall of Kabul in November 2001, a document found in a safe house entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad?" advised readers of the ripe availability of assault weapons in the United States.
Because you either deliberately or ignorantly equate them with full-auto weapons. But whether you really mean our semi-autos or not, you cannot demonstrate where these weapons are used in a large number of crimes and killings; and you cannot demonstrate that your pathetic "ban" attempts actually keep criminals from getting firearms for crime. Your disingenuous attempt at citing statistics ignores the fact that even before the 1994 ban, "assault weapons" were used in a vanishingly small percentage of gun crimes in the first place. And since they never did go away (as you yourself point out when you metion "after ban" guns), how can you claim that the assault ban worked? Evidently, since you admit that the guns all came back with cosmetic modifications and identical actions, you cannot credit the ban for the drop in assault weapon crime that you cite. You lying, sick, diseasedThe very firearms that the new Assault Weapons Ban would prohibit are those that make aiming and spraying large amounts of bullets simpler.
Well put, PJ. If only logic worked....
Ima have to transition to faxes, phone calls, and snail mail (read: all three). The "Write Your Representative" option of the US House of Rep's website (allows you to email a message to your Rep) simply isn't working for me. Gets as far as the message, hit submit message, error screen, screeches of annoyance and poop throwing ensues...
Man, do I have a headache... and my stomach doesn't feel too well, either.
Apparently it DID go through... the website is just bonkers. (Who knew, the poo-throwing mighta worked!)
Originally Posted by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite
Maybe she meant that only criminals will now have them in the hoods or that it'll keep them out of law abiding citizens hands.
Then she mentioned that it'll lessen violent crime both domestically and internationally.
Wonder if she knows what % of muslims in foreign countries have full auto assault rifles?
BAC, you are very lucky to have a woman representing you like that. I just wish Moran was a bit more intelligent.