Author Topic: Assault Weapons Ban (Read 996 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:28:30 PM »

Bodhi, the law specifically bans the M1 Carbine by name.

Hawklore · « **Reply #31 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:34:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
The bill basically grandfather's in the M1 carbine, and the Garand

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.

The M1 Garand, IS NOT an antique firearm.

Title 18, Section 921(a)(16) then defines "antique firearm" as follows:

"The term 'antique firearm' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; and
(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica -
(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade."

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:53:54 AM »

They are trying to ban all semi auto firearms... that would include any semi auto pistol, rifle or shotgun regardless of its ammo capacity.

They will then go after pumps and revolvers just like in england... england is their model.

single shots will then be severely limited until a defacto ban on all firearms is achieved.

That is the true intent of democrats make no mistake. I can do every bit as much damage with 150 year old single shot and revolver black powder arms... I can penetrate armored glass with a 45-70 better than a modern "assault rifle" round.

There is no way that they can stop at any single type of firearm if they are honest in believing that some firearms are "too dangerous"

When you duck shooters and "democrats for gun rights" figure that out and get angry at the restrictions we will all be a lot better off.

lazs

john9001 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:21:39 AM »

lazs is right , the ultimate goal is to ban all guns one step at a time.

i remember when one anti-gun law was passed they said "it was a great FIRST STEP".

in pre WW2 germany the govt asked for all guns to be registered in the interest of safety and law and order (sound familiar), after the nazis came into power the lists fell to them and they just went around and picked up the guns, then they went around and picked up the unarmed people.

Maverick · « **Reply #34 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:02:03 PM »

It never ceases to amaze me that folks think it's their obligation to punish many for the acts of a few. If this kind of trend continues we'll need permission to venture outside of our homes as restrictions on moving about are enabled to "protect us from harm." Think of the children we'll save if we just keep them inside and off of the streets!

lazs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2007, 02:47:12 PM »

well said maverick.. we now think that since we are such socialists that we have an "investment" in everything that each of us does... the expense (taxes) we pay is our excuse to meddle in everyone elses business and take away their rights as individuals.

lazs

Bodhi · « **Reply #36 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:06:46 PM »

Did any of you look at the proposed legislation before this was final? She (McCathy) did intend there not to be a "grandfater clause". That was quickly quashed though.

My thought on this are that it is still too broad and sweeping and will not survive the legislation process as it stands. That still does not mean that I am not going to voice my opinion regarding this attempt to violate my 2nd Ammendment rights.

LePaul · « **Reply #37 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:47:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
It never ceases to amaze me that folks think it's their obligation to punish many for the acts of a few. If this kind of trend continues we'll need permission to venture outside of our homes as restrictions on moving about are enabled to "protect us from harm." Think of the children we'll save if we just keep them inside and off of the streets!

Well said

Geez, you should read the debates between Toad and Beetle on my forums. Beet just things every American is a ticking time bomb with an Uzi

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:59:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
Well said

Geez, you should read the debates between Toad and Beetle on my forums. Beet just things every American is a ticking time bomb with an Uzi

Don't invoke its name, it may ooze from the sleazy places it hangs out at.

Maverick · « **Reply #39 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:06:07 PM »

LePaul,

I learned a long time ago that beetle was a broken record. I don't waste any time with him and am rather glad he's no longer here.

Hawklore · « **Reply #40 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:21:43 PM »

My weapons will be removed from me by force.. not by law.