Democrats attempt to renew assault weapons ban. Truth about H.R.1022

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brett636, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    Now that the democrats are back in power they have already picked up where they left off back in 1994 regarding restricting our rights to certain fire arms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired in 2004, and now that the dems are back in power they are attempting to renew and expand the original bill. This has no sunset clause, and covers a much broader spectrum of weapons than the 1994 AWB. Here is a news article about it.

    If this angers you as much as me please write your congressman/woman and tell them to vote no to this bill. Its currently in committee and is gaining steam picking up several co-sponsors both democrat and republican. Our president has said he would renew such a ban if it comes across his desk and it looks like this is the first serious attempt at doing so. Go to and tell your representative to vote NO to H.R. 1022 should it ever hit the house floor.
  2. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    If it does pass, do not count on the President to veto it. After all, he wanted to renew the 1994 AWB in 2004:
    WorldNetDaily: Gun-control senators cheer Bush
    As I Predicted, G.W. Bush Is Backing the Clinton Gun Ban
  3. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    And where is the ACLU when someone really needs them? My guess is they are out breaking the crosses of graves or in court defending child rapists.
  4. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator

    Yes, I agree with you.
    The real focus in the future(IMHO) will be banning certain types of bullets, if not all. A backdoor approach to fullfill the goal.
    I truly believe that guns do not kill people. It is the person that pulls the trigger.
  5. canon

    canon Member

    I'm surprised the "gun-ownership-isn't-a-right" crowd hasn't shown up yet.
  6. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    I truly believe that guns do not kill people. It is the person that pulls the trigger.

    Has a gun ever killed a person without another person pulling the trigger???
  7. canon

    canon Member

    Cool... I love questions with 50/50 odds. I'm going to say yes.

    In cases of suicide "another person" does not pull the trigger, yet someone dies.
  8. CTOTH

    CTOTH Not retired, just tired

    The law clearly states that we have the RIGHT to bear arms. Those people have no valid argument. Buy your AKs & SKS's now.
  9. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    I'm impressed you are the only one that caugt the trick question.
  10. This bill has no chance of getting out of committee.

    It should be noted that Rep. McCarthy is elected to represent her district, and has the support of her constituents. Her platform consisted mainly of gun control, and she was overwhelmingly reelected.

    It should also be noted that Rep. McCarthy had her husband murdered and her son severely wounded by a crazy man with a gun. This prompted the life long Republican to run for Congress a a liberal Democrat.
  11. tonyexpress

    tonyexpress Whac-A-Troll Patrol Staff Member

    A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. :wink:

    Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
  12. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator

    Yes it has.
    Dropping it while loaded has led to alot of fatal incidents. So remember to always keep a a firm grip.
  13. canon

    canon Member

    I'm insulted that you're impressed that I caught it. In addition to building an immunity to Iocane powder, I also studied the intricacies of backhanded compliments.
  14. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    Get out of here. I would not insult you, I thought we had a relationship. You know mutual respect for one another. Now you I'm crushed again. I'm starting to feel like an ex-wife.
  15. canon

    canon Member

    Terms of endearment... we're as close as ever.[​IMG]
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned


    I've always supported a persons right to bear arms to defend his property and family but I have a hard time justifying ownership of assault weapons.
  17. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    It must be the word "assault". It makes it sound as if the only use of the weapon would be to that must make it the wrong choice for defense. But what is an assault weapon? There is no single, one-size-fits-all answer...until it is legislated.

    It's strange how words can bend our thoughts. When politicians talk about "exploring for oil" it's like a man talking about exploring a woman's body. You know they are really talking about drilling.

    Back to the 2nd Amendment: Caroline Kennedy enlightened me about the 2nd Amendment in one of her many books about the US Constitution. She pointed out that most everyone interprets the 2nd Amendment in one manner, and all the other Amendments in the opposite manner. That is, those who say it grants gun rights narrowly - to the military only - usually interpret all the other Amendments as granting rights broadly - even to non-citizens, women, non-Christians, non-whites and other groups that have not been allowed to exercise these rights at some time. Those who say the 2nd Amendment grants broad rights usually interpret the other Amendments as granting limited rights.

    She also pointed out that some ACLU officials have admitted that they should fight for 2nd Amendment rights, but their membership tends to be from the "narrow-interpretation-of-2nd/broad-interpretation-of-the-other-24ish" camp. [I do not recall if she pointed out that the 2nd Amendment is defended by an organization with 10 times as many members as the ACLU. I think she did not point out that the ACLU does not deal with some of the other Amendments that have larger organizations supporting them. For example, the 18th is defended by MADD (about 7 times as many members as ACLU) and the 21st by business interests.]

    That chapter about the 2nd Amendment made me think she had come to realize that her own stance had been flawed - that she had been reading the Amendments inconsistently. But she did not come out and say it. It was the shortest chapter in the book.
  18. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    "...but I have a hard time justifying ownership of assault weapons."

    Here in The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, I can only have a 10 round clip in my carry gun. Otherwise it would be an "assault weapon". What a crock of sh**! Gun companies actually make special reduced clips for Massachusetts. Makes me proud to be a resident.

    Criminals and police officers can have whatever they want, but the law-abiding citizen trying to protect his family is restricted to 10 shots.

    Makes me ill.
  19. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    I guess N. New Englanders just have to be more precise shooters, huh?
  20. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    People who use them in legal ways, or as a part of a collection. And that is the only people it will affect.

    The loser on the street, spraying an assault, multi shot weapon, into a group of people on a street corner, is the only ones who will have them, and they are the reason your rights to bear are being infringed upon.

    We had a zero tolerance in the town where I deliver for about 30 days, cops everywhere, city and ohio state troopers, the streets were bare. Guess what? back to 100% tolerance in the last few days, havent seen a cop, crime as usual.. and another gang member dead, how sad, Not, wish they would all just kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.
    I was never scared of an assault rifle owned by a legal gun owner.