They're at it again ... new AWB on table

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Zundfolge, Feb 14, 2007.

  1. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    294
    2
    18
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

    not up on Thomas.loc.gov yet

    I wonder what goodies this bitch has planned under the title of "and for other purposes"



    GOD I'm getting tired.
     
  2. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    Thanks Zundfolge for letting us know what McCarthy is up to now.

    Sent her a message through her website encouraging her to reconsider her support for another piece of "assault weapon" ban legislation.

    Don't expect it to make a difference, but...

    I am writing to encourage you to reconsider your support for legislation banning "assault weapons". All weapons by their very nature can be used to assault others. It doesn't matter to the victim if the blow comes from a rock to the back of the head or a piece of lead or the bumper of a vehicle.

    Every day millions of people safely handle 1 ton plus vehicles capable of mass destruction without using them to kill others, unfortunately there are a few exceptions but the solution to road rage and negligence does not lie in banning cars it lies in holding people responsible for their actions. There are millions of firearms in this country, we should prosecute those who misuse them not those who possess them.

    It might be nice to think that banning rocks and other assault weapons will prevent people from killing each other but it won't. We must encourage personal responsibilty and accountability in this country and stop blaming inanimate objects and giving killers excuses.
     

  3. Notice that there are no co-sponsers for this bill.

    This thing will die in committee.

    I mean I will not put it past the Democrats to sink themselves for the 2008 election with an anti-Second Amendment bill, but even President Bill Clinton acknowledged that the gun lobby lead to the 1994 Republican victory.

    I think the Democrats are going to try and play it safe with firearms or at least I hope they have an interest in self-preservation.

    The import thing is to find out what committe it goes in front of and then try to email the members so that it dies.

    We've got something we didn't have in the 1990s (to this extent) the internet.

    Thanks for the post.
     
  4. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    looks as if this abomination is starting to get a little traction - nearly 10% of the House has signed on as co sponsors and it has moved out of the judiciary committee. Here's hoping it stalls and withers away.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ct_of_2007
     
  5. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    We'll see how much lying the "Blue Dog" Democrats were doing in their campaigns when they said they were "conservative" and "pro-gun".
     
  6. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    367
    0
    0
    I heard from my gun dealer that the federal government is planning on banning 5.7mm and .17HMR ammo because it is armor piercing. I didn't do any research, but has anyone else heard this?
     
  7. Syntax360

    Syntax360 Premium Member

    5,073
    13
    0
    There has been chatter about banning those calibers even since their introduction. I wouldn't think anything of it.
     
  8. FlaChef

    FlaChef Guest

    somewhwere over on THR political forms there is a link to this bill to ban the 5.7 and "other" A.P. rounds as defined by..."?".

    It has been introduced and is worded very open ended.
     
  9. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    1,791
    10
    38
    they only pierce armor when they're fired at armor.

    and firing them at someone wearing body armor is allready illegal.

    why do we need new laws when we can't enforce the ones we have?

    what we should do is ban sportscars. what's the point of having a vehicel capable of handling adequately at 150 mph+? they only exist to endanger those who use the road responsibly!!

    every car should be governed to a top speed of 75 mph. that would save 10x more lives than any gun ban of any type.

    try getting that bill through congress.

    as i read it, the 2A is all about the people's right to defend themselves from a tyranical gov't. if the tyranical gov't is going to wear body armor, shouldn't we be allowed the opportunity to defend ourselves effectively?

    this stuff makes me sick.
     
  10. squirrelpotpie

    squirrelpotpie Premium Member

    338
    0
    16
    Absolutely!

    Hopefully, most people will realize this is just another attempt by the gun grabbers to exploit ignorance and create needless fear in the minds of those folks who don't realize that most high powered hunting cartridges will pierce armor and that armor piercing capability has existed for generations. shucks, I've seen 60+ year old lake city out of my M1 go though steel plate like it was going through butter.
     
  11. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    McCarthy's latest gun grab

    Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-Fang Gun Owners-New York) has come up with an end run for her latest gun grab that has already passed the House and might sneak it's way through the Senate without even a vote. And even the NRA has signed on!

    Here's the whole story: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/06/gun_control_bill_not_the_solut.php
     
  12. SELFDEFENSE

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    3,816
    31
    48
    This republic is in serious trouble when legislators can end-run the citizens with cute parlimentary devices and not fear reprisal.
     
  13. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    Just got this from NRA-ILA explaining the NRA position on the bill.

    http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2147.2.3013175
     
  14. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    2,652
    2
    0
    NICS Update

    Just got the following update on the NICS bill from NRA-ILA. It's a bit long, but gives the myths vs. truths on it all.