1. Check out the Hot Deals section of the Marketplace forum to order an official Mossbergowners.com hat.

Dems introduce bill

Discussion in 'Gun Rights, Fights and Rallies' started by John A., Dec 17, 2015.

  1. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    15,030
  2. aksavanaman

    aksavanaman Work In Progress... Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    2,828
    Not that we shouldn't be concerned about crap like this being entertained, but I doubt it'll make it past the Senate floor. That said, I have no freaking clue how a person with some common sense would think that an "assault weapon ban" would have prevented ISIS followers from committing their atrocities in CA. We could have seen folks being run over in the streets with cars like in Israel just the same. Evil people exist, and will always exist. No one can guarantee our safety but ourselves, period.
  3. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Messages:
    8,340
    You could slaughter people as fast with a modern shotgun in a closed room.
  4. Rossignol

    Rossignol The Original Sheriff Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator Sponsor

    Messages:
    12,758
    Wonderful.
  5. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    15,030
    It's always been about control. Not about terrorism.
    aksavanaman and carbinemike like this.
  6. carbinemike

    carbinemike Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    6,021
    I think they are trying to keep guns in the news as well as have ammo (no pun intended) for the election next year..."see, we tried but the evil republicans and the NRA won't let us enact common sense gun laws to keep weapons of war out of the hands of terrorists".
    ripjack13 and SHOOTER13 like this.
  7. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    15,030
    If they want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists "they" should stop giving terrorists guns.

    If they don't want terrorists to attack in America, they should stop letting them in America.

    If they're afraid of terrorists sneaking in and attacking, they should close the border.

    But it's not about that. Like I said, It's about control.

    Hold your breath, while many think it will never happen in a Republican controlled senate, don't be surprised if it's not hidden in the back of a last minute snuck in rider in a must pass bill 2 minutes before the close of Congress after most politicians have already went home.
  8. TJ Johnson

    TJ Johnson 20g

    Messages:
    608
    ^^^^^^+ Amen brother!!!!
  9. aksavanaman

    aksavanaman Work In Progress... Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    2,828
    True True. And here I thought our great big government was there to help and protect us... :eek:
    carbinemike likes this.
  10. Deog

    Deog .30-06 BANNED

    Messages:
    1,135


    This is true, and is criminal. Sneaking some reg, hidden in a bill, buried where no one sees it deep in a boring section expected to be skipped. One bill passed, passes many, many regulations, this should never happen, all need to be passed individually.
    ripjack13 and carbinemike like this.
  11. MikeD

    MikeD I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    11,942
  12. carbinemike

    carbinemike Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    6,021
    The republican house can't be trusted either. The budget that was just passed will fund all of Obama's efforts through next September. The republicans didn't fight for squat for us. Boehner out and Ryan in. Meet the new speaker of the house...same as the old speaker of the house. I have no doubt they will pass his pacific trade pact as well as the "global warming" agreement that came out of Paris.
    SHOOTER13 and Rossignol like this.
  13. yz9890

    yz9890 .270 WIN

    Messages:
    202
    The empty suit that proposed the bill said he wants to get guns that are specifically designed to efficiently kill people out of the hands of the general public. What does he think the 2nd Amendment is about? If the amendment is in place to protect a person's ability to protect himself and fight foreign or domestic enemies then how would restricting that person's ability to do that not fly in the face of the entire amendment? It's like leaving the religious freedom protections in place yet restricting what religions a person is "free" to follow.

    Either he's one of those that thinks it's all about hunting or he understands what it's about and doesn't care.

    He should start working on the 28th amendment to repeal the 2nd or jump off a cliff.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    John A., aksavanaman and Kadelic like this.
  14. aksavanaman

    aksavanaman Work In Progress... Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    2,828
    Just like John said in his other thread... they would never be able to outright repeal the 2A (yet), but little by little, pen stroke by pen stroke, our 2A rights will be whittled away with this restriction and that type "ban"... and before you know it, nothing will be left.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2015
    ripjack13 and John A. like this.
  15. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    15,030
    I'm glad that you realized the entire point behind the other topic.
    ripjack13 and aksavanaman like this.
  16. aksavanaman

    aksavanaman Work In Progress... Supporter "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    2,828
    Contrary to popular belief, us "bigoted-gun-toting-right-wing-nut-jobs" are actually quite intelligent and can understand metaphors. I thunk some ur us even been edumacted;)
    carbinemike and John A. like this.
  17. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    15,030
    "“Now, let’s remember that assault weapons were first designed for the battlefield by Germans during the Second World War,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), The sole purpose of their existence was to kill as many people as quickly as possible during military combat."

    The example used in one of the articles about assault weapons being created in Germany to kill as many people as possible is factually misrepresentative.

    The firearm he was referring to was an STG44 which was a *fully automatic* machinegun that fired an intermediate cartridge larger than what we consider to be pistol rounds even though there had been machineguns in use by virtually every country in the world decades prior to Hitlers rise to power and California's "assault weapon" is not the same weapon as the Reps here are claiming, so they're trying to classify as many weapons as possible on misconceptions and "half-truths" in order to confuse and mislead the public at large which doesn't understand or even know they are not the same type of firearms at all.

    Germany's Sturmgewehr or "storm rifle" as Adolf Hitler referred to it was nothing like what Rep. Cicilline is referring to.

    Germany- "major gun reforms were passed in 1919, 1920, 1928, 1931, and 1938. Second, Hitler wouldn’t even have needed such a measure because of strict licensing laws that had already been passed under the Weimar Republic — ironically, designed to disarm the Nazis and Communists who were shooting each other in the streets, and prevent an armed coup d’état such as Hitler’s 1923 “Beer Hall Putsch.”
    http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...on-gun-registration-conquest-and-disarmament/

    Just to go on the record, the Nazi's took advantage of the laws passed prior to them gaining power to keep those that opposed them disarmed by their own laws that they passed themselves, which naturally removed the ability of all their citizens to protect themselves and made Auschwitz and other death camps and mass genocide not only a possibity, but stark reality. You would be foolish to believe that the Nazi's didn't systematically kill anyone that opposed them whether they had German lineage or not.

    On a related note, the U.S.A. has also banned guns from people before. But you will be hard pressed to read about it in history books, but native americans were told to lay down their arms, and they would be taken care of. And thus, the Ghost Dance was outlawed because it "scared" people, and an entire indigenous civilization was nearly wiped off the face of the earth.

    Here's a little more about that to anyone who wants to believe that "it won't happen here". Newsflash, it already has and will again if we allow it.

    I will not.

  18. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 Guest

    A citizen with a firearm is a free man...but, without the ability to fight tyranny... he is nothing but a slave to be manipulated at will.
    Rossignol and MikeD like this.
  19. yz9890

    yz9890 .270 WIN

    Messages:
    202
    I agree. 2/3 congress and 3/4 states isn't going to happen. What I mean to say is that when the object of a bill is absolutely to infringe upon a constitutional protected right, they should be made to deal directly with the specific amendment rather than rewriting Webster's dictionary. If they don't like the amendment, there's a clearly defined way to address it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  20. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Messages:
    8,340
    Great. Now owning an AR proves that you're a NAZI! (according to the libs.)

    Idiots!

    We won the war because we had FAR more guys shooting army guns than the Germans had shooting army guns.

    If this surprises anyone, they are probably surprised when the sun comes up in the morning.

    If anything, it proves we are AMERICANS!

Share This Page