Kawasaki ZX-10R Forum banner

1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know a lot of the guys on this forum also share an interest in firearms. Found this and thought I'd pass it along.



Though this is news from last week, it requires aggressive action in terms of contacting your political representatives...

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

- Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

- Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

- All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

- All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

- Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

- Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

- 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Taken from another forum, ar15.com.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
363 Posts
That is the most ridiculous shit I've ever heard!!! Where did you get that information?? Don't think you're lying, the damn government will try to pass anything! Where did you hear this though?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Suzuk1ki11a said:
That is the most ridiculous shit I've ever heard!!! Where did you get that information?? Don't think you're lying, the damn government will try to pass anything! Where did you hear this though?

Remember the message(s) sent to Congress and the Republicans last November? Here is a small part of the fall out from that message.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
i love how a country that made itself was with working men and women with guns in their hands now wants to take them away so they make sure they run over us and have no way to protect ourselves against it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
DeepSix said:
i love how a country that made itself was with working men and women with guns in their hands now wants to take them away so they make sure they run over us and have no way to protect ourselves against it.

The real reason that the 2nd Amendment was written.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Well damn it they aint gettin my old daisy......lol i'm sure they would find a way to make that one illegal too.....lol

As for that bill....Fawk that!!! unless they do a sweep of my house , what they dont know wont hurt them...or me for that matter...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
ninja2k5 said:
The proposed law. Thought that would be a lil obvious. Sorry for your confusion.

Thought so from previous posts by you. Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment can get the blood boiling in some folks pretty easily. Sometimes I wonder what will happen to the 1st Amendment once the 2nd is outlawed.:dontknow:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Funny thing, last week talking w/ the co-workers about another assault rifle ban. Outlawing a 10/22 is flatout moronic. Same could be said about a semi-auto shotgun, any small arms weapon for that matter.

Next thing, we were talking about is the government outlawing concealed carry. I have a gut feeling thats coming soon in my state.

As most people know, they can ban whatever they want.....criminals arent affected by this, law abiding Americans are.
 

·
Bloo Moderator
Joined
·
23,742 Posts
What's with all the up roar about, it's just a Bill proposed it's not LAW. :dontknow:...if there is major proof it will pass then I understand but if not well......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
And after the guns are banned, then outlawed, then confiscated. What's next? You're NRA membership be declared as proof of belonging to a subversive and dangerous organization? :dontknow:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,624 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
bluedevil said:
What's with all the up roar about, it's just a Bill proposed it's not LAW. :dontknow:...if there is major proof it will pass then I understand but if not well......

By the time there is "major proof" that it will pass, then it will be even harder to derail it. Now is the time to put a stop to this.
What if they (Congress) decided that you (the general public) were an endangerment to yourself on a motorcycle. Mopeds and scooters are acceptable because they lack the extreme capacity for speed and breaking the law that larger "sport bikes" have. You would still be able to ride on two wheels, so what's the beef? What if they proposed the Motorcycle Self Protection Act of 2007? Wouldn't you be screaming at the top of your lungs even while it was just a proposal and not a law? Don't you think that the Congress of the United States can take better care of you and your life than you, a commoner, can?
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
Top