Off Topic But Important

peter nap

peter nap

Joined
Nov 27, 1999
Messages
3,745
As a knife maker I am concerned with losing the right to make and own weapons. Today we are hours away from the most disgusting attack on our RKBA that has ever happened........going away. That of course is the Assault Weapons Ban.

The Anti's have planned a Call In on the 9th to extend the ban. Many Pro Gun groups are urging a counter call in. I have attached email on the subject.

I hope all of us whether we are assault rifle people ( I am not really) will call and let our representatives know that we don't want to lose this part of the constitution.

Thanks and here's the email.
Moderators, I've never posted over here so if there is a better place, please move it.


Various gun organizations are reporting that the antis are going to
try one last push to get President Bush and Congress to cave in and
pass an extension to the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).

They are planning a large call-in on September 9th.

We are so close to actually watching the AWB monstrosity die on
September 13th that we probably shouldn't take any chances.

Thanks to Bob Marcellus for making sure the information on the
call-in was brought to my attention and to the Second Amendment
Sisters for an alert they sent out.

Find your representatives at the following links:

Congress - http://www.house.gov/writerep/ (You'll be able to send
email directly from this page.)

Senate - Call Senator George Allen at 202-224-4024. That is the
quickest and best way to contact him for this. However, if you wish
to send an email, click here:

http://allen.senate.gov/?c=email&which=Standard

If you know who your representatives are, you can call the Capitol
Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be transferred to their
offices.

Also, you can leave a message for President Bush, asking him to let
the AWB die. Here is his phone number (from 9 AM to 5 PM):

202-456-1111

Email: president@whitehouse.gov

Suggested message:

"Please let the Assault Weapons Ban sunset on September 13th. The ban
has had 10 years to show its worth, but has failed to do so. Recent
studies by the CDC and others have shown the ban to be totally
ineffective against crime.

Let me know what you are going to do."

VCDL, let's make sure that our voices drown out those who don't
believe in our precious freedoms! An important victory is almost
within reach - a roll-back of the AWB will be a well-deserved
crushing blow to the Brady Bunch and their cronies.

 
I'm going to copy this thread to a couple of other forums -- let's get the word out!

Don't just paste in the suggested message; put it in your own words even if it's only a slight difference. That will make them take your message a lot more seriously.
 
wow!......thanks Peter & Cougar.
 
Before I ask this, I'd just like to point out that I have no problems with gun ownership. In fact, I myself am considering applying for a firearms license (if I can stomach the 2 year wait!!!).

Why should assault rifle ownership be allowed.

I ask this as an honest question. I'm not asking a question where I have already formed an opinion or trying to make a case for pro or anti.

I truly hope I'm not creating a flaming situation.
 
Dave, the so called "assault rifles" that this law prohibits are not assault rifles. They are semi-automatic, one shot per trigger pull rifles that look similar to the real fully automatic, many shots per trigger pull weapons that many military's use. Like the M-16, AK-47 and several others. If it has a pistol grip stock, flash supressor, and a bayonet attachment, it is considered an assault weapon, even if it cannot fire full auto.
 
Well, first I should point out the "assault weapons" covered by that act are not in fact assault weapons. Machine guns, including assault weapons, are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1935 and that is not going to expire.

I'll answer the question anyway: Why should assault rifle ownership be allowed?

Citizens of a free country should not allow our employees to get out of hand and start thinking they're our rulers. We have three means of preventing that from happening: the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. :)

I could go into a lot of detail about why certain specific military weapons are important for the militia (the citizens) to have, and why some of our employees would like to deny us those weapons, but the specific details are not so important. We really need to get the debate away from specific details and back to the point: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
Well, back when they drafted the constitution, they realized that a standing army could be misused to keep the people in line, (as shown later by Hitler's SS in Nazi Germany). The founders didn't want a police state to develop under a tyrranical leader. So the best thing was to put the guns in the hands of the citizens, then levy militias and armies as needed.

The second amendment provides for this.

Soon after the signing in the 1770's, the US was tested by its first invasion, the War of 1812. The whitehouse was burned to the ground, many founders and their families were executed or imprisoned by the British. Private ownership of the finest mil-spec flintlocks of the day once again released the chains that opressors would have put around the colonist's neck.

During the cold war, the Russians did an analysis of a scenario where they could invade the US, but because of the wide range and proliferation of weapons among the populace (unlike most of Europe, which only allowed strong-armed armies, not the populace to have serious weapons), they decided to scrap the idea as a potential failure.

Before the onset of WWII, the Nazis labelled the Jews as terrorists, and made them reliquish their weapons, and disallowed them to obtain guns...made it much easier to exterminate them...

Thomas Jefferson, a brilliant man, once said "When the government fears the people, that is Liberty, when the People fear the Government, that is Tyranny."

Aside from the history lesson, some people collect guns as a hobby. Some shoot guns for sport, and some just want a really rugged, all purpose gun that will operate when it needs to, if it needs to, etc. Most mil spec guns are made to be more accurate, easier to clean and maintain, easier to get replacement parts for, etc., than more common "hunting" guns.

Plus, if the federal gov't gets weird, they will know that the populace is nearly as well armed (in small arms) as they are. The powerful .308 round will render any body armor ineffective, and most light cover as well.

I know personally about a dozen Russians, and some Russian Jews who have all immigrated here. ALL of them went right out and bought very serious guns, usually a handgun, rifle, and shotgun. When asked why, they said that they often lived in fear of their government, but to speak out against such opression could result in further opression, or diffculties for family and friends. For them, the gun is a mark of the free man, the last defense against whomever might come knocking with the intent to drag them out of their house in the middle of the night...

I have a buddy in the 1st marine expeditionary, an MP...in his line of work, he entered many a home or apartment in Iraq, and in all he saw AK-47s, RPGs, and grenades. The Iraqis said that these were to protect them from the Iraqi police! Truly an opressive place where such hardware is needed to 'protect you from the protectors".

To be honest, perhaps this sounds a bit far-fetched, but some immigrants have told me some horror stories ... The Jews trusted the in goodwill of the Germans to "do the right thing" in the 1930's and 40's, a trust soon betrayed...
 
Dave Hahn said:
Before I ask this, I'd just like to point out that I have no problems with gun ownership. In fact, I myself am considering applying for a firearms license (if I can stomach the 2 year wait!!!).

Why should assault rifle ownership be allowed.

I ask this as an honest question. I'm not asking a question where I have already formed an opinion or trying to make a case for pro or anti.

I truly hope I'm not creating a flaming situation.
Click to expand...

Dave, the mindset that says I cannot own a semi-auto rifle using 100 year old technology is the same mindset that says you have to wait 2 years and be LICENSED to exercise a right that predates the Constitution and is expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.

These SOB's who are for the "AW Ban" aren't against guns per se; they all own guns themselves, Brady, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Kennedy, Klinton, Rosie O'Donnell, etc., etc., ad nauseum. They all own guns, including so called "assault weapons." What they are against is YOU owning guns. (Funny, Sarah Brady of the Dog & Pony Brady show bought a hunting rifle for her son and violated her own law a couple of years ago! No charges were brought of course.)

Our only defense against these elitist bastards is our God-given right to own the tools necessary to overthrow a tyrannical Government if need be.

My tag line says it best. It's from the old Paul Revere Society BB on Compuserve (now I'm dating myself.) No one gives me permission to arm myself, especially not in the PRK. So I do so anyway when I go out at night. I carried for 3 years when I drove cab 20 years ago, in violation of the law, and it saved my life on at least one occassion and probably two. I carry now when I deem it necessary because I will not have my life weighed and found wanting by a bureaucrat, when virtually every friend of the Sheriff carries freely without even having to justify it. That's fine for them, but what about the rest of us without such connections?

You should stop and ask yourself if you would submit to a 2 year approval process of your words every time you wanted to write a letter to the editor. That puts a different angle on things, but most folks just go along with their other rights as guaranteed by the BOR being violated on a regular basis.

Thanks and regards,

Norm
 
NRA Endowment member, considering whether to upgrade to Patron.
 
Just got this today:

Lawmakers pledge to keep assault weapons out of Mich.

associated press

LANSING - State lawmakers said yesterday they will introduce
legislation to make
sure assault-style weapons aren't sold, bought, or manufactured in
Michigan.

Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D., Huntington Woods) said the bill would extend
protections
that are set to disappear next week when the 10-year-old federal
assault-weapons ban is to expire.

"These weapons are a threat to all Michigan citizens," Ms. Jacobs said.
"If
Congress fails to extend the ban, Michigan must take immediate action
to
protect our residents."

In March, congressional Republicans voted down their gun-maker immunity
bill
after the Democrats won an amendment to extend the federal
assault-weapons ban
beyond its expiration. The provisions caused the National Rifle
Association to
withdraw its support for the bill, and Senate Republican leaders
decided to
kill it.

The end of the ban would mean the gun industry could resume making,
importing,
and selling 19 types of military-style semiautomatic weapons.

Ms. Jacobs held a press conference Tuesday in Oak Park, where she was
joined by
Detroit Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings, State Rep. Bill McConico (D.,
Detroit), and victims of shootings involving assault weapons.

Ms. Jacobs said more than 180 law enforcement officials statewide
support
continuing the ban. Ten other states have implemented bans or
regulations on
assault weapons, she said.

Another reason I hate Michigan.
 
Jebadiah_Smith said:
Just got this today:

Lawmakers pledge to keep assault weapons out of Mich.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting that, I read it in the paper today and wanted to type it up to post here. Heres another one I wanted to post:

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the president's position "is clear."

"The president said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable," Fleischer said. "He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today."
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.gunban/index.html
 
Rusty said:
NRA Endowment member, considering whether to upgrade to Patron.
Click to expand...

Same here! I think they might have currently have some kind of discount going on the upgrade to Patron; at least I remember reading something recently about it. What is it after that? Benefactor?

N.
 
Just ask the Korean Grociers involved in defending their property during the LA riot if semi automatic handguns and rifles were of any sporting usefulness.






munk
 
Just made the mistake of watching ABC Nightline's "debate" on the assault weapons ban. They make statements and present proofs that don't even begin to function logically. They quote statistics that are not even a little applicable except for the fact that they have something vaguely to do with guns or dying or crime, and then they play off emotions with canned statements like "tell that to so and so's family!"(an actual quote there, people..) Even managed to mention Michael Moore in there somewhere. I don't understand how anyone with the mental capacity to tie their own shoe can not see that these are obvious logical dead ends. Like they're not even a street that reaches a dead end. They stop before they even begin based on textbook false premises that a 3rd grade science student could tear to pieces. How do people take this seriously? Need I mention the fact that the anti-ban side got to speak about 5% of the time and when they did they got interrupted constantly and cut off at misleading times? The only thing she really got out was (to paraphrase) "if the American people understood the reality of what the ban does and does not do, they would see it as worthless."

If they understood. Yeah that prettymuch gets right down to it. A lot of careers are riding on them not understanding.

Now I remember why the TV only gets turned on once every few weeks. Should just get rid of it.
 
Yesterday I wrote my Congressman, both Senators and the President. Here is one response (Georgia Senator Chambliss). I X'ed out my home address to foil the kooks... not khuks, kooks.
-----------------------------

September 9, 2004

Mr. Stephen Hamilton
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx, Georgia xxxxx

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on the
Federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The 108th Congress has
presented several pieces of legislation addressing this issue.

Legislation currently pending in the Senate includes S.1034,
the "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003," introduced
by Senator Feinstein; S. 2498, the "Assault Weapons Ban
Reauthorization Act of 2004,"and its earlier version S.2109, both
introduced by Senator Feinstein. Each of these bills would extend the
1994 ban on certain prescribed firearms, continuing a limitation on
the Second Amendment rights of gun owners across the country.

As you know, I have always been a staunch supporter of
Second Amendment rights. As an avid sportsman, I believe in the
right of law abiding Americans to bear arms for not only recreation,
but also protection. I do not support any bill that would extend the
1994 weapons ban. Since coming to Congress, I have worked very
hard to defeat efforts to erode our constitutional right to keep and bear
arms. Rest assured, I am a strong supporter of the Second
Amendment and I will continue to ensure that the rights of gun
owners will not be further infringed upon.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me, I appreciate
hearing from you. If I may ever be of assistance to you in the future,
please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
--------------------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top