Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 6 November 2008, 21:54
wowzers wowzers is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,381
Why is President Elect Obama and the Democrats getting the blame when the bill is sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 6 November 2008, 22:20
morelocks's Avatar
morelocks morelocks is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NM
Posts: 625
I could see gun regulation passing the House as there is enough representation from cities to allow it to be passed. They do not face the same pressure on 2nd Amendment issues.

It will not pass the Senate.

Now if they take baby steps or tax the shit out of ammo?
__________________
Make Peace or Die 1/5

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 6 November 2008, 23:19
John6719's Avatar
John6719 John6719 is offline
?
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

I may be wrong here, but I read this as the firearms listed in appendix A, and any replicas or duplicates of those weapons, will be legal under this bill.

I still don't like it though!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 6 November 2008, 23:19
Terminator2 Terminator2 is offline
Get Down!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In my own personal hell
Posts: 1,060
Shays is gone now, thank God. I HATED that fucker.
__________________
Chill out, Dickwad.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 7 November 2008, 01:32
Tracker275's Avatar
Tracker275 Tracker275 is offline
Anchor Retrieval Spec
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: TX Panhandle
Posts: 1,188
My God man!!!!

Barrel Shrouds are on the list for banning!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

I heard it straight from McCarthy!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 7 November 2008, 01:48
The Fat Guy's Avatar
The Fat Guy The Fat Guy is offline
The Sagacious One
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pushing string down the hall
Posts: 13,030
Taxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by morelocks View Post
I could see gun regulation passing the House as there is enough representation from cities to allow it to be passed. They do not face the same pressure on 2nd Amendment issues.

It will not pass the Senate.

Now if they take baby steps or tax the shit out of ammo?
I think he'll let us keep them so he can tax the shit out of the ammo and the guns themselves. He needs money to be able to pay for the votes he just bought, if he takes everything away, he cannot get the tax.
__________________
No one will take better care of us, than us: Suicide Hotline: 1-800-273-8255
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 7 November 2008, 02:57
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Overseas Gunplumber
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 5,866
It is my understanding that there have already been discussions on raising excises taxes on firearms and ammunition. I haven't seen the particulars but I believe that it was going to be something like 300-500% increase.

Here are but a few recent votes and positions. This is based off of his past votes and was written as an OP-ED in the Washington Times.

In 2004, he said he was “consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry,” and that he’d back “federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama’s world, “authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed,” he said.

Mr. Obama also claims he’s no threat to hunters.

But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as “armor piercing ammunition,” prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama’s first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers.

Also, while Mr. Obama promises hunters, “I will not take your shotgun away,” his votes tell a different story.

In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons”) most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If the bill had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these guns 90 days after legislation went into effect, would have faced felony charges. What was that about not taking shotguns away?

To that list I would add that Obama is opposed to self defense, and favors allowing cities to prosecute citizens for successfully defending themselves with a gun in their own home. Obama voted against S.B. 2165 (IL 2004) that was designed to protect citizens who rightfully defended themselves from unjust gun possession charges. The bill passed with overwhelming support. The Governor vetoed the bill, and the Illinois state legislature overrode the veto - despite Obama’s best efforts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by morelocks View Post
I could see gun regulation passing the House as there is enough representation from cities to allow it to be passed. They do not face the same pressure on 2nd Amendment issues.

It will not pass the Senate.

Now if they take baby steps or tax the shit out of ammo?
__________________
"The Armies of our ancestors were lucky, in that they were not trailed by a second army of pencil pushers".

I have been to some armorer courses.

Owner- Semper Paratus Arms, LLC
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 7 November 2008, 03:13
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Overseas Gunplumber
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 5,866
So I just stumbled across this hidden "jewel". This comes from President elect Obamas own website. Here is the link. Scroll down to Crime and Law Enforcement.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
__________________
"The Armies of our ancestors were lucky, in that they were not trailed by a second army of pencil pushers".

I have been to some armorer courses.

Owner- Semper Paratus Arms, LLC

Last edited by iraqgunz; 7 November 2008 at 03:18.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 7 November 2008, 07:44
OldSwabbie OldSwabbie is offline
Clan Stiùbhard (Stuart)..
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Woodruff, South Carolina
Posts: 2,257
In this short video these two were defending trying to add any .50 Cal Rifle and those "Heat Seeking" .50 cal Bullets to the List. Heat Seeking bullets, Nope, i'm not kidding. THESE are the people "Crafting" our laws...God Help us.

The one assemblywoman thinks the Bullet can find the Animal and after it hits it ~ can cook it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 7 November 2008, 07:46
GOAT556 GOAT556 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 33.44'56" N 84.23'17" W
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
I may be wrong about this but when you retire or are no longer a LEO you generally cannot retain those weapons. The same was true of the 1994 AWB and hi cap magazines.

We as gun owners need to stay together because we are all in the same sinking boat.

The federal law that covers LEO's with regards to nation wide carry allows for retired officers. Basically you carry a card that shows what your dept has cleared/qualified you to carry. Only covers pistols though.

Goat / out
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 7 November 2008, 07:58
Greenhat
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by wowzers View Post
Why is President Elect Obama and the Democrats getting the blame when the bill is sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk?
Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 7 November 2008, 08:46
LRS Guy's Avatar
LRS Guy LRS Guy is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Springfield Mo when I'm not in
Posts: 1,421
There is no doubt that if the BO/Dem Congress thinks they can stick it to gun ownes/ 2nd Amendment/ "people clinging to their guns & religon" and get away with it...they will. But as several here have noted, gun control is a dead issue for the Dem(& RINOs) as well. They have some big plans and they will have to expend allot of political capital to get it done.

We as Americans (not just gun owners) are in for a fight on many fronts. Be it taxes, govt regulations, energy....so we better get ready for the battles.

On this one, if you are not a NRA (or other group, GOA, RKBA,etc) join one, hell join several.

Have your Congressman's email & phone # handy. Let them know where you stand!

Another tactic is don't be afraid to ask to speak to your representive. Often they will have offices around the district and will have meeting with constituants. Remember they work for you, sometimes they have to reminded of that.

Always be polite, well-articulated and professional when dealing with them. You can always dismiss a loony, but a intelligent, well-spoken, logical person gains positive attention even if they disagree with you. Politicans are in the business of re-election and advancement of their favorite cause...which is often themselves.

Play both ends against the middle. Every politcal office holder has a challanger. Support those that most closely mirror your views. If possible convince the challanger that your opinion is the one that will get him the votes in the next election.

Darn I've went off on a tangent. But thats my .02
__________________
International Brotherhood of Trunk Monkeys Local 762, Bagdad Chapter

Confirmed as a"Cynical, Sarcastic, Bastard" by a co-worker in Mosul Iraq 22 May 2006.

"I'm a Black Jew at a Nazi Klan rally. LET'S GET IT ON!" Ted Nugent 2008

"I'm a fairly dangerous man when I'm scared!"
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 7 November 2008, 09:08
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Overseas Gunplumber
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 5,866
I honestly could care less who sponsored it. Democrat or Republican it's wrong and they wouldn't get my vote. I have heard that these particular Republicats are just that and they have crappy rating from the pro-gun groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.
__________________
"The Armies of our ancestors were lucky, in that they were not trailed by a second army of pencil pushers".

I have been to some armorer courses.

Owner- Semper Paratus Arms, LLC
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 7 November 2008, 11:04
t10Guy's Avatar
t10Guy t10Guy is offline
regular speed jerk, not a high speed jerk
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas, mostly. I travel.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
I may be wrong about this but when you retire or are no longer a LEO you generally cannot retain those weapons. The same was true of the 1994 AWB and hi cap magazines.

We as gun owners need to stay together because we are all in the same sinking boat.

Dont get me wrong, I am still very AGAINST 'gun control' laws. As a matter of fact I am one of the vocal ones in my group and from where I am from (and where Dear Leader, Chairman Obama), is from Gun control is the norm.

My family has no clue. They are almost like a family from the UK. N. Illinois residents are so used to gun ban, licenses to even look at guns, being told that the next law will solve everything, they essentially just SEE a gun and freak or think its evil. Good Job Illinois Pols.

The funny thing, is I was in Colorado a few months back, stop'ed by a friends place and went shooting. A nice outdoor, state run, state maintained shooting range. Shotgun, handgun and rifle ranges, all just ther for you to use. In illinois if you tried to get that passed you would be run out of town.
__________________
We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.

"If you become involved in a crisis situation, you will not rise to the occasion but, rather, default to your level of training."
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 7 November 2008, 11:07
t10Guy's Avatar
t10Guy t10Guy is offline
regular speed jerk, not a high speed jerk
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas, mostly. I travel.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenhat View Post
Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.


Mark Kirk. from the 10th District in Illinois. AGAIN. another Northen Illinois Politician. And a Repub in Illinois is really just a deomcrat that is tired of Illinois being in debt. The Repub party in Illinois is a joke.
__________________
We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.

"If you become involved in a crisis situation, you will not rise to the occasion but, rather, default to your level of training."
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 7 November 2008, 11:10
morelocks's Avatar
morelocks morelocks is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NM
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by t10Guy View Post
Mark Kirk. from the 10th District in Illinois. AGAIN. another Northen Illinois Politician. And a Repub in Illinois is really just a deomcrat that is tired of Illinois being in debt. The Repub party in Illinois is a joke.
Chicago politics.
__________________
Make Peace or Die 1/5

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 7 November 2008, 11:34
rubberneck rubberneck is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty View Post
Whether it passes or not, or whether it's even VOTED on, I want to see these people - Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary- out of office and shunned publically for being class A asshats! I consider these men a threat to the safety of the American people.

Scotty
Chris Shays as of Tuesday is out of a job.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 7 November 2008, 11:54
Scotty's Avatar
Scotty Scotty is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Blocking Sneaky's access to my HOOLA Hoop
Posts: 5,636
Good! One down, three more to go. I hope he goes broke and ends up washing cars for a living. I know, a little harsh, but fugg'im!

Scotty
__________________
Some people call them "terrorists", these boys have simply been misguided
_____________________________________________
You know you smell badly when a hippy won't sit near you.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 7 November 2008, 12:00
MakoZeroSix's Avatar
MakoZeroSix MakoZeroSix is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 7,607
Well, that's the great thing about having a bunch of different states. If you don't like guns, and want to get taxed alot, you can live in Massachussets or Illinois. If you want to live in a place where its illegal to buy, possess or wield a dildo, move to Texas. Want something in between? Move somewhere in between...
__________________
Quote:
You know they show up with the helmets and the black masks and they have clubs and everything...ANTIFAAAA!!!
- President Donald J. Trump
22 Aug 17
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 7 November 2008, 12:02
rubberneck rubberneck is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 529
While I take the threat of a new AWB very seriously I am not as worried about it as I was in 1994. While the Democrats are in control of the House, 47 of them are part of the Blue Dog Coalition and represent the conservative/moderate wing of the party. Many of those 47 represent rural pro gun areas and many have A ratings from the NRA.

The Democrats in the congress are not a monolithic voting bloc. Sure they can be coerced into voting for it, but the question then becomes does a new Obama administration want to burn it's political capital trying to pass another AWB when polls show that 80% of Americans don't see the need for any new gun laws. I suspect that he will be looking for a bunch of easy an non politically toxic victories his first year in office. After that I suspect that he will expand his agenda but at that point it will be at the beginning of the campaigns for mid-term elections.

Quote:
Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.
Take a look at the list of Co-Sponsors for H.R. 1022 which is the Democrats Bill to reauthorize the AWB. It has 67 Cosponsors to H.R. 6257's 4. Both were issued in the same session and I suspect the 5 that were involved with 6257 were facing a stiff challenge in districts where there was widespread support for a new AWB and was done primarily for political reasons. That doesn't excuse the four idiots for their support it but this clearly an issue that is being driven primarily by one party.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET