"State of the Union"

[VanHahner]

If you heard Obummer's speech this morning (Press conference), then here's what we can expect when he gives his "State of the Union" speech in Jan.

1. All U.S. citizens will have to have a Fed mandated background investigation, both criminally and mentally, before they can purchase a handgun or rifle.
2. A Fed mandated ten round limit capacity on all magazines.
3. All assault weapons (Calif. Def.) now in existence through out the U.S., will require a special mandated Fed. permit, which will be given on passing the criminally and mentally investigation.
4. All weapons must be in a Fed. mandated and approved safe, when not in use or the registered owner is not at home.
5. All present day Military clone rifles will be ban for sale or import.

[bubbagump]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

If you heard Obummer's speech this morning (Press conference), then here's what we can expect when he gives his "State of the Union" speech in Jan.

1. All U.S. citizens will have to have a Fed mandated background investigation, both criminally and mentally, before they can purchase a handgun or rifle.
2. A Fed mandated ten round limit capacity on all magazines.
3. All assault weapons (Calif. Def.) now in existence through out the U.S., will require a special mandated Fed. permit, which will be given on passing the criminally and mentally investigation.
4. All weapons must be in a Fed. mandated and approved safe, when not in use or the registered owner is not at home.
5. All present day Military clone rifles will be ban for sale or import.

Yeah. No disrespect intended, but so what?

b.

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by bubbagump

Yeah. No disrespect intended, but so what?

b.

If a federal assault weapons permit is part of the bill and if it passes, the permit would likely come with a fee, much like the $200 revenue stamp tax that is required from the feds, for every automatic weapon you own.

Depending on how many "assault weapons" you have, it could be quite expensive!

[Mark IV]

Obama can lick my butt crack.

[Vermin]

Unfortunatly, We may end up licking his boots. Well You Guys might. Me I'm moving back to Texas where I belong!!

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

If a federal assault weapons permit is part of the bill and if it passes, the permit would likely come with a fee, much like the $200 revenue stamp tax that is required from the feds, for every automatic weapon you own.

Depending on how many "assault weapons" you have, it could be quite expensive!

My bro Bubbagump has it right.

Do you think these turds have any legal authority to do these things?

The correct answer for all of the above points is:

Blow me.

[ALL FAL]

Hehe, Shlomo, you crack me up. AND You have the right attitude.

[ArtBanks]

Sounds like a couple of fellows need their keyboards washed. No need for such talk. You are big boys now. Act like it.
Thanks for the post Van.
Semper Fi
Art

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by ArtBanks

Sounds like a couple of fellows need their keyboards washed. No need for such talk. You are big boys now. Act like it.
Thanks for the post Van.
Semper Fi
Art

I guess you're right, and I need to show more respect for people who have no respect for the law and constitution.

I'll just settle for going to the airport next time I want some "special" contact with government.

[EPC WN]

Originally Posted by shlomo

I guess you're right, and I need to show more respect for people who have no respect for the law and constitution.

I'll just settle for going to the airport next time I want some "special" contact with government.

If I haven't done it in a while, my apologies.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by EPC WN

If I haven't done it in a while, my apologies.

I can't imagine what for.

[Texgunner]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

If you heard Obummer's speech this morning (Press conference), then here's what we can expect when he gives his "State of the Union" speech in Jan.

1. All U.S. citizens will have to have a Fed mandated background investigation, both criminally and mentally, before they can purchase a handgun or rifle.
2. A Fed mandated ten round limit capacity on all magazines.
3. All assault weapons (Calif. Def.) now in existence through out the U.S., will require a special mandated Fed. permit, which will be given on passing the criminally and mentally investigation.
4. All weapons must be in a Fed. mandated and approved safe, when not in use or the registered owner is not at home.
5. All present day Military clone rifles will be ban for sale or import.

Where do you "see" number 3 and 4 from Obama's press conference comments? Did he specifically say that, or even allude to those in his press conference? Or are you merely speculating?

[mike minihan]

Originally Posted by shlomo

I guess you're right, and I need to show more respect for people who have no respect for the law and constitution.

I'll just settle for going to the airport next time I want some "special" contact with government.

Geez shlomo,we all know it's supposed to be "bite me".

best regards,
Mike Minihan

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by mike minihan

Geez shlomo,we all know it's supposed to be "bite me".

best regards,
Mike Minihan

But then I'd have to get tetanus and rabies shots.

[L Haney]

The federal government, in a part of the charter which called it into being, was specifically denied the power to regulate weapons held by the 'people'. The verbiage chosen was "shall not be infringed". An infringement then, as now, is defined as a small measure not generally considered significant. If said infringement specifically was denied, and we have federal weapon laws, a contract has been broken.

You may dither, try to justify, or basely equivocate their actions but it doesn't change the fact that they HOLD NO CHARTER THAT GIVES THEM THIS POWER.

The States are not included in this denial of said power. That power is reserved for the states, or the people.

ANY federal law, regulation, guideline, or directive is unlawful.

[tdb59]

Originally Posted by L Haney

The federal government, in a part of the charter which called it into being, was specifically denied the power to regulate weapons held by the 'people'. The verbiage chosen was "shall not be infringed". An infringement then, as now, is defined as a small measure not generally considered significant. If said infringement specifically was denied, and we have federal weapon laws, a contract has been broken.

You may dither, try to justify, or basely equivocate their actions but it doesn't change the fact that they HOLD NO CHARTER THAT GIVES THEM THIS POWER.

The States are not included in this denial of said power. That power is reserved for the states, or the people.

ANY federal law, regulation, guideline, or directive is unlawful.

Crap, L. !
Whatchadoin bringing logic and fact into this discussion ? That could make Equivocating Bastards and Appeasing Jackwagons uncomfortable !


.

[STGThndr]

As my Scotch-Irish ancestors said during the siege of Londonderry when pressed to give up the struggle and their weapons, "No Surrender!" It changed the face of Ireland and religious liberty forever. May I be as brave and resolute!

[randy762ak]

As my Scotch-Irish ancestors said during the siege of Londonderry when pressed to give up the struggle and their weapons, "No Surrender!" It changed the face of Ireland and religious liberty forever. May I be as brave and resolute!
__________________




WELL SAID

[JeffJ]

Originally Posted by L Haney

The federal government, in a part of the charter which called it into being, was specifically denied the power to regulate weapons held by the 'people'. The verbiage chosen was "shall not be infringed". An infringement then, as now, is defined as a small measure not generally considered significant. If said infringement specifically was denied, and we have federal weapon laws, a contract has been broken.

You may dither, try to justify, or basely equivocate their actions but it doesn't change the fact that they HOLD NO CHARTER THAT GIVES THEM THIS POWER.

The States are not included in this denial of said power. That power is reserved for the states, or the people.

ANY federal law, regulation, guideline, or directive is unlawful.

I am going with this one.

[tdb59]

There is hope for the Prodigal !

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by tdb59

There is hope for the Prodigal !

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by ArtBanks

Sounds like a couple of fellows need their keyboards washed. No need for such talk. You are big boys now. Act like it.
Thanks for the post Van.
Semper Fi
Art

Thanks Art for your civil demeanor and approach in addressing the possibility of further legislation eroding "Our Right To Bear Arms."

I think we'll let the dust settle on this for a while, till logic has a firmer grasp on the situation.

Van

[1/325/ABN]

Some information as it pertained to California's AWB .

All weapons requiring registration were filled out on a card 5-6 weapons per card. You only paid a one time fee, you could submit as many cards required for your collection.

I have heard many state it can't be done! I truthfully hope your all right but you need to take into account that many stated they could never pass a health bill that wasn't even proof read and/or allowed to be seen by the general public until after it was voted on they did it.

My thought concerning the current administration believe that they will do what ever they deem in there best interest and will force - falsify - strong-arm it through even if it's unconstitutional.

They understand that your talking many many years before it's resolved through the courts. Some here may not understand the cost and time it will languish through the current court system. They effectively win in the political polls and most of the high ranking member will be retired and collecting there pensions.

They can not be held accountable for their actions so no matter what they win.

[Mebsuta]

I hope the South peacefully secedes.

I have already had to go through so many stupid background checks.

[bubbagump]

Originally Posted by Mebsuta

I hope the South peacefully secedes.

I have already had to go through so many stupid background checks.

I've already seceded, or perhaps more accurately, the blue states left me. Whether or not I'm joined by others is important, but secondary.

[VanHahner]

Make your voice heard concerning the possibility of a new assault weapons ban and voice your opinion directly to the White House.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/share-your...g-gun-violence

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-l...your-reps.aspx


People, some serious Federal gun legislation is coming our way, and I'm afraid we are not going to stop it. We had better get on the ball before its to late!



Press releases

Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012


Summary of 2013 legislation

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

[VanHahner]

This is just a simple form letter for those who don't have the time to write one, or feel that they can't express their feelings in which they could simply copy and paste their name and email it to their legislators.


Dear Sir.

The tragedy and heartbreak of the event that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary goes without saying, along with the immeasurable losses suffered by the families and loved ones of these victims. You will be asked to consider legislative proposals that might curtail or minimized future tragedies like the one that just took place at Newtown, Conn.

Of all the proposals, firearms and their control will be in the forefront and as you know a very hot and divided topic that concerns our Second Amendment, as well as all law abiding gun owners, so here is what I am asking, that you use common sense when considering proposed gun legislation and to take a look on what has NOT worked in the past.

Assault Weapons Ban: Assault Weapons Ban in '94. It was on the books for 10 years. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn't make any difference.

Non gun: May 18, 1927: In the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.

It has been said, that you cannot legislate morality. People bent on evil, will find any means at their disposal to implement atrocities, like the case in point. (Dec 14, 2012 – Chinese state media say a man stabbed 22 children. An adult and eight children were killed with a knife at a school.) People bent on evil, have no regard for the law period and will acquire whatever firearms they desire for their purpose, banned or not.

We have some 20,000 gun laws (state and federal) on the books now, do you honestly believe adding anymore will stop violence or mass murder? Further banning is not the answer. More education and acknowledging the responsibility of each and every gun owner to ensure that his/her firearms are secure and inaccessible, and that consequences for irresponsibility be met with a punishment proportionate to the crime committed as a result of that irresponsibility.
We have to face facts that we live in a violent society. At any time your house could be subject to a home invasion resulting in unspeakable atrocities. So is it justifiable to deprive law abiding citizens of their right to be equally armed, defending themselves against an intruder with a semiautomatic or even automatic, whether he has an Assault rifle or pistol, or say for the sake of argument several intruders? Many Governors in the U.S. have armed bodyguards who carry assault weapons in case of multiple hostiles and the convenience of not having to reload. Faced with a likewise scenario would you deprive a law abiding citizens of their right to be as equally armed?
Further gun bans are not the answer. Punishment for those who use firearms in the commission of a crime should result in steeper penalties and they should be enforced to the max.

Please note that since the Assault Weapons Ban expired, violent crime has dropped according to F.B.I. statistics.

In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.

When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.

Laws have very little effect on stopping crime, because criminals don't care. The biggest crime against society would be to impair the law abiding citizen to defend his family with equal force.

I can only ask that you use common sense when considering the possibility of further gun legislation.

Respectfully submitted,