Buzz

Hey Just a Heads up for anyone that likes to shoot "Firearms" There is a new bill HR 2038 before congress. That "Will" ban any Semi auto that takes more than a 10 round mag. And the best part is your not grandfathered anymore... So check out the bill and call your congress person I'm!

__________________
The Only BEER is a Cold BEER.

And a Single Malt will get ya every time.

MSD

Thanks for the info. I'm writing to them now.

Buzz

Glad to here it. I often wonder what these guys are thinking.

__________________
The Only BEER is a Cold BEER.

And a Single Malt will get ya every time.

SuperMidget

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISIONS.


Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--



(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)';



(2) by striking `on the date of the enactment of this subsection' and inserting `as of September 13, 1994'; and



(3) by adding after and below the end the following:



`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph

You are grandfathered for pre-ban rifles. However, from what i've been hearing it isn't likely it will be passed.

debaser

Here it is:

http://www.americansovereign.com/leg...108/hr2038.pdf

Yes, write your congressman....

__________________

Buzz

Thanks for the info SuperMidget , Still sorting out all the BS in the document. It just fried my nuts when I started to read it. And thought I should get the word out. Thanks for the link debaser

__________________
The Only BEER is a Cold BEER.

And a Single Malt will get ya every time.

kel

Didn't a restriction on ten round mags already get passed by as part of the assault weapons ban? It's set to expire in 2005 I believe which will mean we get to buy proper mags soon...

This new bill though...

__________________
"It better be funny"

j8ear

The restiction set to expire in 2005 involved the 'manufacture' of over ten round mags...for semi auto pistols, for civilians. Sale and re-sale of pre-ban mags remains unrestricted.

Legislated or not, grandfathered or not...I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY high cap mags alive...

out,

-b-

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

440sixpack

Something like that is already in effect in Boston. You get caught with a mag greater than 10 rounds, you're going down, licensed or not.

__________________
Be a victor, or be a victim - David Vincent

My Toys:
1970 Dodge Challenger R/T 440SIXPACK
2003 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT QuadCab 4x4 5.7L Hemi Magnum

Slims

This bill will die young. Congress is probably going to just let the assault weapons ban die, and they are not about to make a move this drastic.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

The_Dunedan

Greg700
Agreed...the CongressCritters have got to know that such a bill, if passed, would start a civil war, most likely, and at least result in the sort of low-intensit unpleasantness we've been seeing in Iraq...and I don't even like to THINK about how nasty you could make life for some poor Feds with that .270 of yours. You're prolly right, this particular -version- of the bill will die quick.
My big worry is this;
1: This bill dies. Another, slightly less onerous bill, is introduced. That one dies.
2: Still another, still slightly less onerous, but still more severe than the AWB, bill is introduced. This one, perhaps, allows only one "ugly gun" feature. This one passes.
3: Anti-gunners get more legal toys to play with, ATFE gets to shoot some folks, and the "pro gun" pols can point to the original bill and say "Yeah, this one's bad, but look what we saved you from!! Vote for us next term, because we saved you from THAT horrible monster!" While conveniantly leaving out the fact that the just-passed bill is only a slightly smaller monster, with green scales instead of pink fur.

Hopefully I'm wrong about this, but this is the same scenario that got us GCA68, the Crime Bill, and the AWB in the first place...compromising away our rights. It sucketh.

jadedgrin

well from what i can tell you cant have +10 mags made (built in a factory) but oceans of the old normal ones are out there and they are legal to puchase, so i would think there would be no issue to actually use it (besides its not like the gov can just find every +10 mag in the country

__________________
what puts a smile on your face??

kel

You can't really say there are loads of +10 mags out their, they are priced WELL above what they should be and for off beat weapons like the gl-31 they are very hard to find.

__________________
"It better be funny"

Buzz

Yea all the last Ban did was to Jack up all the prices on.. Every thing on the Band list.. What do you think ATF would do if they had to make a date base of all the firearms that are out there.. Or even track some of them down..???? =]

__________________
The Only BEER is a Cold BEER.

And a Single Malt will get ya every time.

Peetster

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns

H.R. 2038/S. 1431, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), does not just "reenact" or "reauthorize" the 1994 Clinton ban, the so-called "assault weapon" law. It bans millions more guns and begins backdoor registration of guns. All told, it's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton gun ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS 60 Minutes "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." There is no 10-year sunset provision in H.R. 2038/S. 1431. It permanently bans every gun that is currently banned and:

* Bans every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns can have. Manufacturers and gun owners complied and new guns conform to the Clinton-Feinstein requirements. H.R. 2038/S. 1431 bans the new guns too.

* Bans guns exempted by name or type under the Clinton ban. Commonplace Ruger Mini-14s, Mini-30s, Ranch Rifles, .30 Caliber Carbines, and fixed-magazine semi-automatic center-fire rifles.

* Bans all semi-automatic shotguns. Bans Remington, Winchester, Beretta, Benelli, and other shotguns commonly used for hunting, trap, skeet, sporting clays, and self-defense. Bans them by banning their main component, called the "receiver" (Sec. 2(a)(30)(J)), and bans them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip"(Sec. 2(H)(ii) and (b)(42)). Any characteristic.

* Bans all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (Sec. 2(a)(30)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (b)(41) and (42)). Any characteristic.

* Bans target shooting rifles. Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

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

* Bans 65 named guns (the Clinton law bans 19); Bans semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; Bans frames, receivers, and parts used to repair or refurbish guns; Bans importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban; Bans selling a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity.

* Bans guns rarely used in crime. A fact proven by every state and local law enforcement agency report, and every DOJ felon survey on the subject. The Congressionally-mandated study of the Clinton ban found that the guns "were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders."

* Begins backdoor registration. Requires manufacturers of guns, frames, receivers, and other parts to report the names of their dealers. Requires dealers to report any of the guns and parts they have in stock. Bans private sales of the guns and parts. The next step is to register individual purchasers.

Daval

my god I hope that this legislation passes.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

The_Dunedan

Why, so that a thriving black-market in deer rifles will develop? Gimme a break. These so-called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than an ordinary deer rifle, many of them use actions based upon hunting rifles! "Assault weapons" also fire intermediate-power cartridges; your grandpa's 30-06 Springfield or Garand from WW2 is MUCH more powerful. I am not going to get into technology here, because as a Citizen, I have the unalienable, Constitutional, Human, and Civil right to own whatever weapons and arms I wish, for the defense of my Life and Liberty. "Assault weapons?" You betcha. Machine guns? Yup. 105mm Recoilless Rifle? Expensive, but yes. Tanks? I know a guy in North Carolina who owns three of 'em; takes the things to airshows. These weapons are his, mine, and believe it or not, yours, by Right.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you people NOT understand?! The 2nd Amendment references a "militia." Very well; what is the Militia? According to letters and speeches from the Founders, it is "the whole body of the people." The Militia Act further defined the Militia as all persons eligible for service in time of war; at the time, Males from the ages of 17-45. In the modern context, this may be extrapolated to include women and older people as well. The Militia Act was revised in 1913, with the creation of the National Gaurd, and now specifies that there is a branch of the state Militia which is NOT the National Gaurd or Reserves, called the Unorganized Militia, of which ALL eligible persons are a member.
Therefore, you and I are members of the Unorganized Militia. As such, it is our duty to provision ourselves with appropriate tools, food, equipment, transport, and weapons. Just because you can't/won't do YOUR duty, don't prevent me from doing MINE, if you please.
You will doubtless point out the phrase "well-regulated." Newsflash: 'well-regulated' does NOT mean "state-controlled" in any sense of the term, as it is used in the text of the 2nd Amendment. The term 'regulated' meant then, and still means now, in certain circles, 'properly functioning' or 'in good working order.' A clock with "regulated" stamped on its backface has been tested and found to give proper and accurate time. A rifle that has been "regulated" has been tested and proven to function as desired with a certain charge and weight of projectile. In the 1790s, the phrase "A well-regulated Militia" meant "A Militia functioning in proper order." NOT "A state-controlled military organization."

I am a member of the Unorganized Militia. So are you. I am doing my duty as such. You are not. We have a difference of opinion; well and good, we are Citizens of a Constitutional Republic and can disagree until we are blue in the face. But the MINUTE that you try to abrogate my Rights, which are mine simply by virtue of being Human, you place yourself opposite me.
You want to send ATFE thugs to take my weapons because you don't have the stones to do it yourself. Allright. Try it. Just try. The flames of the war that would start would lick the roof of Heaven before it was done. This ban, thank God, will not pass in all likelihood, because the treasonous scumbags in Congress know what the likely result would be. But if it DOES pass, hang onto something, and pray hard.

Daval

And its comments like these that re-affirm to the those outside of the United States why the US is looked upon as an ultra violent gun-psycho society.

You scare the shit out of me. This isnt 1867 anymore, there aren't any indians coming to get you. Get with modern times.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

Sparhawk

A civil war or guerilla warfare from the passage of a bill in congress? So very 19th century of you.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

The_Dunedan

Daval:
Nevermind the fact that in the gun-control Utopia of the United Kingdom, the violent-crime rate is now higher per-capita than in the US...so is that of Australia..and the Phillipines...and Malaysia...and Russia...and Ukraine. In Japan, where the ownership of any type of firearm at ALL wil get you 10 years, the suicide rate is 3 times what ours is.
Face it; where the Citizens are disarmed, two things happen. Govornment power grows out of control very, VERY quickly, because the Citizenry no longer posesses the -actual- force to back up the -implied- force of a vote. If a Govornment decides to just ignore an election, it can do so, if the people are disarmed. What will you do, VOTE again?
The second thing is that violent crime goes through the freakin' ROOF, and I mean right NOW! In the UK, violent crime rose 40% in less than 2 years, following their near-universal firearms ban, because criminals now have no reason to be afraid of their potential victims. Oh, rely on the Police, you say? Forget it. Average police response time in the States is 17 minutes. In London, closer to 45, in Paris it's well over an hour. Even in that 17 minutes, my stuff's stolen, my wife is raped, and I'm dead. I think I'll take my chances with a pistol, thanks.
You say I scare you? Why? If you meet me on the street, I'm a perfectly nice person, ask Greg700. If someone tries to harm you and I am in the area, I will use my weapon(s) to defend your life as if it were my own. I simply refuse to surrender my Human Rights to the whims of a potentially tyrannical Majority. And for this, you are afraid of me? I don't understand.

Oh, and before you accuse me of being paranoid, remember this. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Franco, and Moussilini ( sp? ) were all ELECTED LEADERS of DISARMED citizens. Think about that one for a minute. I can't imagine you're too fond of George W. Do you REALLY want HIM and his thugs to be the only ones with guns?

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

j8ear

Is this your opinion too?

Was it the government afraid of indians or indians afraid of government? I wonder who really had reason for fear.

I propose perspective might be appropriate here.

-bear

The_Dude

wow, the republicans want to take away guns??

solution : vote democrat in 04.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

The_Dunedan

Not Republicans, not Democrats; Statists. They come with all labels, y'know.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

smooth

First of all, Daval is from Canada so he isn't negligent in his "duty."

Secondly, if you don't like it, why don't you move to Iraq or Afghanistan where it's legal to carry assault rifles?

In fact, maybe you could take pot shots at all the protesters everyone else urged to leave the country when they were expressing their opinion about the adminstration's actions...get some live practice in.

What you won't do, however, is convince me that you or anyone else posting on this thread is going to actually get off their asses and take armed positions against the government over this issue.

The_Dunedan

I am sick of the "love it or leave it" crap. I love my country, and choose to stay here and improve it, thank you.
I happen to be in agreement with most of those protesters you mention; the ones with principles, that is, not just the ones who are cause-heads out to feel good, get off from work, or get laid.
And you are free to delude yourself all you like about the likely response should this abomination of a bill actually succeed in passing. Thankfully, the CongressCritters are not so deluded ( Good Lord, I hope not, anyway! ) and will most likely not pass this monstrosity. There are 80,000,000+ gun owners in the US. Say that 10% of those are truly radical; willing to actually take a stance against such tyranny and injustice. That's 8,000,000 Men/women under arms...more than triple the size of the entire US Armed Forces. Now, the technological advantage enjoyed by the Feds would be a tough sell. But the Vietcong, Mujehadin, and Native Americans all fought against a similar ( for their day ) advantage, and won.

Contrary to your implicit assertion, I am not some illiterate yokel sitting on his front porch swilling PBR and taking potshots at passing hippies, blacks, Jews, and Mexicans. Nor do I have any wish to EVER use force, lethal or otherwise, against another Human Being. I certainly will not INITIATE the use of force; my morals forbid it. But I will defend my Life and Liberties, and those of my family and fellow Americans, tooth and nail, to the death. And yes, this includes the rights of every poster on this forum, believe it or not.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

smooth

My bad The_Dunedan.

Your post certainly came off to me as hostile (capital letters indicates shouting, not emphasis) and your stance on this issue is in agreement with a large group of people who were constantly telling people like me to get the hell out of here whenever we disagreed with a position our government was taking (and failing that, an appeal that we leave the forum).

I just thought it was ironic that a couple are now arguing for civil war--I didn't mean to single you out and my post was mainly in jest.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

Maybe this should go in philosophy:

If a sizealbe portion of the US population does not believe that a fundamental right to weapons should override what they perceive to be the interest of safety to the nation as a whole, and they pass legislation to curtail the amount of weapons one can acquire and brandish to that end, what would their role be in the event of a civil war in which the weapon holders became incensed enough to abrogate their civic duty to vote in new leaders and instead resorted to force to reestablish their ideology?

Would we have a moral obligation to take up arms against them? The irony would be so thick I doubt we could even walk to the battlefield...=)

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

sportsrule101

if Daval is from canada, then how is he threatened by me owning a gun. I can't bring it into his country to shoot him, why doesn't he go comment on something that has some affect on his life instead of saying how much he hopes this socialistic law passes. Administrate yes, troll no.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

smooth

Well, I can't speak for Daval on why he chose to comment on this issue.

I can, however, note your comment.

I suspect you will be surprised when I quote it the next time you start arguing about an event in another country or state that doesn't directly affect you--yet you still have an opinon on.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

sportsrule101

and i will try to explain how it does affect me.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

The_Dunedan

Quite allright. Most people don't know what to make of Libertarians; including most of my friends, so you're in good company.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was shouting, sorry about that! Falling back on old bad habits, I suppose.
I am not, however 'advocating' a civil war, merely predicting one. I pray with all the earnestness I posess that the situation never comes to violence.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

Slims

I don't think a civil war is on the horizon. Quite the opposite really. Things seem to be shifting back in favor of gun owners...The president has reaffirmed our right to own firearms, and there are two (potential) supreme court cases in the works now that are trying to force the supreme court to lay down the law on the second amendment. If they affirm that the second amendment does in fact guarantee the rights of individuals to bear arms, a lot of anti-gun laws will become instantly irrelevant. And regardless of what people feel the second amendment should say, is is fairly cut and dry from a legal perspective.

I grew up in Northern Virginia (yes, I capitalize northern) where most people are anti-gun, and I felt like my family was a rare exception. When I moved to the mountains of north carolina, and started to travel, I realized how wrong I was. I think to some degree, liberals tend to live in communities that are relatively insulated from the values and attitudes of your average, rural American. Because of this, I don't think they realize just how strongly many of these people value their personal freedoms.

Like it or not, the second amendment exists as a safeguard against tyranny. It is there so that (in addition to enabling you to defend yourself) the people have a last recourse against a government that has stopped representing the people. I know this is a cliche, but remember that Hitler, Saddam, Kim Jong Il (did I get that one right?) were all elected leaders. Personally, I don't think our government will turn evil, at least not during my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my children, but, if it happens to my great great grandchildren, I want them to have the ability to do something about it.

Oh, and it's not too hard to imagine scenarious that might bring this stuff about: Another large war, or national disaster which requires the declaration of martial law. At some point who ever is in charge takes steps to make sure that they stay in power. Or, someone else decides that they want to be in charge and stages a coup. Again, I dont' think this is possible with our current government, but times change, and many decades from now, the social climate may have changed enough for something like this to happen. Our founding fathers were sufficiently scared of this to make a second amendment in addition to all the other checks and balances they designed into our government. They proved thier brilliance and foresight when they created our government and the constitution, why doubt their decision to create a second amendment, or bicker about it's meaning?

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Zeld2.0

Well the argument against tyranny isn't exactly the best one IMO.

Hitler was defenitely elected to his position (Chancellor) but the fact of hte matter is, Germany had many guns around, but they wouldn't dare take it up against him.

And he became a tyrant by matters where guns don't matter at all - he (probably) had the Reichstag (akin to the Capitol) building burned and blamed it on the communists - therefore his party soon had nearly sole control of the Parliament and was thus able to give him at first emergency dictatorial powers for a year to which he extended later to lifetime - and the rest i guess is history.

And I will say this - how many here would actually take their gun up against the government if they chose tyranny. If anyone is likely to get into such a position to gain dictatorial power in this country - i *hate* to stereotype but the person most likely will have support of the gunholders of this country and will probably not be a target because he will have gained popular support.

This is somewhat an ill omen to say for the country but I would suggest people take a look at it all - will you really take up your guns against a dictator? Unless the guy took it completely by force that was very obvious, most likely they got to power by playing on fear and hysteria and most people would willingly follow to the doom.

not to mention that if you took up your guns - would you win? The guy would most likely be commander in chief of the entire military (as the president is) and thus he has access to the military to crush whatever reseistance.

Everyone here that wants to support the military and boost their technology greatly must realize that when the civilian and military gets more separated in terms of weaponary and technology, the military will have even greater power over the citizens and thus making guns at home irrelevant.

It sounds stupid sometimes but think about it - if hte military had super railguns and energy weapons and the civilians have tons of guns (lets say zero gun control) - the civilians are unlikely to win considering the military will have much superior firepower and technology.

We don't even know what the gov't has working secretly on - for al lwe know they do have those weapons but are secret.

Just a thought, nothing big, but interesting to note..

Lebell

Zeld,

Just like the original American revolution, the success of any subsequent revolution would depend on several factors including how many supported the revolution and how many could at least be made neutral.

As for the military's greater firepower, it is important to remember that soldiers are sworn to defend the constitution. If you can convince enough of them that the rebels are in the right, you have this battle won as well.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Gorgo

Let's hope this bill doesn't pass. I think it unlikely George W. would sign it, even if it reached his desk. Republicans are generally anti-gun control and anti-gun ban.

And even if it did get signed, I'd take a bet the US Supreme Court would rule it "unconstitutional" by violating the 2nd Amendment.

__________________
Will Code for food . . .

Zeld2.0

The problem is, Lebell...

As much as they promot the thinking soldier - the fact of the matter is, the soldier is going to take orders - again, as i said, unless the rebels are absolutely obviously right, there are only going to be deserters and dissenters in the military - the rest may very well listen to the gov't becuase they say they are defending the constitution.

It sounds whack or out of sci-fi, but think about it...

In years the military technology will be stronger - no doubt about it. Training in civilian warfare will be greater - city warfare and what not. Robot and automated machines for weapons will be much more around. Not to mention mass media has made propaganda and "population control" easier.

One can say its already occured - using fears (lets say 9/11) to get thigns passed that may infringe upon civil liberties (patriot acts as an example of one listed).

The thing that does scare me though, is the fact that many people (hell even on this board) are almost robot-like in their stances - they always agree with certain things, always stand the same way on certain grounds, and will willingly fight for a gov't thats even wrong but says its right (yes the iraq war is a matter of perspective, but the thing is, a wrong thing in the future that is truly wrong can be made right by one's perspective) - does make tyranny much easier in the future.

kel

I know this thread is old,
But does anyone know the status of this bill?

On Thomas they say:
"Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. "

Which I think is a good sign... the longer it stays in a subcommitte the better... hopefully it can be maneuvered to death...

It was introduced around two months ago... I am not familiar with how long it takes for a bill to be considered "dead" (although it really is only dead when the proponents fully give up)

Someone was recommending that I buy a rifle now now now if I ever plan on competeing/hunting.

__________________
"It better be funny"

JBX

Disarming Americans. They are clever. They do it slow, Bill by Bill and maybe we wont notice. When they get'em all a Dictatorship is not far behind.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

BigGov

Depends on what you mean by competing. For just hunting semi-automatic isn't required and in some cases doesn't even make much of a difference. My main hunting rifle is a little 30-30 lever action. I like it because it's very quick to reload, and it's incredibly easy to know when the action is open and such.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"