Since actual assault weapons are already regulated and very hard for a civilian to own in America (to the point they’re pretty much never used in a crime), I had thought the act to ban random semi-autos needed a more accurate name than the “Assault Weapons Ban”. Here’s some more ideas:
* The Piss Off People with Guns Act
* The Not All the Nazis’ Ideas Were Bad Act
* The Disarming Law Abiding People Sure Is Easier than Disarming Criminals Act
* The Sissies Scared of Loud Noise Act
* The Freedom Is too Scary Act
* The Ban as Many Guns as We Can Trick People into Allowing Act
* The I Don’t Know Crap About Guns, But I’m Told These Ones Are Bad Act
* The Impossible to Vote for If You Have Functioning Male Parts Act
* The I Deplore People Defending Themselves Because That’s Violent And I Hate Violence Act
* The I’m From The Government And I Really AM Afraid Of Ordinary Citizens Act
* The If You’ll Give Up Your Guns, You’ll Give Up Anything We Want You To Give Up Act
* The It All Comes Down To Guns – And You Don’t Have Any – So Up Against The Wall Act
* The You’re Too Stupid To Know How To Boil A Frog Act
* The We’re Not Going To Pass This For A Little While, We’re Just Going To Raise Taxes Until It Takes A Fortune To Buy A Case Of .223 Act
1. We better takes these away before we raise more taxes Act
2. Everything else that people enjoy we tax except for guns we ban act.
Well, if history is a guide:
“The Republican Congressional Majority and NRA Membership Drive Act of 1994, Revised for 2009”
HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009
Is this the same bill or is there something I am missing??? Taxes cause “tea-parties”. Gun confiscation creates slaves.
1. I’m Clueless as to Why People Need Guns Because I Live in a Good Neighborhood With a Police Station Around Every Corner and Buy My Meat at WallyWorld and So Should You Act
2. Lets Pretend We’re in England Act
3. I’m Your Momma, I Know Best, and I Say You Don’t Need a Gun Act
4. Let’s Make Hippies Happy Act
But seriously, I’m reminded by a quote from Mahatma Gandhi…
“Among the many misdeeds of the British Rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
Yep, Mr. War Without Violence said it. Although he was a pacifist, he was extremely opposed to cowardice and recognized that the means to protect oneself against whatever arises is (or should be) a basic human right. Gandhi kicks ass!
Only figuratively of course.
The hitler did it, so can we act
The stalin did it so can we act
The harry ried is a frightened pussy act
The communist soft on criminals act
The we need more power for the communist party act
The welcome to the senate alfrankenstien act
The burris blagoyavich memorial democrat little weenie act
The present hussein f*k America, we support terrorism and hamas act
Well between Frank and Jimmy that pretty much covers it except for:
–The criticize and demonize what I don’t understand act.
–The irrational fear and complete paranoia of “military looking” guns act.
–The Ralphie Parker “you’ll shoot your eye out” paternalistic libtard act.
–The Hollywood moonbat “I have private security to protect me 24/7” act.
🙂
#2 Yo Marko, let’s all have a bigger vision.
* The Freedom Is too Scary Act
Ah, and there’s the harsh truth of it, Frank, there it is.
history will call it the “LETS START A REVOLUTION ACT OF 2009”
Call it what it is:
The Outlaw Cool Looking Guns Act
The Those Things Look Scary and Make Me Pee Myself so We Need to Confiscate Them Act
the For Us Crazy Kooks Everyone Disarm act (FUCKED act)
Hooah
Jake
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Wait did I miss something?!?!? Where does it say I can own assault weapons? My shoe is tasty!
[If you had the reading comprehension of a five year old, you’d realize we’re talking about how the ban has nothing to do with actual assault weapons and is just mislabeled to rouse up stupid people. Also, your shoe doesn’t go in your mouth. -Ed.]
Wait did I miss something?!?!? Where does it say I can own assault weapons?
Where the hell does it say you can’t ??
The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
Ed—quit your whining. I, for one, in fact do view the second amendment as granting Americans the rights to bear arms, just not guns designed for use by the military or weapons that mimic the look of these war machines. Now if you were to form an organized, WELL REGULATED militia than by all means, you can have any weapons you want.
I think there is a lot of paranoia in the constrictive movement. The Dems don’t want to take all of your guns. I mean why would they? (well i take that back. Some amongst the Dems may actually just simply hate all guns for some unknown reason. But it would be a small minority.) The reason for the proposed ban is to decrease the number of gun related deaths that occur here in America. Moreover, the hope is it would diminish the atmosphere and persona that assault weapons create. There are countless neighborhoods in America where gang violence is way too part of the norm. If we took as many of guns out of the hands of our youth living in the most poverty stricken neighborhoods in this country, I would have no objection.
Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people.
Oops sorry, that last one was me (shipwreck) . I’m using my roomates computer
The “Communist Rulers hate citizens that can defend themselves against my dictatorship” law.
#14 says:
“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…”
– George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention
“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Elbridge Gerry
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry
Or it could just be because they don’t want the serfs rebelling. Nah, couldn’t be that.
Hey, this Kool-Aid is awesome!
No, that’s not the hope, pal.
Hope: “Power = Good. Well armed citizenry that doesn’t like us having all that power = Bad.”
Oh, I know, it couldn’t happen here.
Any firearm could be defined as an “assault weapon”. If someone beats the crap out of someone else with a rock, then that rock is a weapon, used in an assault. We must ban rocks now! “Why did I kill that old lady? I grew up in an atmosphere of violence. My father worked in a quarry and…”
That phrase makes about as much sense as the old standby “Guns kill people”. Do bullets have souls? Do they think and calculate? Do they load themselves into guns and manipulate the gun for the purpose of killing people?
I’m going to bed.
Tour de force, Marko.
“In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
Protection, sport, and hunting. Sounds practical to me.
“Now if you were to form an organized, WELL REGULATED militia than by all means, you can have any weapons you want.”
‘Well Regulated’ can be read as ‘Law Abiding’.
“If we took as many of guns out of the hands of our youth living in the most poverty stricken neighborhoods in this country, I would have no objection.”
You try to do that without getting shot with your lame-brain anti-gun views. Know how to get people to stop shooting each other? Put the fear of death in them. Right now in Chicago, I walk through areas to get home; areas where people are so scared of getting shot, they don’t come out of their houses at night. When I walk by at 9:30, I see blinds going down, shutters drawn, silhouettes disappearing.
Why is this? Why are the gangs, the criminals the ones scaring the people? Why aren’t the gangs the ones hiding all the time? Because the people that follow the law don’t have a means of protecting themselves. Twice in that forsaken city I have been in a situation where I wished I had even a long stick.
Now what if most law abiding citizens could have a weapon if they chose? Most gang members I know act tough only when they think they are in charge. Put them on the receiving end, and they disappear. Now why can’t the law abiding citizens in Chicago do that?
One of my good friends’ had a brother that was killed in Chicago a few years back. In front of him. He couldn’t do anything. This nonsense about taking guns out of the hands of youth sounds good, but there are already laws preventing it. It does no good.
“If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”
That can be taken 2 ways. Both ways have consequences.
The self-destructive willing ignorance of libtard trolls never ceases to amaze me. Yes, I am talking about you.
Anywho, the definition of assault weapon that Congress recognizes in the proposed reestablishment of the AWB refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again. They look like military version assault weapons… because they are! There is on practical reason for this. No one wants to take away our semi-autos, just the ones that are designed to look like military assuly weapons.
19- “Protection, sport, and hunting. Sounds practical to me.” Yup these are practical. But one does not need to trick foul into thinking he is being targeted by a military assault weapon.
17- You don’t find that funny: “Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people.” I didn’t really mean anything by it, just thought it was funny. Oh, and, Marko, you sound the most paranoid of them all. Where were all of you fringe right conservatives when the government did invade the rights and liberties of the people with the Patriot act? I think I hear crickets…
I personally own an arsenal, no, I like to think of it as a family, of guns. And a happy family we are.
I am for gun rights. Sensible gun rights.
“Where were all of you fringe right conservatives when the government did invade the rights and liberties of the people with the Patriot act? I think I hear crickets…”
I’m not a cricket. And who’s rights did the government invade? Terrorists! Terrorists aren’t people. People don’t try to kill themselves to kill other people to prove they are peaceful. You’ve been in college too long and need to get out into the real world.
Stupid hippies.
#21 TRM: Did you even read what you wrote and see any viable argument at all for an “assault weapons ban?” Who exactly defines what an “assault weapon” is? Sure, the lib wussies are claiming all they mean by “assault weapon” is “semi-automatics that originated as military weapons”. By the definition of “originated as a military weapon” (which is sure to become more broad sweeping), what’s to keep it from soon including my 8mm Mauser 98 (originally a German sniper rifle, and my favorite hunting rifle) or my grandpa’s M-1? Sure, they’re bolt-action, but they originally served as military weapons. Ohhh…scary! No? How about a 1911…the long-standing favored side arm of the military…and semi-automatic. The ongoing problem, especially with liberal democrats, is they say one thing to get a bill passed, but once passed and you read it, there’s hidden passages that would have kept you from voting for the bill (take the “stimulus package” as the most recent in a long line).
Here’s the problem with “sensible” gun laws. Have you ever been in a city with gun bans? Does this stop criminals from using guns? Do you think criminals stride into a gun store to buy their fully automatic UZI’s? Gun bans only control the law-abiding gun owners, and law-abiding gun owners aren’t the ones jacking liquor stores and doing drive-by’s. History also shows when a right is infringed upon, it doesn’t stop a a little bit…it goes all the way, usually applauded by fools.
As for the Patriot Act, there were plenty of us against that as well. You probably don’t know it from listening to the MSM and Hollywood idiots, who continually regurgitate, “Democrats good, Conservatives evil”! Despite what you hear from empty suits, true conservatives hold 3 documents absolutely sacred: the Bible, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
2nd Amendment? I got your 2nd Amendment Right Here Act!
Making All Americans Equal To a Fetus at a Planned Parenthood Clinic Act!
All men now wear pink panties act!
All men are now homosexuals act!
The USA where men are women and women are men act!
Here take my money and my wife because I’m a defenseless pussy act!
You raped my wife and stole my money and I’m feeling really bad about it act!
Pingback: SayUncle
No, they’re not. For someone who claims to have a “family of guns”, you seem to know absolutely jack about firearms. Name me one civilian rifle that has selective fire capability.
Another problem with gun control, is that when you live in a society with really strict gun laws, and your gun gets stolen, even if it was a legally owned gun, you are a lot less likely to report it to the police.
I know from first hand experience, that the police treat gun theft very seriously, and will go to great lengths to recover stolen guns. I have seen it. However, we can only do so when such theft is reported to us, and such reports will only be made, when the citizen is comfortable in informing us that their weapon was taken.
Liberals will argue that outlawing guns will dry up the supply of guns that criminals have to steel, but such logic fails when you realize how many millions of weapons there are out there. Even if you were to make gun ownership illegal, even if you launched a massive effort to round up all guns, you better believe very few of these weapons would be found and removed by the authorities. There would be a healthy supply for criminals to find and steal for decades to come. Besides, guns are so easy to make, as well as ammunition, that illegal guns would never go away. Look at how complex the process is for making meth, compared to making gun powders. It is such a losing battle, to even attempt it, makes you instantly a loser. It would be worse then the war on drugs.
Then there is the fact that the law is so complicated that many people don’t know where their rights begin or end (thank you lawyers). All kinds of crimes don’t get reported, because people are afraid of getting charged with things like neglect, carelessness, failure to obey an ordinance, assault… I can give you examples that I know of first hand.
No, they’re not. For someone who claims to have a “family of guns”, you seem to know rather little about firearms. Name me one civilian rifle that has selective fire capability.
#12, 14 & 21 TRM
You keep asking questions, various people give you specific answers (http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/02/actual-assault-weapons/#comment-21360) and then you continue to repeat your canned talking points as if they had not already been addressed.
🙁
If you fancy yourself a great debater, or love to hear yourself talk, or have a psychological need to be “the smartest guy in the room”, then stop wasting comments space. You purposely ignore the obvious, and appear to relish sowing strife and discord.
GAZE
Oh TRM, one more thing.
As an adult citizen, I am a member of the unorganized militia of my state, or my country.
“There are countless neighborhoods in America where gang violence is way too part of the norm.”
Which part of criminal do you not understand? Criminals are the people who break the laws. A law saying they can’t have a gun is no different than a law saying they can’t sell drugs. They will both be ignored by the criminals.
This was just mentioned on the Fred Thompson Show. Well done, Frank!
[Wow. I hope someone has audio of that. -Ed.]
IMAO just had this post read by Jeri Thompson at 9:45 PST on the Fred Thompson show, and credit was given to IMAO. Well done.
You guys still don’t seem to understand. So I will explain further. The definition of assault weapons that congress is working with; as is described in the language of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (officially the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) is as I stated earlier: semi-automatics that originated as military weapons. And all guns originated in the military and are bad.
28/30: “Name me one civilian rifle that has selective fire capability.” Obviously there are no select-fire firearms (nor any intermediate cartridge firearms for that matter) that are for legal civilian use. Example: The M14 vs the semi-auto M14. (Generic name: “M1A” which is the Springfield Armory Inc. version of the M14) Or the AR-15″ / semi-auto M16 vs the M16. The civilian counterparts of these military weapons never have selective fire capability. There is no practical use for the M1A and the Colt AR-15 other than shooting stuff , and why would you want a gun to shoot stuff?
23-the ban does not include any bolt action firearms. Obviously these are not semi-automatic. Those should be banned for completely separate reasons.
I’m not against firearms! The Second Amendment does give me the right to bear arms. I just don’t see the need for civilian counterparts to the automatic military war machines like the Dire Wolf battlemech. In fact, what I observe is that the use of these weapons in particular result in greater domestic gun violence — well, not actual violence — those still tend to be regular handguns which we’ll ban later — but they are responsible for lots and lots of theoretical violence. There are plenty of civilian non-assault weapons out there for use to use.
YouWe (I’m a conservative; really!) need to pick our battles guys.[NOTE: Comment was slightly edited to make it less tedious. -Ed.]
The practical use of an AR-15 or an M1A is to shoot tyrants. If you read what the founding fathers wrote about guns this was tier stated reason for the second amendment. A doomsday provision if you will. The idea was that a politician who respected the rights of the citizens had nothing to fear however a politician who abused his power and refused to answer to the will of the people (ie: the ballot box) could be removed.
As we see today in a country like Venezuela where Hugo Chavez has fixed elections in order to remain in power and has changed his country’s constitution at his whim the citizens of the country have no way to oppose him because he controls the weapons.
What you need to ask yourself is why would a politician want to take away your means of opposing tyranny? Is he planning on imposing tyranny?
“I just don’t see the need for civilian counterparts to the automatic military war machines.”
Because, lacking the same functioning, and thus capacity, as the “automatic military war machines” (sweet gahd), they aren’t quite comparable, no matter how hard you grunt and strain to convince people otherwise, you adorable little Moby?
Alternate answer: What you see a need for is not of any importance.
“We need to pick our battles guys.”
This possible battle is not of our choosing, but rather was picked by the rotten little louse that sought pardons for terrorist bombmakers (by that, I mean the current Atty. Gen.) It’s a battle that was fought, and won, in times past. Wearily, we rise to the trumpets yet again.
From the top of your comment:
“You guys still don’t seem to understand.”
Oh, I think I understand you without much problem.
Anyone arguing against the 2nd Amendment and supporting the assault weapons ban doesn’t get what the second amendment is. It is an uneasy truce between the government and the governed. The Founders gave us an escape clause in case the Government started infringing on our basic freedoms. We have been slow to recognize and respond. The Assault Weapons ban basically ensures that the standard citizen has no recourse should the government decide it really has had enough of the republic and wants to force its will by arms. The 2nd amendment is there because the Founders knew abuses come with power and wanted to make sure those abuses would feel hot lead if unabated.
If you don’t like Assault Weapons, don’t buy them, you pussy. But don’t tell me I can’t start shooting back when an increasingly militaristic police force starts stepping on the Other Amendments as well. All or nothing.
TRM
We understand you completely. You could not be more clear:
a) you do not think citizens should own a certain type of firearm because they look like military weapons.
b) “and all guns originated in the military and are bad”.
That says it all right there. But you continue right on anyway
c) “the ban does not include any bolt action firearms. Obviously these are not semi-automatic. Those should be banned for completely separate reasons.” [italics mine]
Will you give us your opinion on our “need” for lever action and pump action rifles next? Multi-barreled ones too please. That way you will have covered the entire gamut of repeating firearms. Don’t forget single shot rifles, especially the ones that use diminutive cartridges.
d) “what I observe is that the use of these weapons in particular result in greater domestic gun violence— well, not actual violence”
This statement makes no sense whatsoever, especially when followed by “those still tend to be regular handguns which we’ll ban later — but they are responsible for lots and lots of theoretical violence.” Violence but not violence? Ah, that would be violence in potentia? In theory? Sort of like kinetic energy, but the kind that hasn’t been transferred to anything yet? I get it.
So you believe in “theoretical violence” AND you are also for the banning of handguns.
To sum things up, you say that you are for the right to keep and bear arms, but you want all the rifles banned, and all the handguns banned. And you see no need for any of them (“why would you want a gun to shoot stuff?”), and believe they cause “theoretical violence”.
Therefore you are against all types of firearms and the ownership thereof, which is completely opposite of what the 2nd Amendment says that you say you support. Logically, this is “A” and “Not A”. Which is illogical. You are an idiot.
The I Want To Be A Crime Victim Ban
The Please Break Into My House And Take My Wallet, My TV, My Spouse While I Watch Ban
The I Wanna See Jesus Ban
The Bend Over And Take It Up The Keister Like Everything Else D.C. Does To Us Ban
“I just don’t see the need for civilian counterparts to the automatic military war machines.”
I just don’t see the need for motorcycles or performance sport cars capable of going well over 100 MPH. These vehicles kill more Americans each year than “civilian counterparts to the automatic military war machines” and are not constitutionally protected. If the Democrats are so concerned with keeping the poor citizens alive why not ban these evil vehicles instead of “civilian counterparts to the automatic military war machines” which statistically kill almost no Americans each year? Why waste the effort?
Just kidding, I love both my bike and my pre-ban (first ban) HK91. Both are very cool. Please don’t ban either, or you are very un-cool.
Jake
40-the words [[[[[“— well, not actual violence — those still tend to be regular handguns which we’ll ban later — but they are responsible for lots and lots of theoretical violence.”]][[“ And all guns originated in the military and are bad.”]]]] (Among others) Are not mine. It seems “Ed” added them later.
By the way, Ed, the Dire Wolf battlemech! That is some hilarious shit! That’s from BattleTech, right.
But, the argument is:
a)Assault weapons=semi auto’s created from former military automatic weapons. These guns, prevalent in the gang communities in the fantasy world I live in, are often mistaken for the real deal. (ban does not include civilian semi auto/hand guns.) Nothing worse than a semi-auto AR-15 being mistaken for full auto. I learned this from Grand Theft Auto.
b)This scares the shit out of innocent neighborhood folk (no one deserves feeling like their life is threatened by a group of hoodlums armed with “M16’s”. (I’m obviously referring to black people here — we should ban them too) Also, other groups of previously unarmed gangs/group of friends feel they need to arm themselves because of the great threat posed by the supposed hardcore gangbangers; becoming hardcore gangbangers themselves. Leads to more gun violence — once again, only limited to the fantasy world I live in, but still of great concern to me.
c)People don’t use assault rifles for hunting/spot anyways. Seriously, who here would be affected by the ban? Anyone here wielding assault weapons? If you do, there are plenty of civilian guns that could get the job done. I have one I use as a hammer.
I just feel that is an important debate to have and will do more fact collection on my assault weapon wielding bands of orcs that live in my fantasy world.
[Once again edited to be less tedious. -Ed.]
You’re funny Ed. I’ll give you that.
The “Take away my neighbor’s gun but leave mine alone” act?
The “Start with these and work on the rest when everyone goes back to sleep” act? (ala troll)
The “Leave the coyotes alone” act?
The “Too bad you can’t play with your new toy” act (ala bully bill)
The “Satisfy fanatical, tedious troll” act?
Arguably, there are no semi-automatic weapons that do not have their roots in military weapons. The technology is of obvious benefit to the military, and the militaries of the world helped develop many of the advances in this field. Any ban of military heritage weapons could be very widely applied.
The AK-47 cartridge, the 7.62×39, is ballistically close to the 30-30, a standard deer rifle cartridge. Many people can and do hunt with these weapons.
Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » The Fred Thompson Show
“Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty men with his fifty. He went up to Eli’jah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and said to him, “O man of God, the king says, ‘Come down.'” But Eli’jah answered the captain of fifty, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then fire came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.”
– 2nd Kings 1:9-10
I want what Eli’jah had.
TRM your lack of understanding of the real issue at hand is disturbing. Either that, or you are the fascist pig who is scared of the rednecks taking the country back from your liberal ass.
TRM, I question the claim that any ‘gangbangers’ in your neighborhood have M16’s, I REALLY question the claim that any have M14’s, but I am pretty sure you are a fool. But perhaps you mistook the M1 Garands they were toting around as M14’s, no?
Or maybe they were only 10/22’s. After all, they fall under your BAN THEM! criteria, guns based on ‘military designs’, right? And the 10/22 looks like an M1A, so it must be evil too.
Whatever… they were probably big, scary, guns and you peed your pants seeing them.
If the ‘military design’ is the criteria for your decision on whether they should be banned, can you name any guns- handguns or long guns (that means rifles in case your vast firearm knowledge missed that) that would not be on your ‘scary guns must be banned’ list?
“I want what Eli’jah had.”
Pretty sure he had one of these:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/AC-130_firing_night.gif
Jake
This is directed toward TRM. The easiest way for me to explain many people’s opposition to any sort of gun ban is…. If the Constitution/ Bill of Rights guarantees the people the right to keep and bear arms and makes no exception to that right, where and why would anyone who swears to uphold that constitution in their sacred oath of office get the notion that they had the power to ban any weapon held by the people?
It matters not the origin of the arms only that the bearer does not infringe on another persons “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” in the application of that firearm.
You mention “sensible” guns laws. We have more than enough guns laws to account for every misdeed and crime that could possibly be commited. If we enforced our existing laws with the same vigor that we apply to banning firearms we would be in a much better condition and this abhorant “need” to ban a gun would be nonexistant except in the mentaly unstable minds of liberal ignorants
#50 – Jake,
Yep, I reckon that’d qualify as a ‘chariot of fire’. 😉
TRM, you dumb f*ck. I own the closest thing to military-issue weapons that I am legally allowed (given the 1934 and 1986, anti-Constitutional restrictions on infantry arms) so that I have the closest thing to a real chance of being able to kill my government should it go all HAL 9000 on me.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It exists to provide Constitutional protection to my ability to defend myself from the excesses of my own government.
You dumb f*ck.
NGA
The “Mandatory Forearm Barcode Tattoos Won’t Be Possible With an Armed Populace” Act.
Pingback: “ALTERNATE NAMES FOR THE ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN’” – B I R D
Pingback: Alternate Names for the “Assault Weapons” Ban | MT Pundit
Pingback: Frank J’s List of Alternative Names For the Gun Control Act…Hey Doesn’t Gun Control Mean Hit Your Target??? | Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar
Shipwreck,
You most certainly live up to your name. Even with the liberal take on several Supreme Court rulings (Miller vs. US comes to mind), the fact becomes clear: The 2nd Amendment protects only those firearms that may be reasonably considered to be used by a Militia (Military). Coupled with the fact that, by the US Code of laws, all males between the ages of 17 and 45 ARE members of the Militia (USC Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13 Subsection 311), that means that even the Firearms Control Act is unconstitutional. The reason for the 2nd is to prevent a Tyranny, not to protect rights to hunt…
And I submit: The Act that will reduce America To It’s Second Civil War Act of 2009.
Pingback: Note of the Day » Terrific stuff to peruse
TRM wrote: “I’m not against firearms! The Second Amendment does give me the right to bear arms. I just don’t see the need for civilian counterparts to the automatic military war machines like the Dire Wolf battlemech.”
First, Mr. Smart Guy, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t ‘give’ us anything more than a guarantee. The right pre-exists the Constitution. Thus saith SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller. The enumeration of same, however, elevates the right into the “strict scrutiny” category, meaning that any infringement that claims “compelling government interest” had better be really, REALLY convincing.
Second, Mr. Smart Guy, Heller cited U.S. v. Miller in defining the types of arms the keeping and bearing of which is protected, to wit, “in common use by the people” and that “bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia”.
Third, Mr. Smart Guy, there are two militias – one organized, i.e. the National Guard, and one unorganized, i.e. the entire adult population. The National Guard amounts to a government army – NOT the militia targeted for protection by the 2nd Amendment. It exists to protect our right to defend against a standing government army. Thus saith the Founders and Framers.
And last, Mr. Smart Guy, by citing the Miller two-pronged test of what constitutes “protected” arms, SCOTUS cemented into precedent, exactly, military-pattern small arms.
In sum, Congress can indeed pass a ban on “assault weapons” if it wishes – Congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time, knowing that they will be enforced until they are struck down. By their lights, half a loaf, after all, is better than no loaf. But an AWB, post-Heller, simply will not stand judicial scrutiny.
So, NYA!
Now, go pound sand, and leave our rights alone.
How about the “Scary Looking Weapons Ban”?
Two guys tried to rob me. One flashed a gun and then tucked it in his pants, as he was sure I would be scared into behaving like a victim. When he came very close to me, I shoved him at the second guy and drew my weapon. They ran, and I am not allowed to fire at a fleeing felon. I’m keeping my guns, and carrying some too.
How about Guns are ++Ungood Act
That should satisfy the Big Brother urge found in DC.
Pingback: More great stuff from Fank J « Dennisranch’s Weblog
Pingback: Frank J’s List of Alternative Names For the Gun Control Act…Hey Doesn’t Gun Control Mean Hit Your Target??? | Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar
shipwrecked,
I belive it was Jefferson who said, when you give up rights in the hopes of security, you end up with neither security or rights. and for those areas you mentioned, how about actually profiling gang members if you take away guns from the law biding, then only the gang members have them, but something tells me, you’ve never even left your upper middle class neighborhood where it’s easy to be all liberal
whats next, serial numbering ammo, so it can be used as proberal cause to enter my home when chuck shumer decides it’s a good day to make another gun bad to have
well,if we need to ban everything originally dervied for military use,then i guess we all need to give up our computers,cause the internet is next on the list of things to be banned
Pingback: GUNS, GUNS, GUNS! (Featuring Michael Moore) | Daily News Inc.
Pingback: GUNS, GUNS, GUNS! (Featuring Michael Moore) - Acu News Daily