Poll: Do you believe that this AWB will pass? Why?

[hoody]

Here is an article discussing the GOP House majority and why it may be a significant barrier to gun control legislation.

Why America Can't Pass Gun Control - Steven Hill and Robert Richie - The Atlantic

 

[oknow]

I will tear you a new one for allowing the liberal talk/MSM sway you. Our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Sound familiar? How dare you give up my rights so that you feel better.

Do you realize that our current trending of mass murder fatalities it will take us 310 years to reach the number people/kids that drown to death in one year? Go ban high capacity bodies of water. That will save lives.

Also, don't join a gun board and start talking compromising our rights. Wrong target audience. Try here instead.
On The Left

 

[HBIII]

Just exercising my right of free speech. You don't want to take that from me, do you?

Absolutely not. The 1st amendment is equally important as the 2nd. All I want is people like you to exercise (or at least support) the latter equally as the 1st.

 

[shredrome]

Honestly no. ALTHOUGH I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND I CAN ONLY GIVE MY OPINION, I am a law student and 2 recent cases really affirm the 2nd amendment.

1) DC v. Heller (2008) held that the 2nd amendment is an "individual" right of "self defense" for ALL US citizens, and also stated that the 2nd amendment was written to protect the public from tyrannical government (how the Stuart Kinds disarmed the public to only afterwards crush political opposition)

2) McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) held that the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment so whatever the federal government can't do the states likewise can't do.

Although, there is an AWB in DC currently that was upheld in Heller v. DC, the court stated that it was making assumption based off off the Heller and McDonald decisions stated above, and the dissenting judge said that the majority was totally full of it and making bad law. My guess is, that yeah maybe they can ban high capacity magazines like they did 94-04, but banning "assault weapons" that are just cosmetically different than current hunting rifles is gonna be a very difficult thing to do. Plus the only way they could really "get them off the streets" would be to employ a "buy back" system like Australia did. And at roughly 2,000,000 AR15s in the US currently, that would be WAY too expensive.

AGAIN I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THIS IS MY OPINION AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO JUST SO HAPPENS TO READ LAW CASES. ;-)
(I have to say that)

 

[biggie24420]

I said YES because we have mafia members in our government. They will do whatever they can to do what they want IMO. I hope I am wrong on the AWB and I hope we kick their behinds. Now if it passes, do they really think everyone is gonna turn their guns in? there is such a thing as a bad law(s)! they can make it legal to own slaves again... that doesn't mean I am gonna go get myself a few slaves.

 

[locobob]

I'm a recreational shooter, I enjoy plinking and target shooting. I am SO tired of seeing stories about killings EVERY DAY in the news. I don't think an assault rifle ban will change anything, but I can understand how a limit to magazine capacity could possibly help.
Please don't tear me a new one, but I am willing to concede that if it might save a few lives in our country I'd be wiling to stop to reload a little more often. I know that it's an erosion of rights, and that it doesn't address the underlying issues in our society, but I can see how it might make it a little harder for a nut to kill so many people at one time.

I'm tired of hearing about mass murder too but I think you need to check your emotions and use some logic.

Mass shootings are rare, they are a tiny fraction of crime with guns. It's been a while since I've looked it up but if I recall correctly the average number of shots fired in a homicide is very low, something like 3. Do you think its wise to set large scale public policy based on statistical aberrations?

The worst mass shootings tend to have a few things in common: an intelligent, determined, suicidal bad guy (often with multiple weapons), unarmed/defenseless victims, and a mass of people in a confined space where escape is difficult.

It takes all of two seconds for a semi-skilled shooter to change a magazine.

So assuming that we could make the 1 billion or so high capacity magazines currently in private hands disappear tomorrow and restrict capacity to 10 rounds how many lives do you think that would really save? I'm thinking a handful, like maybe 6, hell it might even be none if it causes a shooter to change tactics accordingly. So would you be in favor of lowering the speed limit to 45mph if it would save 6 lives a year? What if lowering it to 35mph would save another 6 lives? It comes down to this: How much personal freedom are you willing to sacrifice for a tiny measure of safety?

 

[theguncrank]

What AWB?

"...it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

hoping NO.....voted yes because thats what the people in power desperately want!

They will use any unfortunate "crisis" to get what they want.

 

[digital0ne]

What AWB?

Assault Weapons Ban

 

[theguncrank]

Assault Weapons Ban

I know what AWB stands for... just noting that the members of the Ban-wagon are still running around like chickens freshly separated from their heads. Seems like a good time to rally the forces of logic and right for the coming conflict so we do not end up acting the same way in a couple of months when they get their bubblegum together and actually bring something to a committee or the floor.

BTW, I voted no because I doubt they can get their bubblegum together.

 

[scottnbarbi]

I'm tired of hearing about mass murder too but I think you need to check your emotions and use some logic.

Mass shootings are rare, they are a tiny fraction of crime with guns. It's been a while since I've looked it up but if I recall correctly the average number of shots fired in a homicide is very low, something like 3. Do you think its wise to set large scale public policy based on statistical aberrations?

The worst mass shootings tend to have a few things in common: an intelligent, determined, suicidal bad guy (often with multiple weapons), unarmed/defenseless victims, and a mass of people in a confined space where escape is difficult.

It takes all of two seconds for a semi-skilled shooter to change a magazine.

So assuming that we could make the 1 billion or so high capacity magazines currently in private hands disappear tomorrow and restrict capacity to 10 rounds how many lives do you think that would really save? I'm thinking a handful, like maybe 6, hell it might even be none if it causes a shooter to change tactics accordingly. So would you be in favor of lowering the speed limit to 45mph if it would save 6 lives a year? What if lowering it to 35mph would save another 6 lives? It comes down to this: How much personal freedom are you willing to sacrifice for a tiny measure of safety?

Well argued, I guess I have to agree with you.

 

[shredrome]

I agree with locobob, and he really hit the nail on the head. For example, during the 94-04 ban is when Columbine happened. Just because they ban HCMs and AWs doesn't mean that there aren't legal loopholes to keep the weapons in the market (just with less military-like cosmetics). Plus all the grandfathered weapons/magazines will still be out there (and wow are there a lot).

The only way to "stop" gun violence would be to take all of them away, and that would directly contradict the 2nd Amendment and completely destroy all personal freedom regarding firearms and self defense.

 

[outontherange]

There will be some sort of ban in place, maybe a tax stamp on Assault Style weapons... possibly an embargo on all foreign weapons coming in, including ammo... higher price with tax on ammo... possibly a background check on ammo...

My question is this... Will they allow the lower receivers that everyone is trying to lock in and purchase to be built as a preban or postban? My suggestion would be to get your build done and then notorize a list of what you made your build with specifiying the date with notorization. I have a feeling they are going to go after the builds because so many people do it, and they don't charge a tax for nuthin on a factory completed ar.

 

[lcb97269]

I voted yes because I saw it happen before. There are few politicians that will not vote for perpetuating themselves regardless of what they say or do before an election. Never met one that wasn't a liar and thief but I think there are a few who are not. Unfortunately, none are on the west coast except maybe Walden.

 

[lcb97269]

outontherange


"My question is this... Will they allow the lower receivers that everyone is trying to lock in and purchase to be built as a preban or postban?"

The answer is: it doesn't matter what "they" do. It is what you will do if they try that really matters.