Assault Weapons Ban 2013

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by Rich1028, Dec 31, 2012.

  1. Rich1028

    Rich1028 Well-Known Member

    153
    0
    Assault Weapons Ban 2013


    Dianne Feinstein has released details for her proposed 2013 Assault Weapons Ban. This new Assault Weapons Ban is far more restrictive than the 1994 law she helped to pass. This new law will ban many popular handguns, rifles and shotguns and will require registration for most gun owners. Please get involved to stop this legislation now.

    [ame]http://youtu.be/JDglpt8hpyg[/ame]
     
  2. Rich1028

    Rich1028 Well-Known Member

    153
    0
    I sent this out yesterday to my Senators, Congressmen and the President:

    I got one responce back,from a senator.....here is what she wrote.

    Dear Richard,

    Thank you for contacting me about the tragic and senseless violence in Newtown, Connecticut. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and concerns with me.

    If there is anything that deeply unites Americans across the country it is our love for our children and grandchildren and our desire to keep them safe. In the wake of the heartbreaking tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary, all of us must come together to determine what steps can be taken to protect our children. That means discussing how we can strengthen our gun laws to help stop attacks like this from happening again, while protecting responsible gun ownership and preserving our hunting heritage. It also means strengthening mental health services, and focusing on the broader culture of violence in the media and our society. These solutions may not be easy, but one thing should be clear – complacency and inaction until the next attack must not be an option.

    Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

    Sincerely,
    Debbie Stabenow
    United States Senator
     

  3. Rich1028

    Rich1028 Well-Known Member

    153
    0
    I sent her another email just today...
    here it is...

    Debbie Stabenow

    Every City,or Country that has Banned Firearms has had a drastic rise in Crime,...it's a fact!!!

    I as A Taxpayer,and an American I am requesting and demanding that there be no change in Gun Laws or the 2nd Amendment!!
    As Tragic as recent events have been,the Firearms are not to blame. Poor Judgement,lack of mental heath and gun owners that are not responsible to secure their Firearms.I have been a Gun enthusiast for awhile I and my wife have had our hunter safety course as well as out ccw training for our Hand Guns.
    We have Trained our 16 yr old Daughter in Proper Care and Handling of Firearms.
    We as a nation owe it to ourselves to protect our families,and our Homes.
    I speak for many Friends,Neighbors,and Acquaintances,we will not stand by and watch our Government systematically dismantle our Rights and Liberties that our Forefathers Died for!We hope that our Elected Officals do the right thing for AMERICA and our FREEDOMS!!

    Richard
    ____________________________________

    I think it's time for us all to get involed in this...right now!

    send these people letters,let them know that you do not like the way this is headed.
     
  4. sandlynx

    sandlynx Member

    14
    0
    That this is being proposed again makes me sick. And, clearly, this gov is determined to totally trash the constitution and take away all our rights. It's obvious that's what they have in mind. Fight this or become the disarmed and helpless slaves they want.
     
  5. sandlynx

    sandlynx Member

    14
    0
    OK, if you do a Google for 2012 Assault Weapons Ban, the very first article to come up is:
    How to Get a New Assault-Weapons Ban Through Congress
    By ADAM EISGRAU
    Published: January 2, 2013

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/o...ban-through-congress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    excerpt:


    Preventing another slaughter will require not just new gun regulations, but also education, mental health care, greater access by law enforcement agencies to mental health records and assistance for parents, while respecting the whole Bill of Rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    I call that bias!
    Every dictator in the past understood that the first step to controlling the population was disarming them. Stalin, Mao,.....
     
  6. Spoon

    Spoon Well-Known Member

    560
    0
    From "Bob Owens . Com"

    "…Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.
    Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.
    They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.
    After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.
    Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.
    Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.
    While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.
    The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.
    You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.
    Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.
    Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

    "Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.
    Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.
    If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.
    It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead."
    -----
    I don't think it will take more than 1...maybe 2 "raids" at the most before this can & does become an instantaneous reality! The question is...Are there enough souls of faith and dedication to fight the just cause especially after the initial major mass casualty site(s) or will self-doubt, fear coupled with other panicked choices spell the defeat of LIBERTY in short order?

    I'm ready, willing and able to trade what's left of my sorry, damaged carcass for a small part of a hope for a future of a reborn America where Responsibility, Honor and Integrity matter and excuses are unacceptable!

    Spoon
     
  7. sandlynx

    sandlynx Member

    14
    0
    Spoon,
    That's actually a very hopeful scenario.
     
  8. Spoon

    Spoon Well-Known Member

    560
    0
    Agreed! Could get ugly in a hurry. May GOD help us all!
     
  9. axxe55

    axxe55 Well-Known Member

    1,241
    0
    the proposed AWB of 2013 is simply another knee jerk reaction that will have zero chance of stopping any more violence than did any other gun control law or restriction has. ZERO!

    CT already had a state AWB that did nothing in stopping thes tragic events. so a nationwide one would prevent what? NOTHING!

    their proposed gun control laws and another AWB would not prevent any further violence, but as usual would only restrict and control LAC who own firearms. it's not about controlling or preventing violence, it's about controlling the citizens.
     
  10. Spoon

    Spoon Well-Known Member

    560
    0
    The lunatic did not use a Modern Sporting Rifle or an AK. His carnage was done with pistols, but the MSM has led the public to believe otherwise. Bans don't work, but returning to swift and TERMINAL RESULTS for all thugs will send a message that even a criminally-intent individual will understand. Think of it as the saying "A large bore/caliber weapon pointed at anyone's head is a universally understood message.

    I'd advise every citizen that subscribes to Constitutional standards and rules of Law, make at least weekly inquiries and demands upon all their elected officials in State Capitols as well as the seemingly useless mass in both Chambers of Congress! To do less is tantamount to aiding and abetting the Marxists' causes.

    And if you've got about 15 minutes...the omnipresent ANONYMOUS outlines cases and cites US Statutes covering the actions set forth concerning misconduct along the lines of attacks on the 2A: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiS3f4gxCQ&feature=share"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqiS3f4gxCQ&feature=share[/ame]

    - Spoon -
     

    Attached Files:

  11. sandlynx

    sandlynx Member

    14
    0
    Spoon, That's a beautiful tool! A survival tool. "Assaulted" anyone lately with it? I didn't think so. (I specialize in sarcasm. It's an alternative to doing what I'd really like to do.)
     
  12. sandlynx

    sandlynx Member

    14
    0
    I have talked to many gun owners since I was last on this forum, and none of them are willing to comply with this law if passed. None. So, the scenario Spoon posted, that's likely going to be the reality if the D.C. critters don't listen to the citizens out here.
    I am amazed that the D.C. critters are still focused on the next election cycle. Those who have elections coming up are afraid that if they vote for the law to pass, they won't be reelected. Others who were newly elected and not facing a near election, are leaning toward favoring passing the gun reg law. The issue of unconstitutionality isn't part of their thinking. Only getting reelected is. This mindset has to change. If draconian laws get passed, they are going to have some overwhelmingly serious problems with the American people. Even the previously snoozing types are waking up.
     
  13. Spoon

    Spoon Well-Known Member

    560
    0
    Ain't that funny how some beautiful walnut fit and finished with a craftsman's touch change the EBR into a thing of beauty! It'll pop the gong at 500, but the diminutive bullet hasn't gotta lot of 'salt' left when it tings the hardened plate!
     
  14. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    727
    0
    Bloody hell guys !
    CT already had an assault weapons ban !

    Then the tragic results that fateful day at Sandy Hook, was a lesson that will not be learnt.
    Mental health, and proper follow up would have been so easy, but that takes $$$$$, and it seems easier to ban assault weapons AGAIN !

    I feel for the families of those poor little ones, those that survived, with that etched into their minds forever, and the continual support they will require.
    I feel for honest, and law abiding citizens, now having to sit and wait for some Government "numb-nut" to force his will on a "free people".

    Bloody hell, I hate knee jerk reactionism

    Good luck
    Bucky
     
  15. axxe55

    axxe55 Well-Known Member

    1,241
    0
    very well said Bucky! much easier for them to blame an object and demonize it rather than addressing the real issue which is mentally unstable people having access to firearms.
     
  16. Spoon

    Spoon Well-Known Member

    560
    0
    BUCKY You're back!:)

    Yes CT had an illegal restriction on weapons ownership under my plain and simple interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Problem is...NO military-stylized weapons were used. All his carnage was done with pistols and several magazines. He killed his mom, took the guns and MOST of the rest is now history.

    The bloody savages...err left-tilted politicians are using this sad & tragic loss of the 20 youngsters and 6 adult deceased as an inflated soap box to broadcast their anti-gun nonsense. As they say...the natives are getting restless. I pray for the best possible outcome, but as you put it, "knee jerk reationism" has created an upswell of pro-gun support. Folks are beginning to receive and interpret the facts for what they are. The 2nd exists to prevent tyranny...plain & simple. The people are also being made aware of the facts that guns in the hands of citizens prevent boatloads of crimes and save lives. And of course...all of us here sometimes just like to hear a firearms report, whether a paper, plastic or steel target or as hunter/harvesters.

    Hope you summer is pleasant. I'm looking forward to SPRING and warmer temps. Good Day! Spoon
     
  17. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Lifetime Supporting

    5,730
    103
    AWB of 1994...

    Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

    In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

    Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent. Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

    The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime." A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.
     
  18. Rich1028

    Rich1028 Well-Known Member

    153
    0
    I got another reply

    Dear Richard

    Thank you for contacting me about gun safety issues. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

    I support sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help prevent crimes, suicides and violence committed with firearms. I support the steps President Obama outlined recently to curb the gun violence that plagues our nation, and I believe Congress can and should work to enact legislation to prevent gun violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    I was an original cosponsor of the Brady Law (P.L.103-159). This law requires prospective handgun purchasers to undergo criminal background checks before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The background check system is able to make 92 percent of background check determinations on the spot, and since 1994, has prevented more than 1.5 million firearm purchases. Additionally, according to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States dropped 22 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 30,769 in 2007. The number of gun homicides dropped by more than 29 percent, from 17,024 in 1993 to 12,129 in 2007.

    While the Brady Law has been successful in reducing gun violence, I believe more has to be done. For example, only 60 percent of all gun sales in the United States take place at licensed federal dealers, where background checks are mandatory. The remaining 40 percent of gun sales are conducted by unlicensed individual sellers, often at gun shows, and a background check is not required. This means that across our nation, any dangerous individual can go to a gun show and purchase a deadly weapon without any form of background check. To close this ‘gun show loophole,’ I am a cosponsor of the Gun Show Background Check Act. This bill would enact the common sense principle that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show should be able to pass a simple background check. Ten national police organizations support closing this loophole.

    Additionally, I am a cosponsor of the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, a bill that seeks to reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. Although hard to believe, nothing in current law prohibits individuals on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms, unless they fall into another disqualifying category. This “terror gap” in federal law must be closed, and this bill would do just that. This legislation would deny the transfer of a firearm when a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. Keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists is just common sense.

    I also have always supported the rights of sportsmen and hunters. Hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans and plays an integral role in modern wildlife management. But military style assault weapons have no sporting purpose. Because of these weapons, our nation’s citizens are in greater danger and police officers across the country are encountering criminals armed with highly lethal military style weapons.

    To support our law enforcement community and to save lives, I am a cosponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation would prevent the future possession, manufacture, sale and importation of assault-type weapons while grandfathering weapons lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment. It would ban firearms with detachable magazines and military style features, such as grenade launchers, protruding pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. It would support law enforcement officers across our nation, who should not be forced to confront lawbreakers toting military arms. And it would protect the rights of hunters by specifically naming thousands of firearms with legitimate sporting, sentimental or other value that would remain legal to possess.

    This bill also would ban high capacity ammunition magazines. Studies have shown that high capacity ammunition magazines are used in 31 to 41 percent of fatal police shootings in cities across our nation. They also have been used by the perpetrators of numerous mass shootings, including at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others, the attack on a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the horrifying shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The Newtown shooting alone left twenty six people dead, twenty of them children.

    We must not wait until more places are added to this heartbreaking list. We can and should act swiftly to protect our families and loved ones from mass shootings. These measures have the overwhelming support of law enforcement communities around our nation, who have implored us to make changes to stop the flood of these types of weapons into the hands of those who would use them for harm. I will continue to work for common-sense gun safety measures.

    Thank you again for contacting me.

    Sincerely,
    Carl Levin
    levin.senate.gov
     
  19. Spoon

    Spoon Well-Known Member

    560
    0
    Feinstein is using absolutely her own dreamland facts. Elitist attitude that she and her kind (government officials) can own/carry firearms, but citizens can't. Me thinks she's been obtaining too much of the high-quality bud in the medical marijuana shops that have been laced with psychogenic agent. Feinstein is just like the lady MO US senator passing the Anti's propaganda that Lanza used an "assault rifle" at the school that sad and tragic day. Funny how she didn't mention the two 9mm pistols and the handful of loaded pistol mags. I want to see the City, State and FBI data referencing the number & caliber of brass that were found on scene.

    Heck, in case you haven't heard, there's a MO State senator (female-D) that entered a bill in the state roundhouse that forces school age children to "snitch" on their gun-owning parents all in the name of child welfare. I immediately wrote my Senator and State Rep to stomp this one into the ground. Both are avid gun owners/hunters and basically both said they will do all that can be done to kill these bill attempts ASAP. They also support their chambers bills that are moving through committees that declare the FEDS will be arrested and charged as a FELON should any agent make any attempt to disarm, remove or otherwise confiscate and compromise a MO citizens RKBA.

    I have deep concerns that with the Miami FLUSA Black Helo fire sessions...err, excuse me "Civil Obdeience (Defense) exercise last week makes it clear that the S may HTF. Unless it was properly announced on radio and television broadcasts prior to the commencement...it was Domestic Terrorism carried out through the guy in the White House. Should have been alarm bells going of in any sane person's head. ANYONE can shed more light on this from Florida...please chime in. I pray for the souls of any that will be lost in large numbers if/when the spark ignites the powder keg.

    Here's another very good article on the duties put upon us in scripture and defines killing of evil as fully justifiable versus a murderous act. http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/pro...ight-to-keep-and-bear-arms?xg_source=activity To those that deny God's existence, influence and wisdom...it's might will be an educational read, nonetheless.