Proposed Anti-Gun, Anti-2nd Amendment Bill in the works

[computeerrgghh]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: computeerrgghh

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. 😀

Text Here is the full text of the bill. There is a section called definitions that lists a bunch of assault weapons and further defines them.

but you need to look up all the references to get the full picture....

I was simply answer his question. The only cross reference for the definitions section can be found here

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
Personally, I think that concealed hand guns are potentially more harmful than rifles. How many 7-11's are robbed w/ an AR-15, or any other rifle?

A better question, how many of the robbers have a permit to carry that handgun legally and how many of those handguns were obtained legally? Again, you (not you specifically) really should not be scared of the people that are legally carrying guns....

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: dmw16

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

The problem with that is the wording. How do you define an assault weapon? On the surface, it's really just an emotional idea. But when you try to define it, you'll see that you can't really draw the line between an "assault rifle" and a "rifle".

People picture assault rifles as being the scary looking guns with black stocks. But when you look at the nuts and bolts of the thing, you'll see that there's much in common with a gun that isn't considered an "assault weapon". In fact, some of them have the same exact actions, but a different stock.

The same can be said about "sniper rifles" vs. common deer hunting rifles.

Read more into the issue and you'll see that it's just emotions spouting and there isn't much logic involved.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
Personally, I think that concealed hand guns are potentially more harmful than rifles. How many 7-11's are robbed w/ an AR-15, or any other rifle?

What percentage of either do you suppose are involved in any crimes at all? Hell, why blame the gun, why not blame the getaway car? OMG! We need to ban all cars! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you believe we have a right to own arms to fight a tyrannical government, isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that you can own assault rifles but not mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc. You are going to need more than just rifles to fight the government unless you want to end up a steak like those guys in Waco.

Then why do you care so much? Oh, I know, it's because you know that your logic is flawed. Waco was just a few. An armed populace is everyone. Yaknow, like what the US Army is currently losing against in Iraq? 😉

Originally posted by: senseamp
They meant bare arms. You can bare your arms any time you want.

In fact, they did mean bare arms. The classic definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment referred to those weapons which a soldier carried into battle all by himself. And, not coincidentally, was usually required to provide himself as well.
"mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc." are usually referred to by other names, like ordnance, tactical weapons, strategic weapons, etc.

Thanks for making yourself look stupid. BTW, I have a question for you. If you can't trust the people with guns, how is it that you trust them with votes?

What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: dmw16

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

The problem with that is the wording. How do you define an assault weapon? On the surface, it's really just an emotional idea. But when you try to define it, you'll see that you can't really draw the line between an "assault rifle" and a "rifle".

People picture assault rifles as being the scary looking guns with black stocks. But when you look at the nuts and bolts of the thing, you'll see that there's much in common with a gun that isn't considered an "assault weapon". In fact, some of them have the same exact actions, but a different stock.

The same can be said about "sniper rifles" vs. common deer hunting rifles.

Read more into the issue and you'll see that it's just emotions spouting and there isn't much logic involved.

Yep. It's just pure ugly ignorant populism. Politicians tugging on voters' emotional strings. We won't ban all cars, just those evil black ones!

 

[technophile82]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
<------------------P&N

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: computeerrgghh

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: computeerrgghh

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. 😀

Text Here is the full text of the bill. There is a section called definitions that lists a bunch of assault weapons and further defines them.

but you need to look up all the references to get the full picture....

I was simply answer his question. The only cross reference for the definitions section can be found here

i added some cliffs to the op

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I have already wrote by reps several times on this, but still does not have a chance of going anywhere. Completely worthless and pointless legislation.

Every one of my "Assault Weapons" and my high-capacity magazines are worth more than the lives of those who would take them from me.

If you were here, right now, I'd smack you in your mouth.

Oh look, a gun hater with violent tendencies. Color me surprised.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

Democracy and gun control... for now. Dictators always start by disarming the populace.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
If you believe we have a right to own arms to fight a tyrannical government, isn't it a bit hypocritical to say that you can own assault rifles but not mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc. You are going to need more than just rifles to fight the government unless you want to end up a steak like those guys in Waco.

Then why do you care so much? Oh, I know, it's because you know that your logic is flawed. Waco was just a few. An armed populace is everyone. Yaknow, like what the US Army is currently losing against in Iraq? 😉

Originally posted by: senseamp
They meant bare arms. You can bare your arms any time you want.

In fact, they did mean bare arms. The classic definition of "arms" as used in the 2nd Amendment referred to those weapons which a soldier carried into battle all by himself. And, not coincidentally, was usually required to provide himself as well.
"mortars, howitzers, missiles, etc." are usually referred to by other names, like ordnance, tactical weapons, strategic weapons, etc.

Thanks for making yourself look stupid. BTW, I have a question for you. If you can't trust the people with guns, how is it that you trust them with votes?

What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

Democracy does not and cannot exist in any countries that have complete gun control. What does exist is just a kind of fantasy democracy, where the government humors the populace but could steal their right to vote at any time it might chose to.

I enjoy your pathetic ad hominem of redneck, BTW. That's what I was referring to when I said you were making yourself look stupid. Obviously you have strong emotions for a weak argument, hence your need for racial slurs. I am, in actual fact, of Scotch-Irish descent and proud of it. Do you also call blacks by the N-word?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: technophile82

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
<------------------P&N

in p&n there are ~24.3K topics, in here there are ~290K...i want people to see this as it is very important.

 

[everman]

I propose a bill banning all crime, once my new anti-crime law is enacted all crime will be eliminated because all peoples of the world always obey the law. It is absurd to think that only "law-abiding" citizens abide by the law, and that criminals are free from abiding by the law.


And I do apologize for any broken sarcasm detectors.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: thraashman

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons.

Please read more into the issue instead of making knee-jerk, emotional, uneducated decisions. An "assault weapon" is just an emotionally charged idea, with little to no logic involved.

Would you call this an assault weapon? #1?

How about this? #2?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: everman
I propose a bill banning all crime, once my new anti-crime law is enacted all crime will be eliminated because all peoples of the world always obey the law. It is absurd to think that only "law-abiding" citizens abide by the law, and that criminals are free from abiding by the law.


And I do apologize for any broken sarcasm detectors.

You shouldn't have apologized. I'm sure that bait would have drawn a lot of bites.

Why... you're right! We need to pass a law banning all crime right now... for God's sake, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: thraashman

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons.

Please read more into the issue. An "assault weapon" is just an emotionally charged idea, with little to no logic involved.

Would you call this an assault weapon? #1?

How about this? #2?

Obviously the longer magazine on #1 enables it to fire bullets at a faster rate.*



* Actual statement by Ted Kennedy.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. 😀

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.

you still can't get one of the "genuine assault weapons" as you describe without the $200 tax stamp, plus it has to be pre '86. no new f/a weapons are allowed to be bought by the public, thus the crazy prices on f/a weapons. the only exceptions would be for manf and dealers, but even then it is the company and not the individual that owns the weapon.

this ban is talking about semi-auto weapons as full-auto has been taken care of by the 1934 ban and also the 1986 ban.

I am very aware about the tax stamp, I own several NFA firearms myself. Just saying that Oregon does not further regulate those weapons. Some other states do, on top of the NFA of 1934.

The point is, a semi-auto AR-15 or anything like it is NOT an assault weapon.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

Democracy and gun control... for now. Dictators always start by disarming the populace.

Do people actually believe that by allowing the general populace to carry arms that they would have any chance against an organized army of tanks, aircrafts, body armor, training, etc? I can understand why the colonists would think bearing arms safeguards the populace from a tyrannical government but what are you going to do against a tank with your assault rifle?

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

Democracy and gun control... for now. Dictators always start by disarming the populace.

Dictators start with Signing Statements.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

Democracy and gun control... for now. Dictators always start by disarming the populace.

Do people actually believe that by allowing the general populace to carry arms that they would have any chance against an organized army of tanks, aircrafts, body armor, training, etc? I can understand why the colonists would think bearing arms safeguards the populace from a tyrannical government but what are you going to do against a tank with your assault rifle?

Ask the US Army in Iraq.

 

[bob4432]

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: adairusmc
I have already wrote by reps several times on this, but still does not have a chance of going anywhere. Completely worthless and pointless legislation.

Every one of my "Assault Weapons" and my high-capacity magazines are worth more than the lives of those who would take them from me.

If you were here, right now, I'd smack you in your mouth.

Oh look, a gun hater with violent tendencies. Color me surprised.

:thumbsup:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of countries that have democracy and gun control.
Thanks for making yourself look like a redneck hick, BTW.

Democracy and gun control... for now. Dictators always start by disarming the populace.

Do people actually believe that by allowing the general populace to carry arms that they would have any chance against an organized army of tanks, aircrafts, body armor, training, etc? I can understand why the colonists would think bearing arms safeguards the populace from a tyrannical government but what are you going to do against a tank with your assault rifle?

Easy. You don't dress up in a uniform and attack the tank. You dress in plain clothes and knock off your enemy when he least expects it. Is the tank driver always in the tank? I bet he goes home sometime. Find out who he is.

You don't have to bravely stand in front of the tank and act like an enemy. That's ridiculous. You can just wear your normal clothes, go to work, go to the bar at night, then pop a soldier in the back of the head while he's walking to his car in the parking lot. One tank driver dead, and your bullet didn't even need to pierce the tank's armor.

Come on, it doesn't take much thought to figure that much out.

 

[91TTZ]

I would like those who support such assault weapons bills to honestly answer my previously asked question. I'm serious about this and I want to get some opinions.

Would you call this an assault weapon? #1?

How about this? #2?

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I?m still waiting for someone to tell me what an assault weapon is? All of you who are for this law don?t even know what it is you want banned. 😀

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

Thankfully, they are not further regulated here in Oregon.

you still can't get one of the "genuine assault weapons" as you describe without the $200 tax stamp, plus it has to be pre '86. no new f/a weapons are allowed to be bought by the public, thus the crazy prices on f/a weapons. the only exceptions would be for manf and dealers, but even then it is the company and not the individual that owns the weapon.

this ban is talking about semi-auto weapons as full-auto has been taken care of by the 1934 ban and also the 1986 ban.

I am very aware about the tax stamp, I own several NFA firearms myself. Just saying that Oregon does not further regulate those weapons. Some other states do, on top of the NFA of 1934.

The point is, a semi-auto AR-15 or anything like it is NOT an assault weapon.

agreed with the ar15 statement, trying to keep this thread going the right way as many have no idea what a assault weapon really is