Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

AWB 2008 or H.R.6257 its here (c&p)

Comments

72 comments

  • Rocklobster
    quote:Just like all the other AWBs in every single congress SINCE the sunset, it's been proposed by no more than 4 co-sponsors, and was referred to the same committee where it will probably be ignored, and die.Let's hope that holds true after January, '09.
    0
  • Werwolf
    quote:Originally posted by Mk23
    Just like all the other AWBs in every single congress SINCE the sunset, it's been proposed by no more than 4 co-sponsors, and was referred to the same committee where it will probably be ignored, and die.
    It's no more of a genuine threat than Ron Paul's sponsored bills are any genuine hope of getting our rights BACK at this point.
    I'm more worried about SMALL bills that are named something else, or add-ons that are tacked onto unrelated bills. Something that might slip past.


    Unfortunately, this is true.
    0
  • Mk23
    It might also be important to note that the sponsor, and all 4 of his co-sponsors are REPUBLICANS.
    0
  • Werwolf
    Yeah, that figures as both parties of politicians as well as the government and the military are as crooked as a dogs hind leg and dont care whatsoever about the Constitution and would kill us in a second or their own mother if they thought that it would benefit their position or their pocketbook. What we really need to know is what are our options as even I don't want to fight if I don't have to, but I will without hesitation and if it comes to civil war, but would prefer to just see if there is any slight chance of peaceable resolutions first.
    As much as I hate to say this and should wash my mouth out with shoe polish;
    even though there are some conservative republicans still in the congress or scheduled to take seat, since they are outnumbered considerably, are there any moderate democrats that probably wont go along with an assault weapons ban or other anti-gun legislation that anyone knows of?
    0
  • Mk23
    As long as we make sure they get the idea that an AWB will be incredibly unpopular (like we did in 1994), the likelyhood of us seeing one anytime soon is slim to none.

    Obama's not going to be able to fix the economy fast enough for his supporters. You know the ones I mean, the ones that were holding Obama parties out in the streets and dancing and screaming all across the country. THEY don't have the attention span of a goldfish. A few months after he takes office, the economy will continue to get worse, and they'll turn on him.

    Obama KNOWS this. He's a liberal Democrat, but he's not an idiot. He KNOWS he can't afford to become unpopular to be re-elected, and he's GOING to be unpopular his first year, and there's nothing he can do to stop it. All we have to do is make it CLEAR that gun legislation will be unpopular, and we can stop it from even reaching his desk.
    0
  • Highball
    quote: AWB will be incredibly unpopular (like we did in 1994), the likelyhood of us seeing one anytime soon is slim to none
    Kinda like the bail-out, ehhh ?

    97 calls out of 100 were against...the switchboard shut down at times.
    0
  • Mk23
    If Bush was up for Re-election, he wouldn't have passed the bailout.


    Don't get me wrong, Obama's going to try his best to cripple the 2nd Amendment, but he won't do it at the expense of his personal power.

    If it's clear that it'll turn his Presidency into a single term deal, he won't touch it. Then we just have to keep him from winning a 2nd term.
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by Mk23
    If Bush was up for Re-election, he wouldn't have passed the bailout.

    Don't get me wrong, Obama's going to try his best to cripple the 2nd Amendment, but he won't do it at the expense of his personal power.

    If it's clear that it'll turn his Presidency into a single term deal, he won't touch it. Then we just have to keep him from winning a 2nd term.



    Good Lord, man! What does this have to do with Bush? CONgress holds the purse strings at the federal level, NOT potus!! Many many CONgress people were up for re-election, they were the one's getting the calls/faxes/emails at the rate 300 against to 1 for, they passed it anyway, and their majority was made larger in the election!!!!!
    0
  • WoundedWolf
    Can someone please clarify... will this bill have to be reintroduced when the new congress begins in January?

    I seem to remember from civics class that any bills that have not been voted on by the end of the congressional term are basically dead and have to be reintroduced in the next term. Is this correct?
    0
  • pickenup
    quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
    Can someone please clarify... will this bill have to be reintroduced when the new congress begins in January?

    I seem to remember from civics class that any bills that have not been voted on by the end of the congressional term are basically dead and have to be reintroduced in the next term. Is this correct?

    Yes.
    New congress, re-introduce same bills, new names (#s).
    0
  • dynamite
    I've been tracking this since two weeks after it popped up.
    I just hope Obongo and his buddies don't try and bring it back. . .
    0
  • Jim Rau
    I guess you are all proving tr correct!!![:(]
    BLALBLALBLALBLAB, AND NOTHING ELSE!!
    Rant, insult, babble. If it makes you feel good then 'vent'. After all it's all about 'you'. The 'me' generation at its best!!![:(]
    tr is correct. It don't matter if it's a 'shooting' or 'political' war we MUST unite or fail. Dirt simple![:(!]
    0
  • Highball
    quote:MUST unite or fail. Dirt simple!
    The hand has been extended to you several times, Jim Rau;

    Learn to trust your fellow Citizen;

    Learn to distrust those in power. Rather simple, really...

    I would rather a full auto be in the hands of the guy across the street then in the hands of JBT's.....

    The guy across the street goes berserk...I kill him.

    A JBT goes berserk, murders a woman holding a baby or machine guns men, women and children running out of a burning building...they get promoted and raises......

    You base your opinion solely on your personal observations;

    That fails to take into consideration the vast body of evidence PROVING that governments go bad when allowed their head. The ONLY means of controlling governments is WEAPONS....weapons in the hands of Citizens.

    Those Citizen MUST be prepared to administer justice to those in power when the madness of that power overwhelms them collectively.

    Allowing those in power the means to wire around that fail-safe is INSANITY..of the highest order.
    Gun control is wiring around the fail-safe, Jim Rau...and supporting gun control is aiding and abetting that act.
    Full autos are in the hands of the JBT's..we need them, also...free of government interference.
    0
  • Jim Rau
    HB,
    You are missing my point. I agree with what you said, BUT it is much more complicated than that. If tr and yourself have a problem just ignore him and he you. THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY!!!![V]
    Things are going to really bad rally fast when the liberals take over completely. This reintroduction of this old crap is just the tip of the iceberg. This crap of infighting is a COMPLEAT WASTE OF TIME![V]
    0
  • Highball
    "Infighting" ?
    I prefer the term.." winnowing ".

    We that treasure the Constitution do not lightly give up a possible freedom fighter.

    We are too few in numbers, and the stakes are too high.
    As we fight the last, closing chapters of the soft war, we have the luxury of spending inordinate amounts of time attempting to jar an awakening in as many as possible.

    Except from the very beginning....when it appeared that we could present facts and have them analyzed logically and dispassionately...trfox is not the issue here.

    He is merely the vehicle that runs by time to time that allows us to paint another slogan on the side of. The vehicle is merely the carrier for the message, here.....

    We cannot continue to allow anti-gunners the ability to define the Constitution for those of us that are willing to defend original intent.

    Pee3 is another..they exist merely so there is a clear, bright line between sanity...and what they advocate.
    Those that are silent out there...yet read these forums...are making up their own minds.

    I prefer them to make that decision with the FACTS...not the treachery, deceit, and hidden agendas of the nra and their sycophants.

    You call it whatever you will...I call it making the core stronger by winnowing out the weak, the cowards, the Quislings and the fellow travelers that infest America.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    "Infighting" ?
    I prefer the term.." winnowing ".

    We that treasure the Constitution do not lightly give up a possible freedom fighter.

    We are too few in numbers, and the stakes are too high.
    As we fight the last, closing chapters of the soft war, we have the luxury of spending inordinate amounts of time attempting to jar an awakening in as many as possible.

    Except from the very beginning....when it appeared that we could present facts and have them analyzed logically and dispassionately...trfox is not the issue here.

    He is merely the vehicle that runs by time to time that allows us to paint another slogan on the side of. The vehicle is merely the carrier for the message, here.....

    We cannot continue to allow anti-gunners the ability to define the Constitution for those of us that are willing to defend original intent.

    Pee3 is another..they exist merely so there is a clear, bright line between sanity...and what they advocate.
    Those that are silent out there...yet read these forums...are making up their own minds.

    I prefer them to make that decision with the FACTS...not the treachery, deceit, and hidden agendas of the nra and their sycophants.

    You call it whatever you will...I call it making the core stronger by winnowing out the weak, the cowards, the Quislings and the fellow travelers that infest America.



    Well Highball, another fine demonstration of your ability to "get down to it".[;)]

    Spot-on, despite the fact that some will attempt to say you are a radical, inciting armed rebellion.

    I suspect a comprehension problem in some by doing so, or that it merely assuages their own inner-feelings of being wrong and not having the testicular fortitude to draw a line and stand on clear, constitutional principals.

    Regardless, well said.
    0
  • Jim Rau
    Right Jeff,
    His way or the highway, well ZERO creditability to anyone but his associates, whom are already in the 'fold'!! [V]
    Total denial of reality, AGAIN!!!!![xx(]
    0
  • tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Right Jeff,
    His way or the highway, well ZERO creditability to anyone but his associates, whom are already in the 'fold'!! [V]
    Total denial of reality, AGAIN!!!!![xx(]


    Kind the same mindset the Nazi had when they decided that everyone that was not a Nazi was the enemy. Especially the Jews.
    0
  • Jim Rau
    Those on both sides of this issue seem to have lost touch with reality. I believe if the framers of the Constitution were here today they would agree the technology in weaponry today has changed their perception of 'individual weapons' not to mention the shear number of 'idiots' in our society today compared to the make up of society then.
    The realty, which this elections shows, is we are sharing the world with a lot of 'clueless' people who need some serious education in reality. Those who think they will ever accomplish the recognition of the "Right" in it's purest form are living in a la-la land!!!
    The best we can do is fight to get it as close to 'absolute' as reality will allow. If that is not your goal you are in total denial![V]
    0
  • Highball
    quote:Kind the same mindset the Nazi had when they decided that everyone that was not a Nazi was the enemy. Especially the Jews.
    Jeff; Thankee kindly, Sir..but let us be honest...I hold not a candle to your eloquence.

    Jim;
    See what you are riding sidesaddle with ?

    This person is calling the Founders Nazi; PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

    Do you seriously think the Founders suffered fools gladly ? What do you think they did to British sympathizers ?

    You people steadily, persistently REFUSE TO ANSWER ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.

    I can understand your weakness in the face of corruption ;

    But what brand of insanity is it that allows you to insist that the Founders had just fought the best military in the World to a surrender...yet you continue to INSIST..even while reading those four simple words; Shall Not Be Infringed...that the government has authority to yet again control the free flow of weapons to the Citizens of this country ?

    Your utterly weak rejoinder that `there was no auto weapons back then' carries the same weight as maintaining the freedom of speech is limited to a bullhorn and a stump; Meaningless.
    0
  • pickenup
    So your solution/suggestion is for everyone that takes a "hard line" stance, should just GIVE UP, and SHUT UP. Accept whatever COMPROMISE that "they" will dole out, in "your reality" world?

    Considering what "compromise" has gotten us.......
    20,000 UNconstitutional gun laws (and the number is growing)
    I don't think so.
    I, for one, choose NOT to follow that path any longer.

    While using the "IN YOUR FACE" method of dispensing information, may upset some people, it certainly DOES get their attention. After the initial shock, given time, enough intelligence, and the willingness to admit the possibly of having been wrong, "some" people have actually changed their minds.

    For example, the nra. Being "nice" when telling members that, with one hand they were patting you on the back, while with the other they were plunging the knife in, didn't seem to win many over. But getting "IN YOUR FACE" along with some facts, given time to digest the information, and after watching the nra's actions for themselves, HAS converted more than the "nice" method ever did. It matters not whether they plunge the knife in 3 inches, or the full 6 inches, I prefer NOT to be stabbed in the back AT ALL, and will not align myself with such.
    0
  • WoundedWolf
    quote:Kind the same mindset the Nazi had when they decided that everyone that was not a Nazi was the enemy. Especially the Jews.

    TR, I have been around here a while, but with that one ignorant comment I have lost a huge amount of respect for you.

    -WoundedWolf
    0
  • Jim Rau
    tr,
    Stop jabbing. In other words say something constructive or please shut up!!![:(!]
    HB,
    What I am saying is the Founding Fathers had A LOT more common sense and sense of reality than you do..(Thank God)!!![}:)]
    However, they did not have a crystal ball to see the future so when they realized the importance of an armed citizenry and drafted the 2nd Amendment they had no idea where weapon technology would be, or the make up of our country, 200 years after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
    pick,
    You are wrong. If you come on to strong to someone who does not know or respect you you only drive them away. I know this to be a FACT. I have ALOT of experience in this area. You have to get their attention, true. But you have to do this in a way to win their respect and gain credibility, if not you lose, as does your message.
    0
  • Rocklobster
    quote:However, they did not have a crystal ball to see the future so when they realized the importance of an armed citizenry and drafted the 2nd Amendment they had no idea where weapon technology would be, or the make up of our country, 200 years after they wrote the 2nd Amendment.Which is precisely why they wrote the 2nd Amendment they way they did - as a generic statement of the fact that people must be allowed to defend themselves from criminals - especially those in government - by use of whatever weapons they can make available - especially ones equal to those of their attacker(s), whomever they might be.
    0
  • Jim Rau
    Rock,
    The key word in your post is 'generic'! I prefer to say it is 'broad' rather than generic, but we are both meaning the same. [;)]
    Point being, if they would have had any idea how things would change in the distant future they would have been more specific in the drafting of this document, thus less room for interpretation. One of the problems is the fact it is so broad. This leaves a lot of room for those who don't like it to try and discredit it, as is very evident in recent history. But as I stated, we have to fight to keep it as 'pure' AS REALITY WILL ALLOW![V]
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Rock,
    The key word in your post is 'generic'! I prefer to say it is 'broad' rather than generic, but we are both meaning the same. [;)]
    Point being, if they would have had any idea how things would change in the distant future they would have been more specific in the drafting of this document, thus less room for interpretation. One of the problems is the fact it is so broad. This leaves a lot of room for those who don't like it to try and discredit it, as is very evident in recent history. But as I stated, we have to fight to keep it as 'pure' AS REALITY WILL ALLOW![V]


    There is nothing "broad" or "difficult to understand" about the simple, clear text of Amendment II.

    The only problem is that many do not like, or do not want to accept, that simple, clear meaning and text, so the obfuscation, rationalizations and justifications are steadfastly trotted out, in order to confuse the issue and create some point of argument and debate to achieve unconstitutional change.

    It really is as simple as that.
    0
  • Jim Rau
    Well Jeff I would beg to differ. There as been debates and court decisions back and forth for 200 years about the 'meaning' of the 2nd Amendment.
    To those of us who defend it it is clear, but if they would have worded it a little better it would a lot easier to defend and there would a lot less problem fighting off the opposition.
    0
  • Rocklobster
    I do not agree. Bill Clinton requesting an interpretation of the meaning of the word "is" comes to mind. Anti-constitutionalists are quite adept at finding meanings that are not there and dismissing plain meanings that they do not like.
    0
  • Jim Rau
    "A well armed populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual to own, carry, and use arms shall not be infringed by any level of government."[8D]
    That is what it means, so why didn't they just say it that way???[?]
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
    Well Jeff I would beg to differ. There as been debates and court decisions back and forth for 200 years about the 'meaning' of the 2nd Amendment.
    To those of us who defend it it is clear, but if they would have worded it a little better it would a lot easier to defend and there would a lot less problem fighting off the opposition.


    My post stands as written. The issue is summarized as follows........

    "The only problem is that many do not like, or do not want to accept, that simple, clear meaning and text, so the obfuscation, rationalizations and justifications are steadfastly trotted out, in order to confuse the issue and create some point of argument and debate to achieve unconstitutional change.

    It really is as simple as that."
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?