Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: List of guns Obama wants to ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

    Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

    Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

    Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
    M1 Carbine,
    Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
    AR-15,
    Bushmaster XM15,
    Armalite M15,
    AR-10,
    Thompson 1927,
    Thompson M1;
    AK,
    AKM,
    AKS,
    AK-47,
    AK-74,
    ARM,
    MAK90,
    NHM 90,
    NHM 91,
    SA 85,
    SA 93,
    VEPR;
    Olympic Arms PCR;
    AR70,
    Calico Liberty ,
    Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
    Fabrique National FN/FAL,
    FN/LAR, or FNC,
    Hi-Point20Carbine,
    HK-91,
    HK-93,
    HK-94,
    HK-PSG-1,
    Thompson 1927 Commando,
    Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
    Saiga,
    SAR-8,
    SAR-4800,
    SKS with detachable magazine,
    SLG 95,
    SLR 95 or 96,
    Steyr AU,
    Tavor,
    Uzi,
    Galil and Uzi Sporter,
    Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
    Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
    Calico M-110,
    MAC-10,
    MAC-11, or MPA3,
    Olympic Arms OA,
    TEC-9,
    TEC-DC9,
    TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
    Uzi.
    Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
    Armscor 30 BG,
    SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
    Striker 12,
    Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
    A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
    (ii) a threaded barrel,
    (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
    below),
    (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
    Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
    10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
    A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
    detachable magazine, and has:
    (i) a second pistol grip,
    (ii) a threaded barrel,
    (iii) a barrel shroud or
    (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
    (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
    rounds.
    A semiautomatic shotgun with:
    (i) a folding or telescoping stock,
    (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
    (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
    of more than 5 rounds, and
    (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
    Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

    Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."


    Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.


    The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    also i just ran across this video from lou dobbs, i dont know when this was but i hadnt seen this before



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    That looks excatly like HR45 which is going nowhere and was sent to committee to die.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    That looks excatly like HR45 which is going nowhere and was sent to committee to die.
    I didnt see this list in HR45, although HR45 would cover these im sure.

  5. #5
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Where did this particular list come from exactly?
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    Where did this particular list come from exactly?
    http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm

    Sorry to all this was Jan 09 not Mar 09, it was e-mailed to me and i just went with what the e-mail said, although it mentions HR1022 which i have not read yet but will shortly, here is what it says for this bill on Library of Congress website.

    H.R.1022
    Title: To increase and enhance law enforcement resources committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention programs, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] (introduced 2/12/2009) Cosponsors (1)
    Latest Major Action: 2/12/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

  7. #7
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    HR 1022 was actually introduced in February of 2007 and died in committee without ever being voted on.

    HR 45 is the same bill, introduced by the same sponsors this session. It also is not getting any traction in committee.




    ETA: MY mistake. Different bill. This is not likely to go much further either.

    However, ha ving admitted my mistake, I just read the entire text of this bill and nowhere in it does it mention a single specific weapon.

    So my queston still stands, where exactly did this list come from as it seems arbitrary with no basis in fact.

    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    j2l3 wrote:
    HR 1022 was actually introduced in February of 2007 and died in committee without ever being voted on.

    HR 45 is the same bill, introduced by the same sponsors this session. It also is not getting any traction in committee.




    ETA: MY mistake. Different bill. This is not likely to go much further either.

    However, ha ving admitted my mistake, I just read the entire text of this bill and nowhere in it does it mention a single specific weapon.

    So my queston still stands, where exactly did this list come from as it seems arbitrary with no basis in fact.
    The list is basically a reordered list of the firearms listed in H.R.1022 from last session. I have not seen it get a rebirth yet in the 111th. H.R.45 is nothing like H.R.1022, unless it gets amended.

    Here is a link to GovTrack.US 111th Congress Firearms Bills
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Nor will we see a re-birth. there is a reason HR45 is sitting in committee to die off. Oddly enough that reason has two names; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. last week they said to reporters they will not be bringing back a proposal for an AWB or any other gun ban and that "we should enforce the laws we already have":what:

  10. #10
    Regular Member trevorthebusdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    This is my favorite video regarding the proposed ban-the lady doesn't even know what she wants to ban.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    A greater threat is "omnibus" bills. A good (well, bad) example is S.2237 from the 110th Congress. Luckily, it never made it anywhere.
    The title is "A bill to fight crime," and it was introduced by none other than our current VP.

    Title VI, Subtitle B, AKA Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007
    At least the additions from the failed omnibus S.2237 isn't as long as the H.R.1022 list. But the "scary features" ban plenty of firearms by definition of terms if not by make and model.


    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post


    So my queston still stands, where exactly did this list come from as it seems arbitrary with no basis in fact.
    again it is at gunlaws.com

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:

    So my queston still stands, where exactly did this list come from as it seems arbitrary with no basis in fact.
    again it is at gunlaws.com
    The question remains.... Where did gunlaws.com get the list?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    That looks excatly like HR45 which is going nowhere and was sent to committee to die.
    Don't count your eggs before they hatch. It could still live and make a terrible day for us all.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Vandal wrote:
    Nor will we see a re-birth. there is a reason HR45 is sitting in committee to die off. Oddly enough that reason has two names; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. last week they said to reporters they will not be bringing back a proposal for an AWB or any other gun ban and that "we should enforce the laws we already have":what:
    I saw that too, and I remain suspicious but appreciative of at least the fact that they said that. If they can keep their hands off this, they'll be a lot more successful.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    The question remains.... Where did gunlaws.com get the list?
    Beats the hell outta me, I just saw it, and thought others might want to know.

    I know some people believe we will be safe because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said they wouldn’t go after it (If you can believe them). But didn’t Eric Holder in his confirmation hearings say the same thing, or at least saidhe and Obama they never discussed it, when in Fact they did discuss it under the premise ofCommon Sensegun Laws, then not long after you have Rauhm Emanuel saying that Assault Weapons i.e. semi auto weapons are a threat to the police and we need to go after Common Sense Gun Laws. And most recently its now American weapons are finding their way to Mexico and its our fault that the drug lords are reigning terror on the border so we need to crack down on weapons so the Mexicans wont get hurt.

    Holder has already admitted he believes you do not have a right to own a gun and should go to jail if you do, that’s his belief. Just because the Supreme Court ruled in our favor doesn’t mean anything, the scary part of that ruling it was only 5 to 4.

    Does anyone here remember before the last gun ban during Clintons reign, everybody was saying the same thing, oh they wont ban semi autos, its our second amendment right, they don’t have the votes, it will never happen. Well let me tell you it happened then and could very well happen now.

    Do you really think these politicians give a crap what you believe, look at the bailouts for instance, 50 to 80 % of the people poled were against them yet they did it anyway, and Nancy Pelosi is already talking about another one.

    Do you think the Fed Gov cared that statesare claimingstate sovereignty, they are trying to push HR875, against the 10th amendment and this is after 10 or 15 states claimed constitutional sovereignty and told the Feds to keep themselves in check.

    I justtry and keep people informed if I hear something, not that I have any inside secrets, but are we going to sit around and just say"oh these failed before so we don’t really need to be concerned and not call ourcongressmen and tell themwe are against it, its just a waste of our time".

    Ask the British or the Australians ifthey could go back would they take a harder stance against their politicians on these issues.I bet you they would give their right nut to go back.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Heres another story that came out



    Homeland Security plans for violence on US border
    By EILEEN SULLIVAN and SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan And Suzanne Gamboa, Associated Press Writers ThuMar12, 5:32pmET


    WASHINGTON – Tighter gun control and stronger law enforcement in Southwestern states were recommended Thursday by lawmakers concerned about drug violence in Mexico possibly spilling across the border.

    The escalating violence — which has killed thousands, mostly south of the border — has been blamed on Mexican drug cartels which one Homeland Security official described as the biggest organized crime threat facing the United States.

    Roger Rufe, Homeland Security's head of operations, outlined the agency's plans for protecting the border, a response that includes — as a last resort — deploying military personnel and equipment to the region if other agencies are overwhelmed.

    Echoing comments a day earlier from President Barack Obama, Rufe said there currently was no need to militarize the Southwestern border with Mexico, despite violence that threatens to migrate into the United States.

    "We would take all resources short of DoD (Defense Department) and National Guard troops before we reach that tipping point," Rufe told lawmakers on a House homeland security subcommittee. "We very much do not want to militarize our border."

    Rufe did not specify what circumstances would trigger a call for troops.

    The violence is blamed on Mexican President Felipe Calderon's crackdown on drug cartels over the past two years.

    In recent weeks, his government has deployed 700 extra federal police to Ciudad Juarez, a city across from El Paso, Texas, where local police have been swamped by drug violence. This month, 3,200 federal troops were sent to the city.

    Tijuana and Culiacan are also hotbeds of violence, according to Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Mexican officials say the violence killed 6,290 people last year and more than 1,000 in the first eight weeks of 2009.

    "The United States and Mexico border violence can only be solved if we look at all parts of the equation," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said Thursday during a House subcommittee considering changes to U.S. gun laws. "Let's examine our gun laws, let's cut down on U.S. drug consumption, let's ask there to be more resources to root out drug money laundering," he said.

    Tierney said 90 percent of the weapons seized from Mexican organized crime came from the United States. Tierney said the information was from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    Gun control expert Tom Diaz said the U.S. needs to enforce gun importation laws already on the books to prevent weapons coming into the U.S. and ending up in Mexico.

    Lawmakers also weighed the option of increasing inspections of people and vehicles leaving the U.S. to go to Mexico, to help stop the potential smuggling of weapons. The Customs and Border Protection agency currently does some inspections. But Salvador Nieto, a senior official within the agency's intelligence division, said more resources would be needed if Congress wants to step up inspections.

    Warring drug cartels are blamed for more than 560 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2007 and the first half of 2008, as well as killings in Atlanta, and Birmingham, Ala., and Vancouver, British Columbia.

    Rufe said that while the violence along the border in Mexico is appalling, violent crimes have not increased in U.S. border cities as a result. He said kidnappings are up, but violent crime is down.

    "We're not so concerned, at least at this point, about that violence spilling over into our cities," he said.

    Further, the Homeland Security Department's representative in Mexico, Alonzo Pena, said the violence there is not as dangerous to U.S. tourists as has been portrayed.
    Pena said the violence is in isolated areas of the country and affects only the people involved in criminal activity. He said the violence is not affecting U.S. citizens visiting Mexico, and Americans should not cancel their vacations in the country.
    This month, the ATF warned college students on spring breaks not to travel to parts of northern Mexico because it was too dangerous.
    In February, the State Department advised travelers to avoid areas of prostitution and drug-dealing in Mexico.


  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    How about we repeal the 8,000 pork barrel spending additions just passed and BUILD THE F-ING FENCE!!! Wow, that might slow it down a bit. Probably be constitution as well especially considering that Congress has and continues to abdicate its responsibility to protect any state from invasion. The constitution does not specify armed invasion. Mexican and other central and south American nationals have been invading our border states in huge numbers for decades infringing upon US citizen's private property rights and bringing with them much crime, disease and poverty. It is the responsibility of congress to stop them. Build the f-in' fence!!!!

    Typical gov't to try to infringe upon our rights rather than take responsibility for their actions as a solution.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    How about we repeal the 8,000 pork barrel spending additions just passed and BUILD THE F-ING FENCE!!! Wow, that might slow it down a bit. Probably be constitution as well especially considering that Congress has and continues to abdicate its responsibility to protect any state from invasion. The constitution does not specify armed invasion. Mexican and other central and south American nationals have been invading our border states in huge numbers for decades infringing upon US citizen's private property rights and bringing with them much crime, disease and poverty. It is the responsibility of congress to stop them. Build the f-in' fence!!!!

    Typical gov't to try to infringe upon our rights rather than take responsibility for their actions as a solution.
    Perhaps the south-western states should sue the Federal government for breach of contract and force them to uphold their end of the contract. It's not like they don't have grounds to do so. The Fed has all but abdicated their responsibility to protect our borders against all invaders & aggressors.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Skagit Valley, Washington
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    How about we repeal the 8,000 pork barrel spending additions just passed and BUILD THE F-ING FENCE!!! Wow, that might slow it down a bit. Probably be constitution as well especially considering that Congress has and continues to abdicate its responsibility to protect any state from invasion. The constitution does not specify armed invasion. Mexican and other central and south American nationals have been invading our border states in huge numbers for decades infringing upon US citizen's private property rights and bringing with them much crime, disease and poverty. It is the responsibility of congress to stop them. Build the f-in' fence!!!!

    Typical gov't to try to infringe upon our rights rather than take responsibility for their actions as a solution.
    Perhaps the south-western states should sue the Federal government for breach of contract and force them to uphold their end of the contract. It's not like they don't have grounds to do so. The Fed has all but abdicated their responsibility to protect our borders against all invaders & aggressors.
    Better still, how 'bout as many as choose secede and form a new union? Tell the DC mental midgets to F off....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •