The New Democrat Gun Ban Plan

The New Democrat Gun Ban Plan

Posted in the Republican Forum

Fiscal Cliff Tick Tock

Rochester, MN

#1 Nov 28, 2012
Subject: Gun Ban List is out
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:47:33 -0800

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).
Fiscal Cliff Tick Tock

Rochester, MN

#2 Nov 28, 2012
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 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.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Lepor

Ames, IA

#3 Nov 29, 2012
How will you ever find a suitable weapon for killing with those weapons off the list?
I'm sure you will still be able to find a nice gun for threatening your neighbors, even without those weapns being availible to you.
An intruder will not care if you kill him with a TEC 9 or a Rossi snub nose .38

And all of wht you osted is just blown up NRA propaganda that actually means nothing.
You will still be able to buy a gun at Wal-Mart
Logan

Bridgeville, PA

#4 Dec 10, 2012
So, after narrowing it down, I figured out what you can own:
Flintlock rifle
Single-shot rifle or shotgun
Cork gun

Take your pick, although I sure wish the guy that has his illegal firearm had a list as narrowed down as mine. Remember, idiot democrats, because we pass a law forbidding these in the US, that does not stop anyone from any other country from sneaking in these weapons. We have seen it done before, so do not think that stopping citizens from carrying stops criminals. If you really are concerned for US citizens safety, go try to pass this law in somewhere like Benghazi, Libya, where the "peaceful protesters" managed to attain mortars and rocket propelled grenades.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#5 Dec 10, 2012
Logan wrote:
So, after narrowing it down, I figured out what you can own:
Flintlock rifle
Single-shot rifle or shotgun
Cork gun
Take your pick, although I sure wish the guy that has his illegal firearm had a list as narrowed down as mine. Remember, idiot democrats, because we pass a law forbidding these in the US, that does not stop anyone from any other country from sneaking in these weapons. We have seen it done before, so do not think that stopping citizens from carrying stops criminals. If you really are concerned for US citizens safety, go try to pass this law in somewhere like Benghazi, Libya, where the "peaceful protesters" managed to attain mortars and rocket propelled grenades.
It's not about the citizen's safety that any gun law is ever passed, it's about disarming a public that poses a threat to total and complete government control.
Logan

Bridgeville, PA

#6 Dec 10, 2012
I haven't ever seen a criminal with an illegal aka unregistered therefore untraceable firearm confront the police and say "here is my weapon, it poses a direct threat to the public". I was simply confronting the typical democrat answer to a question as stated. "guns are bad, they kill people and should be banned to protect the citizens", I understand that it is not about safety but how radical do you sound to the idiot dems when u say its about complete government control.
Logan

Bridgeville, PA

#7 Dec 10, 2012
Take for example Lepor, a clear democrat from above in the forum. He clearly beleives its about safety. However, if one is to convince the public about standing for or against the topic as gun control, it is safe to say that if the NRA's defensive argument is of government control, which some of us know it is but that is not the point. the conspiracy theorists also say that it is a government control issue, and i think all of us know how well conspiracy theorists go over with the general media. In order to reunite our very much divided country, we must get the country together on issues before we begin pointing the finger at the government, although the problem is big government, don't get me wrong, but who are the loyal democrat voters going to believe first, a quote "unstable, dangerous man of the NRA with guns and power", or the defenseless government trying to protect citizens and secure peace." If one just listens to the liberal media, this is their message, and one must first destroy this message before claiming another
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#8 Dec 11, 2012
Logan wrote:
I haven't ever seen a criminal with an illegal aka unregistered therefore untraceable firearm confront the police and say "here is my weapon, it poses a direct threat to the public". I was simply confronting the typical democrat answer to a question as stated. "guns are bad, they kill people and should be banned to protect the citizens", I understand that it is not about safety but how radical do you sound to the idiot dems when u say its about complete government control.
About as crazy as they sound to us 2nd amendment proponents. Gun control laws only "apply" to those that actually abide by the law. Those laws won't even phase those gang banging scum in Chicago or any other ghetto.
Logan

Bridgeville, PA

#9 Dec 11, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
About as crazy as they sound to us 2nd amendment proponents. Gun control laws only "apply" to those that actually abide by the law. Those laws won't even phase those gang banging scum in Chicago or any other ghetto.
obviously as I had previously stated this is true. Which is the basic proponent to my argument stating that you must first disprove the misconception of gun laws being made for the public safety before you claim it is government control, although it is, in order to describe the topic to the limited understanding of many democrats unaware of the terms "illegal firearm" or "unregistered".
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#10 Dec 11, 2012
Logan wrote:
<quoted text> obviously as I had previously stated this is true. Which is the basic proponent to my argument stating that you must first disprove the misconception of gun laws being made for the public safety before you claim it is government control, although it is, in order to describe the topic to the limited understanding of many democrats unaware of the terms "illegal firearm" or "unregistered".
Correct, unfortunately, the "masses" who are hoplophobes don't distinguish between legal and illegal when it comes to firearms. Many of these are in positions of power, like Bloomberg and Pelosi. All they need is a "base" to continue their agenda to disarm the public. 2:06PM EST December 11. 2012 - Multiple NFL players have surrendered their firearms in the wake of the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide last weekend, according to Peter King on NBC's Football Night in America. Why? Prime example of hysteria about weapons.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#11 Dec 11, 2012
Logan wrote:
<quoted text> obviously as I had previously stated this is true. Which is the basic proponent to my argument stating that you must first disprove the misconception of gun laws being made for the public safety before you claim it is government control, although it is, in order to describe the topic to the limited understanding of many democrats unaware of the terms "illegal firearm" or "unregistered".
The Nfl player was a convicted felon, he shouldn't have even had a firearm based on the "gun laws", yet there he is. Gun laws are useless, they don't prevent those who shouldn't have guns from having them. The politicians already know this. Sure does promote their agenda in disarming though, doesn't it?
Logan

Bridgeville, PA

#12 Dec 11, 2012
Exactly, which is why it is not a matter of claiming that it is government control, because whether or not it is, they will still go with it because of media, political lobbyists and gun control socialists. I mean it really should not be that hard for grownup children to understand, you know the ones that need the governments handouts. I was in a debate with someone when they said that the cell phone government program run through private companies, or "Obama phones", were a necessary part of a civilized society. However, have dems ever thought to put a minute limit on the phones so they aren't abused. It would function just like Obamacare. Those who put into the system carry its weight while 49% and rising would ride the "healthcare train". Obama is the conductor and its all aboard no exceptions!
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#13 Dec 12, 2012
Logan wrote:
Exactly, which is why it is not a matter of claiming that it is government control, because whether or not it is, they will still go with it because of media, political lobbyists and gun control socialists. I mean it really should not be that hard for grownup children to understand, you know the ones that need the governments handouts. I was in a debate with someone when they said that the cell phone government program run through private companies, or "Obama phones", were a necessary part of a civilized society. However, have dems ever thought to put a minute limit on the phones so they aren't abused. It would function just like Obamacare. Those who put into the system carry its weight while 49% and rising would ride the "healthcare train". Obama is the conductor and its all aboard no exceptions!
You got it, those who work provide for those who don't. The government is just the robin hood who takes to re-distribute. What happens when those that work decide they aren't giving it to the system anymore? The scales are already nearly balanced by those who work and those that take. Romney's 47% comment was spot on. That's where the government control kicks in. For now, they "control" the 47% with money and give aways. Once they can't control due to less tax revenue coming in and no more borrowing power, robbing people's bank accounts is all that's left. The violence that ensued when the stock market crashed in 1929 was due to the run on the banks. Steal people's hard earned money and that's when the government will find out just how many guns really are out there. Hitler took power in pre war Germany, one of the first things he did was dis-arm the populace. His claim being that with a well-armed police force, the citizenry didn't need weapons. That is how you seize total control.
Logan

Bridgeville, PA

#14 Dec 12, 2012
Exactly, the Wiemar Republic, that before Hitler, was in such a depression that their bills of money were worth so little they burned them to stay warm. As soon as the fiscal cliff begins, which i don't see Congress coming to an agreement, the dollar will collapse as will any hard money. All that will be left as worth is ammunition, firearms, and food and water. Unfortunately the majority will not have access to the first two, and therefore won't have long before they have the third stolen from them. Soon thereafter, these masses will plead the government for a quick response, whether or not their rights are violated, so that the government will then provide everything for them. Back to Hitler, besides his extermination campaign, he instilled a new socialist government, free of firearm ownership and any bill of rights. Fortunately, prior to downturn in 1943/44, Hitler wanted his people to prosper. Just imagine what the United States would be like with a foreign dictator in power. It does not look like a bright future for the United States, sad to say.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#15 Dec 13, 2012
Logan wrote:
Exactly, the Wiemar Republic, that before Hitler, was in such a depression that their bills of money were worth so little they burned them to stay warm. As soon as the fiscal cliff begins, which i don't see Congress coming to an agreement, the dollar will collapse as will any hard money. All that will be left as worth is ammunition, firearms, and food and water. Unfortunately the majority will not have access to the first two, and therefore won't have long before they have the third stolen from them. Soon thereafter, these masses will plead the government for a quick response, whether or not their rights are violated, so that the government will then provide everything for them. Back to Hitler, besides his extermination campaign, he instilled a new socialist government, free of firearm ownership and any bill of rights. Fortunately, prior to downturn in 1943/44, Hitler wanted his people to prosper. Just imagine what the United States would be like with a foreign dictator in power. It does not look like a bright future for the United States, sad to say.
Correct, Adolf Hitler was, in essence, Germany's "messiah". He took them into a prosperous time, through regulation and eliminated any who opposed him. He demonized the Jews, emptied the prisons and nut houses, and took supreme power. By the time the German people figured out what was going on, it was too late to fight it. We have a foreign dictator minded individual in power. It's too bad that so many in this country have fallen into the "government will take care of you" mentality. It's a poison that has weakened this country.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min THE LONE WORKER 199,268
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 min Think Again 13,015
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 42 min WeTheSheeple 276
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 46 min Big Tucker 2,046
News Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead 3 hr u Make Me Laugh 10
News Patrick Blanchfield: Stirring emotions, shootin... 4 hr serfs up 7
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 4 hr dumbass the deadbeat 9,753
More from around the web