Friend relayed this to me, I'm just going to excerpt part of it:
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. Note that the
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.
It's a real shopping list, isn't it? The pistol 'can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip' will mean if it can hold a mag that extends beyond the grip, the pistol is banned; which means banning EVERY semi-auto pistol. Your rifle is threaded for a compensator? Banned. Pistol has a threaded barrel, or someone every made one for that model? Banned. Your old 1903 Springfield? M1 Garand? Krag? Banned. Every 1911 variant in existence? Banned. And since lots of pistols of all types have been use in military service? Banned. Because the AG decides that they don't have a 'proper sporting purpose'.
And let's take that sporting purpose crap; it means that they want to completely trash the 2nd Amendment, AND consider self-defense to be not worthy of consideration as reason for owning a firearm. After all, self-defense isn't a 'sporting purpose', now is it?
This is what they'd like to do. And, since they've proven they have no consideration for the Constitution beyond using it as toilet paper, we have to keep reminding them of the price for trying to do this.
3 comments:
I think my attempt to leave a comment failed.
Short rewrite version:
Firstly, I think your interpretation is a bit flawed; an '03 or Krag is a bolt-action and thus not affected by a "semi-automatic rifle" regulation of any sort, stupid as these proposed bans are. Likewise, the "detachable magazine outside the pistol grip" referred in the previous AWB to the location of the magazine, not its length - and I see no reason why the language presented would apply to long magazines and their extension rather than location.
Secondly, and more importantly, I doubt the accuracyof the source; Mr. Korwin posted it here, and I note that he includes no actual sources, and claims it is not "the Democrats" or "Obama", but "the Bradys" - but the idea that the Brady Campaign has serious political capital compared to the Speaker of the House (who rejected the idea of a new AWB not a month ago)? Not so plausible.
Mr. Korwin's motives are something I do not question, but I accuse him being hyperbolic - or at least making claims that the evidence provided does not substantiate.
(It reeks of "fake but accurate" and "honest, these secret anonymous papers I claim to have are really the opposition's current plans" - neither stratagem being one I can stomach.)
He says "look at HR 1022" - but that bill is expired, (Here) and was introduced in 2007, where it never moved an inch. Referred to committee in March 2007 and then never touched again. Dead. Expired with the 110th Congress, but dead before the middle of 2007 anyway.
To use that as evidence of "Obama's gun ban plans" in the face of obstruction by Nancy freakin' Pelosi suggests a blithe disregard for fact.
Korwin's motives, again, I'm willing to grant as pure. But his means are deceptive.
I'm basing the bolt rifles on the line "a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency"; which would cover bolt-rifles as well as semi-auto.
I know this list has been around a while, as I said a friend sent it and I thought it worth noting.
Personally, I think the only reason Pelosi and some other Evil Party members are saying "No" is simply because they don't want to deal with the firestorm; and if they thought they could shove it through anyway, I don't doubt they'd at least try. Obama's record indicates he would, and only the trouble he'd cause for himself is stopping him from trying.
well looks like the 2nd amendment is screwed. i dont know why i even bother living in a country that feels like they need 2 regulate guns, such as what types and how many u can own.
Post a Comment