The NRA LIVES!!!

[underpants]

House Passes NRA-Backed “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act”

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7934
Fairfax, VA-The National Rifle Association (NRA) and law-abiding gun owners won another major victory today when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass HR 5013, the NRA-backed “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act”. HR 5013 passed with a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99.

“Law-abiding gun owners scored a significant victory in the House of Representatives today,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina confirmed a fear long-held by American gun owners: the day government bureaucrats declare our Second Amendment null and void, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless in the midst of chaos and lawlessness.”

ALSO in other glorious self promotion news:

Lance Bass is gay.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072600771.html

[bluestateguy]

1. I support this bill

nt

[KyuzoGator]

2. I support the bill 100%. nt

[sgxnk]

3. this has to do with basic civil rights

during the NO disaster, mayor nagin ORDERED his police force to confiscate lawfully owned guns

that was blatantly unconstitutional

blatantly.

it was disgusting

you don't have to be an NRA member to support the constitution and be against the wanton confiscation of lawfully held firearms by a frigging MAYOR!!!!

i 100% support this bill. all freedom loving americans should imo

[GOPFighter]

6. Hmmmm,...

What if a person is shooting innocent people with their lawfully owned gun?

[sgxnk]

9. then you shoot them

duh.

what does that have to do with CONFISCATING lawfully held guns ???

nothing

fwiw, i have many years as a cop, been in shootings, etc.

i have NEVER had a case where somebody LAWFULLY carrying a gun subsequently committed a crime with it. and i have made 100's of arrests.

and i have been involved with scores of gun crimes

and the national stats back that up. people who LAWFULLY possess guns are among the most lawful demographics around.

this law SHOULDN'T be needed. but as long as we have confiscatory fascists like nagin around, it is a great law to pass

[midnight]

69. Gopfighter I do not have a gun, but

seeing what is coming day in and day out gets me to wonder about getting one to protect myself. I you thinking that someone like myself might just willy nelly just shoot, and take the law into my own hands?

[Glorfindel]

12. Yes...actually, it's a pity the refugees stopped on the bridge to Gretna

by shotgun-toting "law enforcement officers" didn't have the means to shoot their way OUT of New Orleans, isn't it?

[sgxnk]

13. that would have been a bloodbath

but was it bogus that they were stopped on the bridge to Gretna?

absolutely

one of the points of the 2nd amendment is that citizens DO have the right to defend themselves from rogue govt. and rogue govt. agents

[Glorfindel]

18. That incident broke my heart, as a southerner...

remembering how the people fleeing Manhattan after Sept. 11, 2001, were met on the bridges by their neighbors with food, water, shoes, whatever they required. And the Gretna police STOPPED their fellow American citizens from escaping. I'll never be proud to be from the south again. There's a special corner reserved in hell for whoever ordered that roadblock and everyone who participated in it. "Following orders" is NOT a valid excuse, as the Nuremberg trial proved so vividly and so correctly.

[GOPFighter]

25. NO!

You do NOT have the right as a citizen to use a weapon against a government agent. That's what frickin' courts are for. You do not have the right to judge a government agent to be a "rogue" agent.

If you feel a government agent is putting your life is in danger and you use a firearm to defend yourself, you will be judged in a court of law. If the agent was in error or acting outside his/her authority (a rogue), you will go free, but regardless, you will face a judge and the courts will decide.

[sgxnk]

27. i *am* a govt agent

i am not saying you can shoot a cop just cause

i am talking about in the event of coup detat, or a nazilike rounding up of racially impure or something like that

my point is that was part of the INTENT of the 2nd amendment. that no ARMED citizenry can be taken over nearly as easily as an unarmed one. because a rogue govt. will have a very difficult time

i was OBVIOUSLY joking about "bloodbath". just cause those morons were blocking a roadway would not justify a "bloodbath"

[GOPFighter]

31. I know you're a gov't agent

That's why I worded my replay the way I did. I'm not trying to diss you, being a cop these days is stressfull and dangerous and - in many cases - thankless. I concede the need for citizens to own firearms to hunt and for self-defense, but gun zealots in the U.S. exhibit some pretty scary insecurities about coup d'etats and rogue governments, etc. One would think the Europeans, who suffered horribly from the rogue governments leading up to WWII, would be the most paranoid about an unarmed society, yet they are largely unarmed and largely want to stay that way.

[sgxnk]

33. i understand

where you are coming from. first of all, by using the word "paranoid" in referring to an unarmed society, you are injecting bias terminology.

how about "concerned"?

paranoid means an irrational fear. considering the slaughter to civilians BY THEIR OWN GOVT'S that has occurred in the scores of millions just this century, i find these concerns not paranoid at all, but reasonable

it's like an insurance policy. pretty confident we;ll never need it, but i wouldn't own a home without one

i wouldn't think anything about the europeans, cause , well they are the europeans

we are different

i do know that some euro countries have lots of guns - switzerland and israel come to mind

i guess israel isn't technically europe

europe is also a vast community of nations, with common bonds, whereas we are a wild west outpost

it's just different

[michreject]

34. Kinda over reading it there ain't ya

If you feel a government agent is putting your life is in danger and you use a firearm to defend yourself, you will be judged in a court of law.

The poster was refering to a break down in he system as in anarchy.

[sgxnk]

37. yes

exactly.

or a completely rogue, murderous govt. action towards its own citizens

see: Warsaw Ghetto uprising

[midnight]

70. Is that the person responsible for language about

chocolate people?

[rock]

4. "bureaucrats declare our Second Amendment null and void"

and shortly thereafter get a face full of buckshot.

[GOPFighter]

5. If anyone has any doubts where the Bush Administration...

...learned to win elections by using fear, look no further than the NRA ("The gun-grabbers are coming!!!", "The gun-grabbers are coming!!!").

[sgxnk]

7. absurd

bush is one of the WEAKEST presidents on gun rights we have ever had (on the republican side)

he is hardly a savior to the NRA, or to people who respect the civil rights of gun owners

but as for "using fear..."

the gun grabbers ARE coming. they admit as much. try going to HCI, etc. go back into the memory hole and read their hysterical predictions in re: florida. those predictions were rendered laughably false. after the CCW right was passed in FLA, the state did not show a rise in crime, or violence

it happened already in NO. gun confiscation

also, expost LA riots, a heck of a lot more people learned the value of guns in civil unrest periods

also, HCI etc. have admitted their eventual goal is a practical handgun ban

i am very thankful i happen to live in a state that CLEARLY outlines a very strong individual right to carry. even a very determined legislature would have a hard time overcoming that, assuming our SCOTSOW will uphold our constitution

[underpants]

8. Exactly-this bill only served to spread fear

I don't know if any guns were taken, the sources that tell me they were are not reliable. Aside from that-why do we need a bill to state that legal is legal? We don't. This is just the NRA kicking up dust to make sure everyone knows that they are still around. Glorious self promotion.

Actually if you really want to know where the election strategy of the entire rightwing comes from check out the tactics of the Klan. Yes I mentioned the Klan in an NRA thread big deal.

[sgxnk]

11. the "sources"???

it is absurd imo to take an issue like this and get all black helicopter and blame the NRA

i don't CARE if the NRA, the ILLUMINATIs, the DLC, the COMMUNIST PARTY, the GREEN PARTY, the GOP, or WHO is behind the push for this law

the law is facially valid, and based on nagin's actions, quite a good law to pass

[burf]

15. Yes, guns were taken

in NO.

http://www.sdgo.org/alertarchive/2005_Dec20.htm

Legal Firearms Seized in Door-to-Door Searches

On September 8, ABC News began showing police and National Guard troops going house-to-house, searching for residents, and confiscating guns. Fox News aired footage of police body-slamming an elderly woman against a wall in her own home and confiscating her self-defense handgun.

The victims of disarmament were clearly not thugs or looters, but decent residents who simply wanted to protect their lives and property.

If you go to the link, there are a couple links there showing what happened. One is from ABC News and the other from a California TV station.

[underpants]

17. Okay I have watched the two videos and googled everything possible

I can say that as far as I can find those two incidents (ABC and the local Ca. TV station) were the only actual times that guns were taken, other than when house were vacant.

Okay supposedly vacant-who knows what really went on but from what I know of cops they tend not to like too much uncertainty.

I remember seeing the ABC report and just thinking that it looked bad that they were kicking in doors and entering with guns drawn but hey that was the wild wild west there for a few days (to some degree it still is from what I have heard). The one guys comment about them having bigger guns than the cops and that scaring the cops is surely true and pretty funny but I remember thinking that those guys didn't strike me as the owners of that house. Maybe they were, who knows.

What I did find was this op-ed piece. It has a different take on on things"

We understand the desire to protect our fundamental rights under the Second Amendment and the state constitution. But HCR2010 was an overreaction to what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans police, without any order from the Louisiana governor, seized thousands of guns from abandoned homes and then started taking firearms from people as they left the area. A federal judge put a stop to the seizures at the request of the NRA and other gun rights advocates.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=68471

Again this is just one source. Is it really indicative of what happened? Who knows? What I do know is that this reeks of the NRA being tired of being out of the limelight and picking up what seems TO ME to be a bit of a story and creating another one all together. Funny how watching this from day to day trains one to smell the spin. And to see it in the words used.

One last thing- I really don't oppose the idea of this--people should be able to keep their guns-- but I don't see a need for a federal bill over this. If there were NO or La. laws that allowed this (are there?) what difference would a Federal bill make? It is about state's rights, right? This is just fear mongering and pandering.

Also- it looks like the cop totally overreacted with that woman. We didn't see what actually happened there (Did a cop come around the corner and see a gun and freak? Was he playing for the TV?) but no matter what it looked bad. Cops are usually very good at getting people to do what they want them to with or without arresting them or tackling them (I didn't see any "bodyslam" as your source mentions).

FINALLY-I do appreciate your attention to this point- I totally agree with the Brady position on this:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said it agreed that legal guns should not be seized just because of an emergency declaration. "But we also believe that during a declared emergency, our law enforcement personnel should be allowed to help protect the public by making sure weapons are not abandoned or left easily accessible to looters, and to establish gun-free shelters secured by law enforcement if they deem such shelters necessary."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-07-25T225359Z_01_N25238329_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-GUNS.xml&archived=False

[AndyA]

10. I think responsible Americans should have the ability to bear arms.

The key word here is RESPONSIBLE.

RESPONSIBLE people don't ever leave a gun where a minor could get their hands on it.

RESPONSIBLE people don't use guns against others unless they are protecting themselves or their family.

RESPONSIBLE people don't play games with guns, loaded or otherwise.

RESPONSIBLE people don't clean their guns around others or when loaded.

RESPONSIBLE people don't need or want assault weapons.

Carrying a weapon should be a right only when the person carrying the weapon handles it RESPONSIBLY. There are a lot of people in America right now with weapons, who have them because they have the right. But they should not have them because they don't deal with that right in a RESPONSIBLE manner.

[MardiGras Bandit]

19. Responsibility and Rights.

Does that mean you believe free speech should only be a right if the person handles himself responsibly? The right to bear arms should be no more infringed upon then any other right we have. Unfortunately it is often not seen that way.

Assault weapons is a buzz word for cool looking rifles. They are no more real then saturday night specials.

1st post, great site!

[AndyA]

21. Free speech doesn't kill people.

Irresponsible people with the right to bear arms does kill people. Big difference.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[MardiGras Bandit]

23. Responsibility and Gun Rights

Thanks for the welcome!

The problem with responsible gun rights is that it is a subjective idea. While there are things we can all agree on (people shouldn't let unsupervised young children play with guns ), not everything will be so easy. I'm very pro-gun, my responsible gun owner list would look like this:

Responsible gun owners:

teach themselves and their families the safe and appropriate use of their guns.

don't use trigger locks.

fight to defend the 2nd Amendment (politically, I'm not that much of a gun nut).

Arguably, guns are different from rights like free speech, and should be treated more like cars. After all, a drivers license is not a right but a privilege. The difference is that driving is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Gun ownership is. Virtually all gun legislation goes directly against the wording of the 2nd Amendment; "shall not be infringed". For some reason, many people do not see this as a problem. This scares me. When we start to infringe on one right, we weaken all of them.

[AndyA]

24. We'll have to agree to disagree on this to some extent.

At the age of 17, I lost my Mother due to a gunshot to the face because an alcoholic had the "right" to bear arms. My Mother's right to live apparently took second place to his rights. Whose rights were more important? You can't undo some things.

Some people should not have the right to bear arms. It is a right that should not be extended to everyone. Period. Comparing it to driving a car is not a good comparison, since cars didn't exist in the time frame the Constitution was written. And the arms that were available back then are very different than the arms of today. The authors of the Constitution had never heard of or imagined machine guns, AK-47s, etc.

I am very aware of infringement of our rights, especially under our current leadership, and I understand the concern about weakening all of our rights. But I do feel there has to be some middle ground, and gun ownership should not be extended to everyone Carte Blanche, because not everyone is responsible enough to have a gun, and there are thousands of examples of why this is true.

[MardiGras Bandit]

26. Guns, Rights and Crime.

I'm sorry for your loss. I don't mean to politicize a personal tragedy, but if your mothers killer was willing to shoot her, it is likely he would be willing to stab, strangle, or beat her to death. If she had the gun she might have been able to defend herself.

I believe the solution to irresponsible gun ownership is overwhelming numbers of responsible gun owners. High levels of gun ownership, particularly concealed carry, has the direct effect of lowering crime. States adopting concealed carry invariably see crime rates drop. Places (cities, states, and countries) restricting or banning guns invariably see crime rise. I know it is a cliche, but when guns are made criminal, only criminals have guns.

The rights specifically protected in the Constitution the ones the founders considered the most important, they should never be infringed upon. As I said before, it seems to me many people are willing to make exceptions to this rule, not only about firearms but across the board. The 2nd Amendment is perhaps the greatest victim of these views.

[AndyA]

29. Guns and crime.

The man who killed my Mother was a coward. It's easy to pull a trigger, there's no real interaction. You can stand across the room and do it. Stabbing, strangling, or beating requires actual physical contact. You have to push the knife in, squeeze the neck, or pummel the hell out of someone. It's not as "easy" as pulling a trigger.

I live in a concealed carry state, and crime in my city is at an all-time high, the majority of it due to shootings. We'll likely set a new record for murders this year. My guess is all of the people who shot someone felt they had a right to bear arms. But what about the right to life? Shouldn't that outweigh all other rights? What is more precious than life?

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your right to bear arms does not outweigh my right to live my life.

[benEzra]

38. Machine guns, including AK-47's, are tightly controlled by Federal law

and have been for 72 years, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act.

The gun control debate in 2006 has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. That was settled 72 years ago.

[MrBenchley]

42. Ah, ben, why do you deceive like that....

"The gun control debate in 2006 has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons"
Unless you count the ones that can be easily converted to automatic....you know, the ones 70% of America wants off the market?

[benEzra]

44. Guns easily converted to full automatic are NFA Title 2, and YOU KNOW THAT

all such guns were reclassified as restricted NFA Title 2/Class III weapons in 1986, by the McClure-Volkmer Act. That's why you can't buy a single civilian firearm that fires from an open bolt.

The ones doing the deceiving are the ones claiming that "assault weapons bans" have anything to do with automatic weapons, when in fact they ban guns based on stock shape and magazine capacity.

[MrBenchley]

46. That's not even close to being true....

But then it wasn't that long ago you were fussing over the UN taking your guns.....

[derby378]

47. Bait and switch - the old standby

Mind answering benEzra for once instead of all the heated hyperbole?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

51. Oh, yes it is...try 18 USC 53 Section 5845(b)...

(benEzra) Guns easily converted to full automatic are NFA Title 2, and YOU KNOW THAT.

(MrBenchley) That's not even close to being true....

Oh, yes it is. Try Title 18, Chapter 53, Section 5845(b) of the U.S. Code, as set forth in S.W. Daniel, Inc. By and Through Daniel v. U.S., 831 F.2d 253 (11th Cir. 1987), which holds that any firearm that can be readily restored/converted to full auto IS a full auto for the purposes of the National Firearms Act.

If you were correct (which you're not), then you could point me to a gun manufacturer who makes a civilian self-loading firearm that fires from an open bolt for the U.S. market. Guess what, they can't, because such firearms would be restricted NFA Title 2/Class III automatic weapons even if not actually converted to full auto, simply because they CAN be easily converted.

[MrBenchley]

57. Peddle it walking, ben....

"Is "automatic fire" an essential feature of a "real" assault weapon? The answer is, "absolutely not." But that hasn't kept the gun industry from using this line of argument to pretend that civilian assault weapons simply don't exist. The red herring of the automatic fire "issue" was raised by the gun lobby only after civilian assault weapons were widely criticized. This criticism came after mass murderers and drug traffickers began to "hose down" America's streets and schoolyards with civilian assault weapons.
This argument is entirely semantic. By limiting the "definition" of assault weapon to military machine guns, the gun industry and its friends hope to define away the problem. "

http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm

[benEzra]

62. Peddle what, the TRUTH?

Automatic weapons, weapons easily convertible to full auto, AND conversion parts are all tightly controlled NFA Title 2/Class III items, and possession of them without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year felony, as I recall. You claimed otherwise, and you were shown to be incorrect.

I see you keep trying to bring up the ol' "weapon of war" switcheroo. The VPC's model legislation defines an "assault weapon" as any civilian self-loading rifle with a handgrip that sticks out, as well as any other civilian rifle they take a dislike to.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benEzra]

64. Read 18 USC 53 5845(b) yet? (n/t)

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

66. Those all require machined autosears

From Select-Fire Uzi Modification Manual: "After obtaining prior BATF approval you will have a virtually identical copy of the original SMG - and do it without machine tools. Sources of supply for all required parts from bolts to barrels are listed."

Full Auto AR-15 Modification Manual: "Auto sears clearly explained with reviews of several brands. PLUS full machinist’s drawings for a homemade Auto-Sear are included."

Full Auto M14: "The conversion unit is a separate, machined art that will, with one simple modification, work on either weapon."

After checking the publication dates on these books, they were all published in the early to mid-80's. In 1987 all civilian production of autosears was declared a felony, and only autosears produced before 1987 were allowed to remain in circulation, registered as machine guns.

Without the source of autosears listed in these books, you would be required to fashion one from barstock yourself, which would require a CNC machine and many hours of work to create one. Being off by 1/10" in any critical area on an autosear would make it inoperable, locking up the trigger mechanism after the first round or two was fired. The ease of conversion that these books proclaim is extremely overblown, as you would expect from the money-hungry nuts that wrote them. Unless you consider working on a $5000 CNC machine the size of a large sofa for 8-10 hr to make a perfectly shaped piece of metal smaller than your thumb a piece of cake.

[MrBenchley]

67. In other words, they can be converted to automatic

and pretty much every bobo who's taken metal shop can do so.....

[benEzra]

68. No, it means that they are no more easily converted

than any other civilian self-loading rifle.

A lump of steel can be converted into an automatic weapon by a machinist and a well-equipped machine shop. So can a bolt-action hunting rifle. The law does not address the remote possibility of converting, but the ease of converting. Only guns that are difficult to convert to automatic weapons are classified as NFA Title 1 civilian firearms. ALL easy-to-convert firearms are restricted as NFA Title 2/Class III automatic weapons, even if not actually converted, by 18 USC 53 5845(b).

The guns we are talking about are all difficult-to-convert NFA Title 1 firearms, not easy-to-convert Title 2's.

[4bucksagallon]

72. Now how can you convert a bolt action rifle to automatic ...........

Can't be done.

[benEzra]

73. It's been done...google "Pedersen device," for one.

Now how can you convert a bolt action rifle to automatic ........... Can't be done.

It's been done. For example, the Pedersen device, which converted the M1903 Springfield bolt rifle (.30-06) to a .30 caliber machinegun with very little modification to the rifle (IIRC, it could easily be converted back to a bolt-action .30-06). FWIW, John Moses Browning converted a lever-action to full-auto as an experiment in gas operating systems, and that was conceptually about the simplest full auto conversion I can think of. Given a skilled machinist, time, and tools, any repeating rifle can be made to cycle itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device



It is difficult to do (which was my point, after all), but it can be done. And the parts to do it (i.e., a Pederson device) are just as tightly controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act as any other Title 2 conversion parts would be.

FWIW, the typical semiautomatic rifle is essentially just a bolt-action with a gas piston and return spring to cam the bolt open and cycle it for you. It's obvious on a rifle like the mini-14, since the bolt looks very much like the bolt of a bolt-action. Remove the gas piston, plug the gas port, and add a handle to the stub on the bolt that meshes with the op rod, and it would be a bolt-action.

This is all a red herring, though, since easy-to-convert guns are tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act, as are conversion parts, and the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch had nothing to do with either.

[4bucksagallon]

74. It says

The Pedersen device was an optional attachment for the Springfield 1903 rifle that allowed it to fire a short 0.30 (7.62 mm) caliber intermediate cartridge in (semi-automatic) mode. Without a sear it will be either shoot the whole clip or jam up there would be no stopping it in full auto.
I agree that it is a red herring since the repukes are just looking for wedge issues.

[4bucksagallon]

71. That's crap

Any skilled machinist could make one with a manual milling machine, with an indexing head.

[slackmaster]

77. Modest machine skills would suffice

But only a small percentage of the population have that.

Bottom line to me is whether or not the fact that some firearms are more readily convertible to automatic than others really poses a significant threat to public safety. Incidents I can recall of converted weapons are rare and always involve a corrupted gunsmith working for hard-core criminals, not Joe Sixpack doing it for a hoot.

The BATFE, as has been pointed out many times already, has drawn a line in the sand regarding what constitutes a weapon that us unreasonably easy to convert. I haven't seen anything close to a convincing argument that the line is misplaced.

:shrug:

[sgxnk]

28. false

free speech has, does, and will kill people

but it doesn't mean we should get rid of it

[underpants]

22. Welcome to DU

People who hide behind the first amendment usually do so because they are scared of the nuts hiding behind the second amendment.

That really doesn't have anything to do with your post I just wanted to mention that joke.

[benEzra]

39. So am I responsible, or not?

The key word here is RESPONSIBLE.

RESPONSIBLE people don't ever leave a gun where a minor could get their hands on it.

Check. We keep our guns locked in a safe when not in use, and take other precautions to ensure that our guns do not fall into the wrong hands.

RESPONSIBLE people don't use guns against others unless they are protecting themselves or their family.

Check.

RESPONSIBLE people don't play games with guns, loaded or otherwise.

Check. Unless you define recreational target shooting (done safely) as a "game."

RESPONSIBLE people don't clean their guns around others or when loaded.

Define "around others." If you mean not allowing the muzzle to point at a person, even when the gun is disassembled, then yes, we are very careful about that. And I always triple-check a gun to ensure it's completely unloaded before disassembly. But I wouldn't go off into the woods to clean a firearm.

RESPONSIBLE people don't need or want assault weapons.

WTF does liking 19th-century-fogey stock styling have to do with responsible gun ownership? I'm a Gen-Xer, I HATE rifles with cowboy-style straight wooden stocks. Most of my rifles are small-caliber self-loaders with protruding handgrips. So? That doesn't make me irresponsible, any more than my wife owning a highly collectible 1952 Tula SKS carbine makes her "irresponsible."

Carrying a weapon should be a right only when the person carrying the weapon handles it RESPONSIBLY. There are a lot of people in America right now with weapons, who have them because they have the right. But they should not have them because they don't deal with that right in a RESPONSIBLE manner.

And the law allows guns to be taken away from those who use them irresponsibly...

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

45. So, what's an assault weapon?

And since when did the "Bill of Rights" become a "Bill of Needs?"

[MrBenchley]

49. It's what the gun loonies cream their jeans over, derby....

If you really don't know, you don't really need one.

[benEzra]

52. According to you, that's pretty much any firearm, MrB...

which pretty much sums up the scope of the term "assault weapon." Any gun that the gun-ban lobby wants to ban at the moment.

The definitions set forth in most "assault weapon" legislation generally define an assault weapon as any civilian self-loading rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, any civilian shotgun that holds more than five shells, or any civilian rifle or pistol that holds more than 10 rounds.

[MrBenchley]

56. Jeeze, ben, don't blame me because the triggerhappy are lame

wankers with a poathetic fetish.

[derby378]

58. Still can't answer the question, can you?

Thought so.

[MrBenchley]

59. Jeeze, derby....it's all the answer YOU deserve

[derby378]

60. Game, Set, and Match

I win again. We now return you to the 2006 campaign to throw Republicans out of Congress...

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

75. Ass, platter

:D

[MrBenchley]

76. holes, dishonest, delusional

[Township75]

14. Good, I'm glad they did, and you don't have to be a NRA supporter

to support this bill.

The police were too busy running out of NO and stealing stuff from stores to protect the populace. But law enforcement was sent back into NO to disarm individuals they wouldn't protect.

This is great that this bill passed!

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Now we know what the bogus "Poor Fo are firing at rescue helicopters"

false rumors were all about. Fear mongering.


Also note:

Not one word about the administration in power during Katrina. Just generic government bureaucrats?




F the NRA

[mainegreen]

20. Good. I support this law. nt

[GOPFighter]

30. Just more "Feel Good" legislation!

Gun owners love to berate me - a liberal gun control advocate - for all those damn "feel good" laws that liberals keep passing. They tell me about all the useless laws already on the books. They snarl that only liberal gun-grabbers engage in this underhanded puffy stuff.

Right!

The second amendment is part of the bill of rights. No "government bureaucrat" - like the mayor of New Orleans - can declare it null and void. Not even the Supreme Court can declare it null and void! Like any other rights infringement case, those who had their firearm illegally confiscated file suit against the authority who ordered the confiscation. They present their case in court and get their weapon back. The government official who overstepped the bounds of their authority will be punished, and the person wronged would probably be awarded punitive damages if the confiscation put their safety in danger. This is how we punish those who exceed their authority. Surely the bright people at the NRA know this, but they also know that "feel good" laws like this are a gold mine when it comes time to send out those mailings when its time for people to renew their membership.

So, this is nothing more than a new useless law cluttering up the books. Anyone foolhardy enough to ignore the bill of rights is going to ignore this law too (duh!). This is a perfect example of the NRA's "feel good" laws they love to use to energize their constituency.

[RamboLiberal]

32. Fat lot of good filing a suit will do you if you're in the middle

of a disaster trying to protect your life or your property and you firearm is confiscated. That was dumb IMHO to order home and business owners to give up their guns.

[GOPFighter]

36. Agreed

So how does this bill change anything?

[benEzra]

53. Sets forth an explicit prohibition

and a specified avenue of redress, and I believe it also makes any officer who illegally siezes guns personally liable. It can't make illegal gun seizures any more illegal, but it can and does make it easier to hold the perpetrators accountable, and specifies that victims who sue are entitled to legal fees if they win. At least that was the version that I saw, though I haven't see the text of the final law yet.

Having it so clearly delineated in the law also makes it easier for a rank-and-file officer to countermand illegal orders, and I suspect it will also spur police departments to educate their officers (and their chiefs!) on what is and is NOT legal during a natural disaster.

All in all, I think it's a very good thing, and I'm glad to see so many leading Dems on board the legislation.

[Redneck Socialist]

35. It's a good bill, but...

the NRA still sucks ass.

[sendero]

40. Exactly..

... I believe in gun rights but the NRA can kiss my ass. They've done more harm than good in the fight to protect gun rights, especially in the PR realm.

I support this bill 100%. A time of emergency is the time I'm MOST LIKELY to face the need to defend myself.

[MrBenchley]

41. "We're a danger to ourselves and others"

“The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina confirmed a fear long-held by American gun owners:"
America has black people.

By the way, what could add to the festivity of a natural disaster more than gun loonies shooting emergency workers?

[ProudDad]

43. I don't care

Let the yahoos keep their precious guns.

The better to wipe each other out in "hunting accidents" and fatal gun cleaning escapades.

May they blow each other to hell and rid the gene pool of their stupidity...

IMHO.

[benEzra]

54. As one of the ignorant yahoos of whom you speak,

I'll say thanks for acquiescing to my keeping them. :eyes:

I won't be participating in any hunting accidents, though, since (like most gun owners) I don't hunt. So I'm afraid I will have to keep on polluting your gene pool, and may even manage to add a bit of civility to it...

[Swamp Rat]

55. Doesn't matter. The chief of police in New Orleans plans to confiscate

all guns during the next hurricane anyway.

I wonder if the NRA will come down to help us when they declare Martial Law again, and take away our guns again, even if murderers are running loose again?