H.R. 2038, Is this for real?!

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2003-06-27 03:48pm

how would this ban work? Will they seize everybody's 'illegal' gun or what?

Dirty Harry · Post by **Dirty Harry** » 2003-06-27 04:12pm

FaxModem1 wrote:Or are we just supposed to turn it in and think that we'll be safe with nothing to protect us?

For me thats pretty much the heart of the issue, how can being defenseless make you safe?

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-06-27 05:50pm

Sriad wrote:
RogueIce wrote:
and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event
Wait a minute... It can't be suitable for sporting purposes because it's suitable for use in a sporting event?

Someone please explain that one to me...
I think that's hippie-lawyer-speak for "anything not covered by the above." But I'm not exactly fluent in hippy-lawyerese.

In English it says, "The fact that you can use an M16 to hunt deer or participate in target-shooting contests doesn't qualify it as 'particularly suitable for sporting purposes'."

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-06-27 06:09pm

Sigh....

"Cold Dead Fingers".

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-06-27 06:15pm

So, where'd the Second Amendment go? I can understand fully automatic AP assault rifles, but, um, shotguns get banned now?

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-06-27 06:21pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Nathan F wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Another great reason to not vote for Bush?
0_o I am confused...
Bush wants to pass this shit.

Dude, think for a minute! Just what would your alternative be? A Democrat who is considerebly more pro gun-control than Bush would ever be? Yeah, that's a great solution!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-27 07:17pm

Perinquus wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Nathan F wrote: 0_o I am confused...
Bush wants to pass this shit.
Dude, think for a minute! Just what would your alternative be? A Democrat who is considerebly more pro gun-control than Bush would ever be? Yeah, that's a great solution!

Either the libertarian candidate, or not voting at all.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-06-27 11:45pm

Death from the Sea wrote: And also I think Setzer was refering to AP ammo not just normal lead slugs.

Military and police grade AP ammo is already illegal in the U.S.A. not to mention other ammo such as HE, incendiary(sp), and etc.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-06-28 12:32am

Looking at this list- just what the fuck is NOT banned? Even the fucking VEPR is banned for fuck's sake.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-28 01:19am

Perinquus wrote: Dude, think for a minute! Just what would your alternative be? A Democrat who is considerebly more pro gun-control than Bush would ever be? Yeah, that's a great solution!

Speaking out of your ass. There are several Democratic presidential candidates who favor no additional federal gun control laws.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-06-28 01:39am

FaxModem1 wrote:My family owns a shotgun(were Texans, you expected different?), so does this mean that a policeman is going to come to our house and seize our gun? Or are we just supposed to turn it in and think that we'll be safe with nothing to protect us?

Well, if the big bad zionist occupation government controlled policeman can be bothered coming to your place to confiscate a shotgun, then I think you can be safe in the knowledge that they will be there to protect you from whatever you fear in the future...

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-06-28 06:31am

Howedar wrote:
Perinquus wrote: Dude, think for a minute! Just what would your alternative be? A Democrat who is considerebly more pro gun-control than Bush would ever be? Yeah, that's a great solution!
Speaking out of your ass. There are several Democratic presidential candidates who favor no additional federal gun control laws.

And will any of those actually be in the race against Bush in '04? Probably not. I don't believe the democrats have run a presidential candidate since Kennedy who was not pro gun-control.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-06-28 06:36am

Durran Korr wrote:Either the libertarian candidate, or not voting at all.

Which basically accomplishes nothing, since the libertarian candidate has zero chance of winning. And if enough people don't vote for Bush, the electors in that state all vote for the other candidate. So tell me again what kind of sense it makes to withold support from a candidate because of his stance on a particular issue, when the only other candidate with a realistic chance of winning has an even worse stance on that issue.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-06-28 07:58am

nechronius wrote:It's called socialism. Most countries in the world have an unarmed citizenry that believes it suffers from less crime because there are no guns within its border (correction, no guns in the hands of its lawful citizens). Thus any objection to legislation diminishing the individual US citizen's right to keep firearms is viewed as antagonistic warmongering by gun nuts who want to keep weapons so that they can massacre innocent children.

Wat to genralise.

People have gotten too accepting of the idea that the "kind and benevolent system" will provide for everything they need including self protection when Time and again the system has stated and demonstrated that it has no obligation to protect the individual, only to pick up the broken pieces after the fact. Too easily are people willing to blame an inanimate object for their own ignorance, stupidity, or blatant disregard for common sense.

In the eyes of other nations we are the very evil we claim to seek out and destroy. Our country is either headed by immoral and unfaithful liars or by draft dodging rich daddies boys using any excuse to attack and depose "harmless" dictators. It's easy to pigeonhole all of us because we don't pay a 50% tax on the products we buy so that the government can take care of our every need, whether it's a required need or a perceived one.

If you are afraid of everyone else owning a gun all around you, why don't you try one out yourself. If you fear that you may do something irrational because you suddenly have a weapon in your hand you have much deeper mental issues that require serious help.

So everyone do yourself a favor.

Learn CPR/basic first aid so that you may save a life one day.
Learn to swim in case you find yourself in unfamiliar or unexpected circumstances.
Learn to drive a manual transmission so that you will never need to depend on another for your own mobility.
Learn to operate and secure a firearm for your protection and for the protection of others.

Who are you getting at? the rest of the world or your own nations inaiquecies?
I think you will find that most of the world does not care if every household in America has a functioning 105mm gun/howitzer in the garage, but most just think you are whacked in the head for having so many problems in your society.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-06-28 09:45am

weemadando wrote:Well, if the big bad zionist occupation government controlled policeman can be bothered coming to your place to confiscate a shotgun, then I think you can be safe in the knowledge that they will be there to protect you from whatever you fear in the future...

Because even if it takes them six months to get around to showing up fpr your gun, they can magically be at your house in thirty seconds when someone is trying to kill you!

nechronius · Post by **nechronius** » 2003-06-29 12:03am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Wat to genralise.

Who are you getting at? the rest of the world or your own nations inaiquecies?
I think you will find that most of the world does not care if every household in America has a functioning 105mm gun/howitzer in the garage, but most just think you are whacked in the head for having so many problems in your society.

Speaking of generalization, this is exactly the type of mentality I am talking about. I have no "inaiquecies" myself, although given the vast populace I'm sure there are enough people with them. You can try and cast whatever stones you want at "stupid americans" but whatever mental problems you can name I bet your neck of the woods has them as well, just in different forms and probably much better covered up by your likely "welfare minded" government.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-06-29 12:05am

FaxModem1 wrote:how would this ban work? Will they seize everybody's 'illegal' gun or what?

Historically, gun registration has come before this, so it is easier to track down firearms before locking them up (look at the UK, a prime example of pre-prohibition registration and then seizure). In this case, people will be requested to turn their firearms in to local police, or risk someone ratting them out and turning your ownership of grandpappy's Garand or Remington and/or selling your friend your old .308 into a federal felony.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-06-29 12:53am

nechronius wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Wat to genralise.

Who are you getting at? the rest of the world or your own nations inaiquecies?
I think you will find that most of the world does not care if every household in America has a functioning 105mm gun/howitzer in the garage, but most just think you are whacked in the head for having so many problems in your society.
Speaking of generalization, this is exactly the type of mentality I am talking about. I have no "inaiquecies" myself, although given the vast populace I'm sure there are enough people with them. You can try and cast whatever stones you want at "stupid americans" but whatever mental problems you can name I bet your neck of the woods has them as well, just in different forms and probably much better covered up by your likely "welfare minded" government.

I wasnt talking about you, numb nuts, and my neck of the woods has sufficant control over weaponry that the mentally disturbed, children, dont have routine access to firearms, and our criminals genrally dont bother with firearms as they are not worth getting killed over when on the job.
And as to my 'Welfare Minded' government, want to show any coverups? our you just pulling that comment out of your ass?

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-06-29 01:01am

Death from the Sea wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Setzer wrote:Dammit, this is rediculous. I agree the average civilian doesn't need an assault rifle firing armor piercing bullets.
Er.. your hunting rifle fires armor piercing rounds.....270 Winchester
can punch through most body armor made
I think Setzer was talking about vehicle armor, anything above a 9mm handgun can defeat most body armor made. And also I think Setzer was refering to AP ammo not just normal lead slugs.

New Body armor, the Personal Armor System, Ground Troop (PASGT) can block a 7.62 round on the body armor, and the helmet can block a 9mm bullet

If they ban the Garand before i can get one, i'll be uber-pissed. You see what this is, right? They're banning weapons that can pierce body armor, so civilians, left with fucking peashooters, cant defeat body armor in case the militia decides to intervene... We need a Sheppard regime or something...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-29 01:06am

Perinquus wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Either the libertarian candidate, or not voting at all.
Which basically accomplishes nothing, since the libertarian candidate has zero chance of winning. And if enough people don't vote for Bush, the electors in that state all vote for the other candidate. So tell me again what kind of sense it makes to withold support from a candidate because of his stance on a particular issue, when the only other candidate with a realistic chance of winning has an even worse stance on that issue.

It's not just the gun issue. There are other areas where I differ from the Bush administration. It bungled up what should have been an easy war to sell to the world and now we get worse press abroad than fucking Osama Bin Laden. It seems to be in a race with the Democrats to see who can suck up the most to the richest group in the country, seniors, at the expense of my generation. It puts forth Lilliputian tax cuts which include welfare checks disguised as tax rebates for people who have no federal income tax liability. Not to mention this administration is easily the biggest spender since the Johnson administration, presiding over what will probably be the biggest expansion of government power since the 60's.

That's why I'm hesitant to vote for Bush.

nechronius · Post by **nechronius** » 2003-06-29 01:18am

Stuart Mackey wrote:I wasnt talking about you, numb nuts, and my neck of the woods has sufficant control over weaponry that the mentally disturbed, children, dont have routine access to firearms, and our criminals genrally dont bother with firearms as they are not worth getting killed over when on the job.
And as to my 'Welfare Minded' government, want to show any coverups? our you just pulling that comment out of your ass?

tsk tsk. Resorting to insults only demeans you. Simmer down lad, you're showing your ugly colors. I'm glad to hear your sufficant control means that your criminals are safe in the knowledge that they can do whatever they want without fear of real consequences and that your mentally disturbed people have to find alternative ways to express their problems. Wait, didn't I already say that? Yes, I think I did. As for coverups, beats the hell out of me. There isn't much to cover up in that neck of the woods. But then, a coverup wouldn't be one if it was out in the open.

New Zealand. Wonderful country. More sheep than people. My dad wanted to move there once.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-06-29 01:30am

nechronius wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:I wasnt talking about you, numb nuts, and my neck of the woods has sufficant control over weaponry that the mentally disturbed, children, dont have routine access to firearms, and our criminals genrally dont bother with firearms as they are not worth getting killed over when on the job.
And as to my 'Welfare Minded' government, want to show any coverups? our you just pulling that comment out of your ass?
tsk tsk. Resorting to insults only demeans you. Simmer down lad, you're showing your ugly colors.

Welcome to SD.Net, where we call an Idiot an idiot, and in your case a pretentious right wing twit.

I'm glad to hear your sufficant control means that your criminals are safe in the knowledge that they can do whatever they want without fear of real consequences

Bzzt, you failed to read what I wrote didnt you? They dont bother with firearms, cause to do so gets them shot. Oh, I guess thats not a real consequence of their actions is it?

and that your mentally disturbed people have to find alternative ways to express their problems.

You say that like there is something wrong with that.

Wait, didn't I already say that? Yes, I think I did.

No, you didnt.

As for coverups, beats the hell out of me. There isn't much to cover up in that neck of the woods. But then, a coverup wouldn't be one if it was out in the open.

Right on, you get a cookie, but it begs the question of why you mentioned it in the first place. Oh thats right, its called a strawman....

New Zealand. Wonderful country. More sheep than people. My dad wanted to move there once.

No offence, but I am glad he didnt, we dont need you pissing in our gene pool.

nechronius · Post by **nechronius** » 2003-06-29 01:40am

Stuart Mackey wrote:No offence, but I am glad he didnt, we dont need you pissing in our gene pool.

Not only socialist but elitist as well. Stay safe in your little corner of the planet before reality catches up. Mackey's insulting comments resume in 5... 4... 3... 2.. 1...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-07-06 11:48pm

nechronius wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:No offence, but I am glad he didnt, we dont need you pissing in our gene pool.
Not only socialist but elitist as well. Stay safe in your little corner of the planet before reality catches up. Mackey's insulting comments resume in 5... 4... 3... 2.. 1...

I have been busy for a bit, work can be a pain like that.

Got no answers eh?
concession accpted

*sorry for this necromancy, just had to retaliate.*

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-07 04:10am

leave it go, stuart. let her die with honor.