[GRIEVE] The End Is Near!!!!
Todd Tolhurst
>Hmm, a few thoughts on this piece of law:
>1) it seems that there is a provision for our esteemed AG to monitor
>the effects of ths new bill and then fix the problems. In other words
>it seems to me that if the bill really is doing no good (as we all
>know it will) then she/he/it can recind it. Only we have to wait
>about 2 years for this to happen.
I only see a directive for the Attorney General to conduct a study
on the effects of the legislation; I don't see any authority for the AG
to rescind a thing.
>2) until about 2 or 3 weeks ago I was still of the opinion that the
>folk on the hill (my home town) were not out to take everythign away.
>It seemed to me that what they wanted was a rather reasonable thing.
>Then I saw the quote form that house guy about the 30-06 deer
>rifle...this really opened my eyes...What are they thinking. I think
>that if Diane Fienstien would only have been exposed to the firearms
>culture that she is trying to destroy we would be much better off
>now...perhaps. Her ignorance about the issues here is also
>astonishing...(you have to aima revolver not a AW???What silliness)
That's not ignorance. She knew it was a lie when she said it. These
people are not stupid. They know exactly what they want to do and
exeactly how to make it happen. Part of making it happen is telling lies
like that often enough that people start to believe them. It worked pretty
well, didn't it?
>3) I think now that this kind of thing will only get worse until liek
>everything else the public realizes that they really do need to be
>able to protect themselves in case of emergency...not only fromthe
>gov't (which I don;t really see happening) but from Joe Blow
>Mugger/Rapist/Robber... After the normal folk in the country see what
>is happening (see what we, teh FBI, and the POlice Depts around the
>country see) there will again be a public outcry for the unbanning of
>these and many other things.
Unfortunately, most of the public gets their information from the
likes of NBC, CBS and ABC who are constantly singing the refrain of
the need for more and more and more government control, oversight and
regulation of everything under the sun. Got a problem? Have the
government fix it! They're here to help us!
--
Todd N. Tolhurst The Bill of Rights:
DataEase International, Inc. Void where prohibited by law.
to...@pnet.com
wba...@vaxa.isc.rit.edu
>
>I'm sure this will be one of MANY on this subject, but ladies and gentlemen
>I do believe I hear the fat lady tuning up her vocal chords and that her
>singing can't be far behind. Who out there in fantasy land believes the
>"assault weapon" ban is the end of the anti-gun, feel good politics we've
>seen lately. They are on a roll and will not stop until all law abiding
>gun owners suddenly become criminals based solely on the fact of owning one.
>Of course this will also mean open season for the criminals that will still
>be sticking a gun to my head as I turn the corner. Of course we can all rest
>well at night knowing our law enforcement officials are there to protect us.
>NOT!!!!
>
>don
>
I wonder if anyone has had the same thought as myself. That... due to the ban
on assault rifles, guns, guns, and more guns... and the knowledge that gun
owners are ready to cache their weapons instead of turning them in, that MORE
criminals are being created. Millions and MILLIONS of them [read: former gun
owners turned gun hiders]...
They claim to want to stop crime... but they're doubleing and tripling it!!!
Bill
Scott Lee
Christopher L. Morrow <cm...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>I think that in the near future you (and the people
>responsible for this travesty) will see that that the bill is not
>working, and can't possibly hope to work...then we will see justice
>done.
I think this is naive. They will not just see that things are wrong and
undo them. Look at the quotes... "... a good first step..."
The tendency, when things are not working like they hoped, is to attempt
to do more of the same. To do the right thing actually takes some thought
and a good bit of introspection. This is not something that has been
running rampant around the hill over the last 1.5 years. It will require
the force of a lot of voices demanding that the right thing be done.
The information is out there right now. Some of the best is the work of
Gary Kleck (what the heck did I do with my copy). Everything that is hoped
for in this bill will fail because he has already done the research and
shown that it fails. My favorite example is that of wonderful Kennesaw
just north of me, here. Since they passed their law requiring a gun in
every household, their crime rates dropped and the only two murders that
actually occurred in the place were done with knives (since 1983). Time
for another ban, huh?
I'm rambling,... let me shut up.
--
Scott Lee AudioFAX, Inc. / Suite 200 Audio: +1 404 933 7600
sc...@audiofax.com 2000 Powers Ferry Center Fax: +1 404 933 7606
emory!audfax!scott Marietta, GA. 30067
Nosy
<Don't forget, however, that the "assault weapon" ban came damn close to law
<back in 1990. The Senate bill (S.1970) passed and the House version probably
<would have passed had it come to a vote, but Tom Foley (a liberal Democrat,
<you will note) killed it. All indications were that Bush would have signed it.
This is wrong on two counts. First of all, the House voted
DOWN all the gun ban nonsense from that Session's crime bill.
Second, Bush made it clear that he would sign it ONLY as part
of a crime bill that included the things he wanted (more prisons,
faster executions, etc.).
<Bush was also the one who first proposed banning magazines greater than ten
<rounds back in 1989. It was, as I recall, his first broken campaign promise.
Wrong again. Bush was elected in 1988, not 1989, and the
"magazine ban" was floated only long enough to get a response
back from the GOP rank and file.
<Then there was the "assault weapon" import ban, placed by Bush via executive
<order.
THIS is correct. The import ban was Bush's first big
mistake (April 1989, if memory serves) and his second was
going along with the Democrats in Congress to break his
tax pledge.
<The Brady Act and the "assault weapon" ban were gimmies for Clinton. They
<were due for enactment regardless of who was in the White House.
I disagree, strongly. This argument was put forth during
the campaign by persons who were opposed to Bush and wanted
an excuse to vote for KKKlintoon with a clear mind; it just
cannot be proven to be so.
It's absurd to claim the so-called "assault weapon" ban
is a done deal, when just one GOP House Rep who was
at a funeral last week for a relative would have voted
against it....
Furthermore, this thing isn't over yet; the House-Senate
conference committee has to come up with something that
both chambers have to pass.
<The next
<round of anti-gun rights legislation will probably be not so easy to pass.
Want to bet? It depends on how much preparation the media does
in the next few months. KKKlintoon wants a handgun ban...
< I hope.
< We'll see what happens come November.
We *better* get on the stick right now, during the primary
season, because if some of these yahoos (Ron Coleman, D Texas
comes to mind) who turncoated on the people of this country
aren't unemployed and soon, we can expect a whole lot
more nasty junk, such as Evita Rodham's version of Mussolini's
national id...er....HEALTH CARE card.
FULLER M
><In article <2qccjk$6...@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca> j9...@callisto.sun.csd.unb.ca
(FULLER M) writes:
>
><Don't forget, however, that the "assault weapon" ban came damn close to law
><back in 1990. The Senate bill (S.1970) passed and the House version probably
><would have passed had it come to a vote, but Tom Foley (a liberal Democrat,
><you will note) killed it. All indications were that Bush would have signed it.
>
> This is wrong on two counts. First of all, the House voted
> DOWN all the gun ban nonsense from that Session's crime bill.
Whoops, you're right. Foley blocked the Brady Bill that session.
> Second, Bush made it clear that he would sign it ONLY as part
> of a crime bill that included the things he wanted (more prisons,
> faster executions, etc.).
Aw, Bushlips! Wasn't that pretty much what was heading toward his desk,
albeit at glacial speed? Lookee at the crime bill the "liberal" Clinoccio
is hoping to sign shortly.
><Bush was also the one who first proposed banning magazines greater than ten
><rounds back in 1989. It was, as I recall, his first broken campaign promise.
>
> Wrong again. Bush was elected in 1988, not 1989, and the
> "magazine ban" was floated only long enough to get a response
> back from the GOP rank and file.
Let me rephrase that: Bush's on-record support in 1989 for a ban on magazines
holding more than ten rounds was, as I recall, his first breaking of a
campaign promise (to oppose all gun control measures).
BTW - I know Bush was elected in 1988. What do you take me for, a Canadian?
><Then there was the "assault weapon" import ban, placed by Bush via executive
><order.
>
> THIS is correct. The import ban was Bush's first big
> mistake (April 1989, if memory serves) and his second was
> going along with the Democrats in Congress to break his
> tax pledge.
>
><The Brady Act and the "assault weapon" ban were gimmies for Clinton. They
><were due for enactment regardless of who was in the White House.
>
> I disagree, strongly. This argument was put forth during
> the campaign by persons who were opposed to Bush and wanted
> an excuse to vote for KKKlintoon with a clear mind; it just
> cannot be proven to be so.
>
> It's absurd to claim the so-called "assault weapon" ban
> is a done deal, when just one GOP House Rep who was
> at a funeral last week for a relative would have voted
> against it....
How do you know he would have? Too many ban opponents have turned quisling
for me to take any of them at their word again...at least on this issue.
I'll buy the funeral alibi, though. <g>
> Furthermore, this thing isn't over yet; the House-Senate
> conference committee has to come up with something that
> both chambers have to pass.
>
><The next
><round of anti-gun rights legislation will probably be not so easy to pass.
>
> Want to bet? It depends on how much preparation the media does
> in the next few months. KKKlintoon wants a handgun ban...
I think they've shot their load for the time being. Unless the antis choose
their next target very carefully, they're going to shake up the "sportsmen"
with any further infringements on gun-rights. They may already have, once
it's discovered what's really in the "assault weapon" ban.
I must admit though, I am surprized at what the media and the Galactic Hero
have gotten away with saying. As I've written elsewhere, just imagine the
"Why We Fight" documentary Capra could make using Clintoon soundbites. It's
scary that he can get applause when he talks about Americans having too much
freedom, or when he's actively trying to get around the Bill of Rights so
the police can search people's homes at will.
>< I hope.
>
>< We'll see what happens come November.
>
> We *better* get on the stick right now, during the primary
> season, because if some of these yahoos (Ron Coleman, D Texas
> comes to mind) who turncoated on the people of this country
> aren't unemployed and soon, we can expect a whole lot
> more nasty junk, such as Evita Rodham's version of Mussolini's
> national id...er....HEALTH CARE card.
I've thought about re-registering as a Republican so I can attend their
caucus this summer, but I like being officially registered as a Libertarian
(which is recognized in Maine). Besides, I don't think one can participate
in a party's caucus unless they've been registered with that party for six
months or so. I do, however, plan on helping out with Representative Snowe's
campaign for Mitchell's Senate seat. Tom Andrews (a.k.a. Schumer-Lite) must
be stopped.
Going to the primaries is something I definately recommend to all the major
party voters out there. The primary is usually the one event at which you
actually get to vote FOR somebody, as opposed to voting AGAINST the greater
of two evils (which is usually the case on election day).
And don't forget what a wise drunkard once said: "All politics is local."
Malcolm Fuller, Surveying Engineering, University of New Brunswick
mal...@atlantic.cs.unb.ca or j9...@jupiter.csd.unb.ca }>:-)> --->
__________________ The Second Amendment is Dumbo's feather _________________
Dan Day
>In article <2qe8r7$7...@xring.cs.umd.edu>,
>Christopher L. Morrow <cm...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>I think that in the near future you (and the people
>>responsible for this travesty) will see that that the bill is not
>>working, and can't possibly hope to work...then we will see justice
>>done.
>
>I think this is naive. They will not just see that things are wrong and
>undo them. Look at the quotes... "... a good first step..."
>
>The tendency, when things are not working like they hoped, is to attempt
>to do more of the same.
Yup. It's like the medieval doctors who used leeches to "cure"
people of various ailments. When the patient got worse, did
they remove the leeches? No, it was "drastic treatment is needed!
More leeches!"
Likewise, people convinced that gun control works will take
a failure not as an indication that the measure is flawed,
but as an indication that it just didn't go far enough. Pass
an even stricter law, and when that doesn't work either, go
back to step one and repeat.
This is the old "slippery slope" problem. Once you start down
it, the laws of physics or human nature come into play, and
you don't stop until you slide all the way to the bottom.
John Hagler
>I wonder if anyone has had the same thought as myself. That... due to the ban
>on assault rifles, guns, guns, and more guns... and the knowledge that gun
>owners are ready to cache their weapons instead of turning them in, that MORE
>criminals are being created. Millions and MILLIONS of them [read: former gun
>owners turned gun hiders]...
>They claim to want to stop crime... but they're doubleing and tripling it!!!
>Bill
That might be why Kommandant Klinton is trying to get around the 4th
ammendment too. I suspect the vaseline industry will be doing well as
we are all about to get.....
johnh
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|nu...@ornews.intel.com | "For every problem there is one solution that is |
|Let Freedom Ring, Please| simple, neat and wrong." H. L. Mencken |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Day
>
>I need some minimal info on this legislation:
>
>o name of the act
18 U.S.C. | 922(o), which prohibits possession of machineguns, although:
1. Machine guns registered according to law before May 19, 1986, could be sold
to the general public; and
2. machineguns registered on or after May 19, 1986, could be sold only to
governmental bodies and police agencies, and not to the general public.
>o when it went into effect
May 19, 1986.
>o when it was contested, where and by whom, and result
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROCK ISLAND ARMORY,
INC., and DAVID R. REESE, Defendants
Case No. 90 40025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
773 F. Supp. 117; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11629
June 7, 1991, Decided
June 7, 1991, Filed
Results:
In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. | 922(o), the Secretary has refused to
accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19,
1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such
machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the
registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of
the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are
impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b),
2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.
ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1991.
The counts:
The superseding indictment alleges that Defendants committed acts in respect
to the making and registration of "firearms," i.e., machineguns, n1 in the years
1987 and 1988 which violated parts of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of
the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. || 5801 et [*2] seq. Specifically,
Count I alleges in part that Defendants conspired "(a) to manufacture firearms
in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5822 n2 and 5861(f) n3
[and) (b) to knowingly deliver into interstate commerce firearms in violation of
Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5822 and 5861(j). . . ." n4 Count 2
alleges that in 1988, Defendants made machineguns "in violation of the
registration provisions of Title 26, United States Code, Section 5822," which is
alleged to have violated 26 U.S.C. | 5861(f). Count 3 alleges that Defendants
delivered into interstate commerce the same machineguns as in Count 2, and that
these machineguns "had not been registered as required by the provisions of
Title 26, United States Code, Section 5822," in violation of 26 U.S.C. |
5861(j).
All text excerpted from the "rock-island" file in the RKBA archive site.