Dems introduce bill banning semi-autos

[K.Mooneyham]

Well it’s official: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... /5087/text, H.R. 5087 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.

The progressive socialists seeking to destroy our Constitutional Republic have just made enemies of lots of companies, their employees and their customers.
They are going to need to regain control of the House, Senate and White House to get the enforcement measures necessary to actually remove the hundreds of millions of banned weapons from previously law abiding American citizens.

The gun-banner types want our nation's police forces to go around and do the dirty work for them. The numbers of Americans who own semi-automatic firearms far outnumber all the police in the nation by a factor of ten or more. The police at every level already have enough actual criminals to worry about without the added burden of disarming otherwise law-abiding American citizens. That is why the sheriffs in upstate NY and most of the sheriffs in Colorado made statements that they would NOT be enforcing new gun control laws in those states. They had neither the time nor the resources to accomplish that in any meaningful way, even assuming the inclination, which I believe is generally lacking in a majority of law enforcement officers. The gun-banners just want to push something through so they can show their voting block some "progress" and cement those votes. Disgusting in the extreme.

[imkopaka]

Noticed this:

“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

.............................................

(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

This effectively bans every rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the exception of bolt or lever action.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Noticed this:

“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

.............................................

(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

This effectively bans every rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the exception of bolt or lever action.

This is a stupid bill.

[bblhd672]

This is a stupid bill.

Not to the 173 progressive socialist Democrats, including 5 from Texas, who sponsored it. They call it “a good start.”

[apostate]

Huh. I wonder if bullet buttons would get around this law or if that would require cali-style featureless rifles... or worse. Hypothetically speaking, of course, as I wouldn't geld my MSR to appease the feds this time around. I'd rather sell them out of the back of my car.

[The Annoyed Man]

I’ve posted a direct link to the text of this house bill elsewhere on these pages. At the top, there are by my count 155 democrat sponsors/cosponsors. There are only 193 democrats in the House, which means that just over 80% of democrats in the House support this bill. It is probably safe to say that the same percentage of democrats in the Senate would support a Senate version of this bill, or would vote for the House version as is.

That right there shows that the democrat party IS the party of gun banning - no matter what they say. So when they say stuff like “nobody wants to take your guns away”, they are flat out lying, without equivocation, and without any conflict of conscience. They are, therefore, evil; and they must never be handed the reins of gov’t again.

But that said, if the RNC lets Trump get away with tacking Dian Feinstein’s version of an AWB onto a proposed gun-control bill currently being discussed - as he asked her to do ON VIDEO - then the GOP will have demonstrated that THEY are as much a part of the problem as the DNC.

[Syntyr]

Huh. I wonder if bullet buttons would get around this law or if that would require cali-style featureless rifles... or worse. Hypothetically speaking, of course, as I wouldn't geld my MSR to appease the feds this time around. I'd rather sell them out of the back of my car.

If "they" want to convert my ARs to bullet button or featureless rifle they can come get them AFTER I am finished using them!

[Oldgringo]

Omg lol they banned rifles that can have attached rocket launchers. These people are so stupid!!

The stupid ones are their electorate and there's a bunch of 'em.

TERM LIMITS!

[bobby]

Did ya see or any semiautomatic version of a full auto. Uh G18 anyone. Beretta 93R oh boy

[spectre]

I’ve posted a direct link to the text of this house bill elsewhere on these pages. At the top, there are by my count 155 democrat sponsors/cosponsors. There are only 193 democrats in the House, which means that just over 80% of democrats in the House support this bill.

They sponsored or cosponsored this bill to violate the civil rights of innocent Americans by infringing our right to keep and bear militia arms. Is that a de facto declaration of war on the Bill of Rights, or do they have to actually vote for the legislation on the House floor to be in open rebellion against the United States Constitution?

[LDB415]

If only a new strain of Ebola that only targets anti-American, anti-Constitution leftists would surface.

[imkopaka]

Huh. I wonder if bullet buttons would get around this law or if that would require cali-style featureless rifles... or worse. Hypothetically speaking, of course, as I wouldn't geld my MSR to appease the feds this time around. I'd rather sell them out of the back of my car.

If "they" want to convert my ARs to bullet button or featureless rifle they can come get them AFTER I am finished using them!

I hear that! Pelosi and Feinstein can keep their nasty talons off my beautiful AR. Time to hit the range. And the gym.

[The Annoyed Man]

I’ve posted a direct link to the text of this house bill elsewhere on these pages. At the top, there are by my count 155 democrat sponsors/cosponsors. There are only 193 democrats in the House, which means that just over 80% of democrats in the House support this bill.

They sponsored or cosponsored this bill to violate the civil rights of innocent Americans by infringing our right to keep and bear militia arms. Is that a de facto declaration of war on the Bill of Rights, or do they have to actually vote for the legislation on the House floor to be in open rebellion against the United States Constitution?

Yes, it is a de facto declaration of war on the Bill of Rights. The democrat party, as currently constituted, believes that the Bill of Rights is a list of permissions, granted by gov’t; when the truth is that it is a list of fundamental human rights, which were enumerated for the specific purpose of warning gov’t away from messing with them.

The nation’s democrats will more vociferously defend the right of a woman to kill her baby in the womb, than even the right to freedom of speech and religion......when the former is the product of “penumbras and emanations”, and the latter are actual enumerated rights protected by the 1st Amendment, listed by our Founders as necessary underpinnings of a free state. Those founders also enumerated the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to the continued security (i.e. existence) of that free state. Democrats think less of: (A) your freedom of speech and religion; (B) your right to keep and bear arms; and (C) the maintenance of a secure and free society; than they think of the right to terminate a pregnancy for the sake of convenience.

I am NOT trying to open up a debate on abortion rights. Whether or not I like it or think it is moral, it seems to be a matter of settled law. I am merely trying to put the primary constitutional issues of our time - abortion rights, freedom of speech/religion, and firearms rights - into the democrats’ perspective; because freedom of speech and gun rights are ALSO matters of settled law, going all the way back to the founding of the nation. In the democrat party’s world view, the two enumerated rights have less value than the unenumerated right to terminate a pregnancy. The two enumerated rights are absolutely foundational underpinnings of a free society; but democrats do not view them as such. The unenumerated right is one that was adjudicated into existence, and democrats think it is more important than the other two. They have demonstrated that belief by their actions, which speak more loudly and clearly than their words.

Why? Because they fundamentally do not believe in having a free society. They are all about the administrative state, in which people have permissions rather than rights, and free citizens are actually more like subjects.

[rp_photo]

I hope I don't come across as uncaring, but none of us here had anything to do with Parkland, Vegas, etc., and we should not lose a single right as a result.

[imkopaka]

I hope I don't come across as uncaring, but none of us here had anything to do with Parkland, Vegas, etc., and we should not lose a single right as a result.

How dare you! You'd better realign to a socialist viewpoint or you want people to die!