gun ban list

i just found this list of guns to be banned or try to be banned.
http://rense.com/general85/obs.htm

[TABLE="width: 555"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"][SIZE=+1]Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Rifles (or copies or duplicates):[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]M1 Carbine,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Sturm Ruger Mini-14,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AR-15,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Bushmaster XM15,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Armalite M15,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AR-10,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Thompson 1927,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Thompson M1;[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AK,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AKM,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AKS,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AK-47,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AK-74,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]ARM,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]MAK90,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]NHM 90,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]NHM 91,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SA 85,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SA 93,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]VEPR;[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Olympic Arms PCR;[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]AR70,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Calico Liberty ,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Fabrique National FN/FAL,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]FN/LAR, or FNC,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Hi-Point20Carbine,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]HK-91,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]HK-93,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]HK-94,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]HK-PSG-1,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Thompson 1927 Commando,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Saiga,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SAR-8,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SAR-4800,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SKS with detachable magazine,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SLG 95,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SLR 95 or 96,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Steyr AU,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Tavor,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Uzi,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Galil and Uzi Sporter,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Pistols (or copies or duplicates):[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Calico M-110,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]MAC-10,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]MAC-11, or MPA3,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Olympic Arms OA,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]TEC-9,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]TEC-DC9,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Uzi.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Armscor 30 BG,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]SPAS 12 or LAW 12,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Striker 12,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](i) a folding or telescoping stock,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](ii) a threaded barrel,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]below),[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]detachable magazine, and has:[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](i) a second pistol grip,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](ii) a threaded barrel,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](iii) a barrel shroud or[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]rounds.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]A semiautomatic shotgun with:[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](i) a folding or telescoping stock,[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]of more than 5 rounds, and[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE][SIZE=+1]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."[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]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.[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]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. [/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

now where can i get these to be banned guns before they are? i need something for self defense when the crooks have the best, i need the best.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

More of the same scare tactics that are getting old and tiresome - "they want to take all your guns" The first step in doing so is..... "This is what happened in other countrys" - all pretty much sky is falling bullshit. If folks are so worried about our rights why don't they look after our voting rights? Those seem to be far more eroded than our 2nd amendment rights.

That's not what I'm hearing canndo. I'm hearing "they want to take certain guns based on faulty logic". You call it scare tactics, we call it telling the truth.

The only tactics being used are by the gun-control side. We just want to take the scary guns that regular people don't need.

ginwilly said:

That's not what I'm hearing canndo. I'm hearing "they want to take certain guns based on faulty logic". You call it scare tactics, we call it telling the truth.

The only tactics being used are by the gun-control side. We just want to take the scary guns that regular people don't need.

Click to expand...

Indeed canndo why are we going after weapons that have less than a one percentage ratio in homicides? Calling someone ignorant for believing scare tactics but ignoring that the truth is even more ridiculous is kind of humorous don't you think? It is beginning to sound like all you want is some kind of ban regardless of effectiveness.

ginwilly said:

That's not what I'm hearing canndo. I'm hearing "they want to take certain guns based on faulty logic". You call it scare tactics, we call it telling the truth.

The only tactics being used are by the gun-control side. We just want to take the scary guns that regular people don't need.

Click to expand...

I KNOW they are capitalizing on the look and "feel" of a weapon and they are attempting to ban a group of weapons they feel belong in a particular class -

But that isn't what the article started off with, it started of with the same old tired rhetoric of "they" wanting to take "your" guns - all of them. That is not true.

nontheist said:

Indeed canndo why are we going after weapons that have less than a one percentage ratio in homicides? Calling someone ignorant for believing scare tactics but ignoring that the truth is even more ridiculous is kind of humorous don't you think? It is beginning to sound like all you want is some kind of ban regardless of effectiveness.

Click to expand...

You don't think a ban would be a good idea? this isn't going away and for the gun rights people to toss Americans a bone wouldn't be such an unwise thing.

Ah I see it. Point conceded.

Yes there is a small percentage of people who think the government wants to take all of the guns based on a small percentage of people in the government who do. I tend to ignore both of those small minorities but admit they both exist.

canndo said:

You don't think a ban would be a good idea? this isn't going away and for the gun rights people to toss Americans a bone wouldn't be such an unwise thing.

Click to expand...

So you concede that having pointless laws would make you and others feel better. Sounds like little rational thinking and more political driven revenge to me. You're starting to sound like those Conservative nuts you so easily straw-man out in arguments.

nontheist said:

So you concede that having pointless laws would make you and others feel better. Sounds like little rational thinking and more political driven revenge to me.

Click to expand...

Politics dude. The give and take, the appearance of striking a balance. Ban the larges magazines but have the NRA come out and support it - make a big deal over it, have them join an anti-gun violence coalition. Time to have the gun folks look a little less rabid.

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did. Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens. Gun-ban list proposed. "




this is the sort of thing I am talking about - the "wink wink... you know what we are talking about" references that are now called dog whistles (hate the term).




1. If the Dems can pass anything they want - and they want massive gun bans, then the story is over now isn't it? But either they can't pass anything they want or they don't want to ban all weapons. So this first statement is as I said - rablerousing bullshit without any truth in it.

canndo said:

Politics dude. The give and take, the appearance of striking a balance. Ban the larges magazines but have the NRA come out and support it - make a big deal over it, have them join an anti-gun violence coalition. Time to have the gun folks look a little less rabid.

Click to expand...

Definitely a sig worthy statement but I will give you credit for being honest it is something becoming very scarce from the liberal side. So what is it canndo that makes smart people support ignorant laws? Ah emotion the one flaw that destroys the common good in humanity and defies logic.

canndo said:

I KNOW they are capitalizing on the look and "feel" of a weapon and they are attempting to ban a group of weapons they feel belong in a particular class -

But that isn't what the article started off with, it started of with the same old tired rhetoric of "they" wanting to take "your" guns - all of them. That is not true.

Click to expand...

enough on isms and ist and iings . who cares if they do people will still defend themselves with them with families they will arm themselves with the worse of them. it will happen, anyone know of a good hunting gun from the list?a bear is the biggest thing to be killed. but also needs to be able to take down a deer,elk,boar,buffolo. i still need to feed a family ( i dont want to hop after my dinner).

Banning in-demand products has never worked out badly for us before, so why should this be any different?

please im looking for a hunting gun from that list. america isnt that untouchable , i just need a gun from that list. those will be the ones in the hands of people who intend to hurt my family. i would like to hunt and defend myself with one of them. im not a gun enthuist, i like bows better.

Wilksey said:

Banning in-demand products has never worked out badly for us before, so why should this be any different?

Click to expand...

You mean like hemp?

nontheist said:

Definitely a sig worthy statement but I will give you credit for being honest it is something becoming very scarce from the liberal side. So what is it canndo that makes smart people support ignorant laws? Ah emotion the one flaw that destroys the common good in humanity and defies logic.

Click to expand...

Same answer - politics. "you help me pass my law and I will look the other way if you want to pass your stupid, ineffectual and perhaps harmful law".

Beyond that - let us reason together you and I, I will wager that both of us combined will fail to find more than a relative handful of truely smart, prudent, reasonable laws anywhere in this country. Why would you expect gun laws to be the only reasonable ones?

And why would you hope to expect that unreasonablness is a justification for NOT passing a particular law.

silasraven said:

enough on isms and ist and iings . who cares if they do people will still defend themselves with them with families they will arm themselves with the worse of them. it will happen, anyone know of a good hunting gun from the list?a bear is the biggest thing to be killed. but also needs to be able to take down a deer,elk,boar,buffolo. i still need to feed a family ( i dont want to hop after my dinner).

Click to expand...

By that logic, why have any laws? All the laws against theft will not stop all theft. All the laws against polluting the rivers will not stop dumping. Laws are not enacted to prevent certain behaviors but only to punish certain actors by virtue of their being outliers in the first place.

can you please tell me a gun can use to defend myself my home and provide food. i have one leg i dont want to chase down my food. i just need to know of a gun that will kill it one shot. please

canndo said:

Same answer - politics. "you help me pass my law and I will look the other way if you want to pass your stupid, ineffectual and perhaps harmful law".

Beyond that - let us reason together you and I, I will wager that both of us combined will fail to find more than a relative handful of truely smart, prudent, reasonable laws anywhere in this country. Why would you expect gun laws to be the only reasonable ones?

And why would you hope to expect that unreasonablness is a justification for NOT passing a particular law.

Click to expand...

You're correct canndo to an extent but we know for a fact black color cars are far more dangerous than pink cars should we ban all colors but pink? This has more sound reasoning than current gun regulations but we don't do it. why?

nontheist said:

You're correct canndo to an extent but we know for a fact black color cars are far more dangerous than pink cars should we ban all colors but pink? This has more sound reasoning than current gun regulations but we don't do it. why?

Click to expand...

You are right about the black cars...I lived in phoenix for a year and I had a black truck and it had to be over 20 degrees hotter than a white car in the desert sun....If you left your dog in the truck you had to leave the air conditioner on or it would die in a short time.....The steering wheel would be to hot to handle...I don't buy black anymore....