**This is the corrected version of an earlier post which contained a factual error.**
Washington, DC (TLS). Gun Owners of America (GOA) has issued an alert stating that the long-anticipated anti-gun bill, first proposed by U.S. House Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, has now been introduced and formally sent to the House Judiciary Committee for debate.
The bill is H.R. 1022--the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007.' H.R. 1022 has 30 co-sponsors who make up the core group of the most virulent strain of anti-Second Amendment thugs in Congress.
GOA has issued an alert to its members, encouraging them to send letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls to Congressmen, strongly urging them to vote against this legislation.
Gun Owners of America has provided complete information, plus sample letters, at the link provided below.
We MUST not allow this rogue Congress to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights. They deserve a decisive defeat on this one--so stinging that they will think twice before introducing similar legislation in the future.
Here is the link to the GOA info:
http://www.gunowners.org/a032207.htm
Monday, March 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Are assault weapons really needed? A bolt or lever action works fine. Most of those who buy "assault" style weapons will probably never shoot them.
Criminals are utilizing the latest technology in firearms. Why shouldn't the law-abiding citizens who need to protect themselves?
Besides, the question of 'need' is not really an issue. A free society affords its citizens LOTS of things that we actually do not 'need.'
The issue is government's right to take them, which it does not have according to our Constitution.
Martyn
are assault weapons needed? not really
should they be banned because of this? NEVER
I agree with you, Jim. What's the difference between banning an assault weapon because they are 'not needed' and going to Al Gore and saying, 'Look, bud, you don't need a mansion that burns fuel like it's going out of style. You should live in a tent.'
Government gets on its high horse about banning things to appease certain constituencies in the population that no more know what the Constitution is all about than how to chew gum and walk at the same time.
If we start banning things because of safety issues alone, then what is to stop government from banning 16-25-year-olds from driving (the group that has the most accidents)? Or why not just ban autos entirely since they cause more deaths than anything else?
A bolt or lever is too slow. If the time comes to actually need to use it, I want something robust and with 30-40 shots. I will probably die, but I'm going to take some of them with me and high-capacity, robust "assault" rifles are the way to do it.
"Most of those who buy "assault" style weapons will probably never shoot them."
1) Most people that spend the money to purchase an "assault" weapon do actually shoot them. Yes there are shooting sports that use "assault" weapons. Look up 3-gun competitions.
2) Some of the guns listed on HR1022 are not considered "assault" weapons (Ruger 10/22 and Ruger Mini-14).
3) Please actually READ the bill. The bills language classifies many non-specifically mentioned guns as assault weapons, including my autoloading shotgun that I use to shoot trap and bird hunt.
4) Many of the weapons listed have less destructive capability and less range then my .30-06 deer/elk rifle.
the whole argument about we dont need assualt weapons so we should not have them is foolish and has no base. this is such a vague and substanceless argument that it can be used with anything, such as :
we dont need to eat pizza, so we should ban it
we dont need fast food and is ultimatley hurts us lets ban it.
we dont need air conditioners and heaters, lets ban it.
Every time I read comments or articles utilizing the term “assault” in regards to firearms my blood pressure rises. Even those of us who support our constitutional right to own firearms have gotten caught up in the language of the left. It’s time we stop using this term as it is not truly reflective of its definition.
The term “assault” in its noun form describes an attack and in its verb form describes an attack with an object of some nature. To attach this term to a firearm just on the basis of its capacity or speed and type of reloading is ludicrous. A firearm that can process a single projectile can be just as dangerous as a firearm that can process 30 projectiles.
And understand, during a crime that the assailant utilizes a rock or a baseball bat to assail a victim, the object can then be considered an “assault” weapon. Lizzy Borden utilized an axe; should we make axes illegal or maybe regulate the size of an axe that can be owned.
We must understand that the problem isn’t the weapon but the criminal. If we banned all guns and absolutely no guns existed in the US the next Friday night someone would be assailed with a knife.
For us second amendment right advocates let’s stop using the term “assault”.
Robert
Stand up and dont let the left wing wackjobs take are GUNS!!!!!
Post a Comment