Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

[Sharky]

They never stop trying. Apparently this one was authored by Republicans. :rolleyes:


* Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
* and 3 Co-Sponsors
o Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
o Rep. Michael Ferguson [R, NJ-7]
o Rep. Christopher Shays [R, CT-4]


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6257/text

[Gryfen-FL]

I clicked on the link...and now my head hurts.

Could be a coincidence, but I think not.

Would anyone from the rightwing tinfoil hat club care to speculate on whether or not this has anything to do with SCOTUS's ruling on handguns in DC?

[The Fat Guy]

I guess my question is what does this legislation do besides force criminals to buy (or steal) quality firearms with which to commit crimes as opposed to some of the junk they are banning in this bill.

Let Fly...

[KS11]

Wow. I still can't figure out what the significance (read "difference in safety to the public") is between shooting 15 rounds out of a single magazine and shooting 10 rounds out of a 10 round magazine, then doing a .9 second reload, then shooting 5 more rounds.

And how if I walked into a mall with a mini-14 holding 10 rounds I could somehow kill less people than if I had an AR-15 with a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.

[Scratchy]

Wow. I still can't figure out what the significance (read "difference in safety to the public") is between shooting 15 rounds out of a single magazine and shooting 10 rounds out of a 10 round magazine, then doing a .9 second reload, then shooting 5 more rounds.

And how if I walked into a mall with a mini-14 holding 10 rounds I could somehow kill less people than if I had an AR-15 with a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.

Obviously you know nothing about guns and shouldn't be a part of this conversation... :D

[Shamus375PA]

Won't make it out of committee.

Now, where can I get an AK quickly?

[1026]

I don't recognize the names, with the exception of RINO Chris Shays. The states represented indicate worthless pieces of shit, or "Rockefeller" Republicans.

"Big tent", "aisle crossing", "moderate" Republicanism will destroy the GOP.

[CAP MARINE]

shotgun with #4 buck.

[Greenhat]

The GOP is already destroyed...

Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave... and the real conservatives of the GOP are spinning fast enough to be converted to turbines...

[Massgrunt]

Won't make it out of committee.

Now, where can I get an AK quickly?

I'll sell you mine in about five years, deal? :D

[iraqgunz]

These guys are all Republiturds and this bill was introduced before the SCOTUS decision. Maybe if they were smart they would quietly let this die and save what's left of their pathetic reputation.

[Terminator2]

The GOP has crossed the Rubicon with their grass is always greener on the other side syndrome. They're trying to get the celebrity endorsements, they want the California votes, and they want to prove to everyone that they are for civil rights and progress. They've turned into false Dems; the Dems, as much as I disagree with them, know what they stand for. Sorry GOP: Your base was conservative Christians, corporations, gun owners, small business owners, and just about anyone who worked for a living. Now they don't even have that. It's now the shitty party vs. the worthless party. Us gun owners stand alone.

[freqman]

Same tired old argument that recreation is the only legitimate use for firearms...so if we set up tournaments for shooting criminals does that count as recreation?

[cb88]

I don't recognize the names, with the exception of RINO Chris Shays. The states represented indicate worthless pieces of shit, or "Rockefeller" Republicans.

"Big tent", "aisle crossing", "moderate" Republicanism HAS destroyed the GOP.



There, fixed it. ;)


Sorry GOP: Your base was conservative Christians, corporations, gun owners, small business owners, and just about anyone who worked for a living. Now they don't even have that. It's now the shitty party vs. the worthless party. Us gun owners stand alone


No, we just to remind the fractionalized CONSERVATIVES (not RINOs) that we can be our own party ....or align with the Constitution Party.

[GPC]

Same tired old argument that recreation is the only legitimate use for firearms...so if we set up tournaments for shooting criminals does that count as recreation?

Sure why not beats paying for their stay in jail.:D

[Spinner]

I don't recognize the names, with the exception of RINO Chris Shays. The states represented indicate worthless pieces of shit, or "Rockefeller" Republicans.

"Big tent", "aisle crossing", "moderate" Republicanism will destroy the GOP.

Mark Kirk is my Rep in Congress, and he's taken to playing to the crowd in the last couple of years. He is expected to have some competition from his Democratic opponent in the upcoming election, so he's appealing to the gun control portion of his constituency with this legislation.

Just another politician pandering to the crowd.

[SOTB]

Imagine, if you will -- and just for a moment, a system where as in jury duty all citizens were required to serve in political office.

Yes, I'm serious.

No, I don't know how to make it feasible.

Maybe some sort of system where oversight of certain offices was obtained through something akin to a grand jury being formed. That is, a team of 12 citizens selected randomly and assigned to oversee the president's actions. And the VP, and etc. -- all the way down to mayors. That might be a PITA to make happen -- and maybe not very logical.

Or maybe where certain posts HAD to be filled by common citizenry, and these posts were substantial in nature and held both weight and value.

Aww the hell with it -- pipe dreams and all....

[cb88]

Mark Kirk is my Rep in Congress, and he's taken to playing to the crowd in the last couple of years. He is expected to have some competition from his Democratic opponent in the upcoming election, so he's appealing to the gun control portion of his constituency with this legislation.

Just another politician pandering to the crowd.

Didn't he serve in Iraq? Or am I thinking of another state rep in IL?

[Forestboy]

Imagine, if you will -- and just for a moment, a system where as in jury duty all citizens were required to serve in political office.

Yes, I'm serious.

No, I don't know how to make it feasible.

Maybe some sort of system where oversight of certain offices was obtained through something akin to a grand jury being formed. That is, a team of 12 citizens selected randomly and assigned to oversee the president's actions. And the VP, and etc. -- all the way down to mayors. That might be a PITA to make happen -- and maybe not very logical.

Or maybe where certain posts HAD to be filled by common citizenry, and these posts were substantial in nature and held both weight and value.

Aww the hell with it -- pipe dreams and all....

I was thinking along the same lines recently. Unfortunately I could never figure out a screening for applicants/jurists. Or we would end up with Oprah as Sec Def or Sec State. Professional politicians will continue to be a downside to our system of government.

[iraqgunz]

His Bio states that he is a Naval Intel officer (still in the reserves I believe) who served in Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, etc...Having said that I remember very distinctly years ago in an interview when someone asked Gen. Colin Powell if he would sign an "Assault Weapons Ban" if it came across his desk as POTUS and he said yes. So obviously being military doesn't always mean Pro-2nd Amendment.

Didn't he serve in Iraq? Or am I thinking of another state rep in IL?

[LRS Guy]

Hell, he was a freaking Naval Intell officer......think about it. How many clueless O's or MI types have you met? Do they even let him have a weapon. LOL!

If you were a dumbass in service....you will be a dumbass when you get out. Granted a better class of dumbass & you will have my respect...until you do something stupid.

Before I'm accused of being "insenstive", I was an O'...once.......& I have worked for Intel types. :(

[longrange1947]

Same tired old argument that recreation is the only legitimate use for firearms...so if we set up tournaments for shooting criminals does that count as recreation?

That is the same tact took by the gun grabbers in Great Briton and it worked.

They then claimed that it was better for an "entertainment" to go then to loose anymore lives.

However, the first to go was the right to self defense. :eek:

And there are some here in the US that have tried that tact here as well.

[Gotrek]

Imagine, if you will -- and just for a moment, a system where as in jury duty all citizens were required to serve in political office.

Yes, I'm serious.

No, I don't know how to make it feasible.

Maybe some sort of system where oversight of certain offices was obtained through something akin to a grand jury being formed. That is, a team of 12 citizens selected randomly and assigned to oversee the president's actions. And the VP, and etc. -- all the way down to mayors. That might be a PITA to make happen -- and maybe not very logical.

Or maybe where certain posts HAD to be filled by common citizenry, and these posts were substantial in nature and held both weight and value.

Aww the hell with it -- pipe dreams and all....


I find that to be an intriguing idea.

Another I have seen suggested before is a limit on the number of years someone can hold any political office. Maybe 12 year total.

So if John Doe was the mayor of NYC for 8 years, then he would only be eligible for one more position, be it President, Senator, Etc.

This is something I do not know if it is possible.


I am of the mind, that, politics, should not be a career choice per se, as it then opens the door to many problems, one such, is entire families, and multiple generations of that family being involved in politics. If your dad was the President, you are the President, and you want your son to be the President, and as such, groom him for the job, then I would wager the odds are good, such a family will resort to almost any means to ensure the son would be "elected" President.



Having an outgoing politician serve one final year in a purely advisory status might help to mitigate the lack of experience, imposing such political term limits on candidates may have.


Take your idea, and the idea above, and hell, you may just see some progress, with less bullshit.

[Evil01]

"Having an outgoing politician serve one final year in a purely advisory status might help to mitigate the lack of experience, imposing such political term limits on candidates may have."

As someone who spent a goodly chunk of her early career working in "politics," I find this an intriguing idea. Props! :cool:

However, with all due respect to colleagues (present and former) on either side of the aisle...term limits are the anathema of democracy.

If the electorate wants to elect the same fool over and over, they have the right to do that. If the electorate wants to elect a new fool...they have the right to do that too...

That's what democracy is all about, boys... :D

BIG fan of bullshit reduction, though...

[Gotrek]

As someone who spent a goodly chunk of her early career working in "politics," I find this an intriguing idea. Props!

Thank You.

I apologize, I neglected to add, my own idea to this. Family members should not be allowed to hold office either.

A good example of this is the Bush family. For the same reasons as term limits, I would support limitations on family members holding office.

If you are the President, Senator, Congressman, then your bothers, sisters, wives, uncles, fathers, etc, should not be allowed to hold office.

I know I am setting myself up to be dog piled on this, but I feel, in a nation of 300 million+ we have enough qualified people to run for office, without having to elect the same people over and over again, or members of their families.


However, with all due respect to colleagues (present and former) on either side of the aisle...term limits are the anathema of democracy.

If the electorate wants to elect the same fool over and over, they have the right to do that. If the electorate wants to elect a new fool...they have the right to do that too...

That's what democracy is all about, boys...

Yes, term limits are anathema. That does not stop the term limit imposed on the office of the President. There are a great many things going on that are anathema to Democracy, freedom, etc.

Democracy. We do not have a pure democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I realize for some that is just a matter of semantics, but for myself, it is not.

I believe the risks in continuing to allow people to engage in politics for decades, or across family generations will only get more pronounced as time goes on.

[Gryfen-FL]

Maybe some sort of system where oversight of certain offices was obtained through something akin to a grand jury being formed. That is, a team of 12 citizens selected randomly and assigned to oversee the president's actions. And the VP, and etc. -- all the way down to mayors. That might be a PITA to make happen -- and maybe not very logical.I don't agree. Rule by concensus is not necessicarily the best rule, it's just a fancy name for mob rule. At some point, it all levels, there have to be individuals who are elected, capable, and willing to step up to the plate and shoulder responsibility.

[Greenhat]

I don't agree. Rule by concensus is not necessicarily the best rule, it's just a fancy name for mob rule. At some point, it all levels, there have to be individuals who are elected, capable, and willing to step up to the plate and shoulder responsibility.

Yep. The compromise that is our Constitution came into existence because some of the people involved in it were concerned with the voice of the people and some were involved with the voice of the mob. They were both right, and found a good compromise. The problem today is not the system, it is the people voting and the people serving.