PDA

View Full Version : S 505 IS


MAC
08-07-2001, 05:42 PM
Why would I shoot one of their tanks, I paid for it the first time. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.505:)


The Congress finds that--

(1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market;

(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices;

(3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended for sporting and hunting use;

(4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; and

(5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial threat to the national security.


In other words....
...better buy one of these baby's before the make them illegal, through TAXATION!!!!

That's free enterprise folks.

------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

Dog Breath
08-07-2001, 09:38 PM
Feinstein and Kennedy were both on my terrorist top ten list. They both moved up a notch.

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://www1.iwvisp.com/cas07/chinese.gif" border=0>

Back Tick
08-07-2001, 09:55 PM
Why's that so bad?

We have this right, not to defend ourselves from john doe bad guy, but from uncle sam big guy.

If uncle sam's gonna have tanks, why shouldnt we have armor piercing incendiary ammunition with the capability to use it?


The point is lost on the gov't. They just dont realize that they're the hypothetical enemy...

------------------
Im not apathetic, im a
Taoist.

Back Tick: The poster formerly known as PseudonymX

MAC
08-31-2001, 02:16 PM
top toppy topperton

------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

creepingdeath
08-31-2001, 08:24 PM
Maybe they'll get that one through. Then, we can go buy our swanky new stuff chambered in .49 UltraMag. It will be more powerful than the .50 BMG after it gets invented the week following the acts passing.
Ingenuity runs deep in the weapons world. Once they figure that out, Feinstien and Kennedy just might shut the fuck up and find a softer target. Yeah, like kids on bikes, they cause a lot of trouble, doing wheelies and skids on nice clean driveways.

Kwisatz Haderach
08-31-2001, 08:53 PM
Lets say the right to bare arms wasnt part of the constitution. The government then offers a referendum proposing that the right to bare arms be added to the constitution.

How would you vote and why?


------------------
Deep in the unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.

abs0lutionCFH
08-31-2001, 09:22 PM
S.505
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne(introduced 3/9/2001)
Latest Major Action: 3/9/2001 Referred to Senate committee
Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms, and for other purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)
3/9/2001:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2127-2128)

Maybe i am ignorant, but what in gods name does a .50 caliber sniper rifle have to do with a Finance Committee?


Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN00505:@@@X)

Billyman
08-31-2001, 11:41 PM
<FONT COLOR="Black">here</FONT c>


<IMG SRC="http://www.annoy.com/images/censure/constitution.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by Billyman (edited 08-31-2001).]

MAC
09-01-2001, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Kwisatz Haderach:
Lets say the right to bare arms wasnt part of the constitution. The government then offers a referendum proposing that the right to bare arms be added to the constitution.

How would you vote and why?
[/quote]

I wish I could just pop off "I'd vote yes because blah blah blah"

But:
The original construction of this country included a list of things the founders DID NOT WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT. The right to defend yourself (with guns as it pertains to this instance) was one of them.
A RIGHT cannot be granted by a governing body. A RIGHT is some thing that people exercise and practice in every day life
Otherwise it becomes a bunch of empty rhetorict.
If they take away our guns or if we had never had them in the first place we would not miss them.
Ask some of our european colleges here abouts.
Some of them live in countries that outlawed cross bows then the long bow then the fire arm through out history as it applied to the ruling parties.

I honestly believ if I lived in a society with out guns that my vote would be even less solid than it is now.
The thread of substance behind my support of a representative (I use that term loosely) is only held together by the fact that there would be armed conflict if they tryed to stop me from voting.

And they will try....


------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

Smug Git
09-01-2001, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by theMAC:


But:
The original construction of this country included a list of things the founders DID NOT WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT. The right to defend yourself (with guns as it pertains to this instance) was one of them.

[/quote]

But, regardless of the guns are good/bad debate, what we recognise as a gun now is far far superior to what was in mind when the constitution was framed. Or did they just mean 'anything that uses an explosive charge to propel a projectile'. What did they mean? I'd like to know what you guys think.



------------------
If you find out what happened yesterday
While you were away in this land of Cain
We were upstairs in the bedroom, dancing, disgusting
And flushing our babies down the drain