List of Guns to be Banned in the US soon
 

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal:

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

How does that make you feel?

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."


GOD BLESS AMERICA :Oh crap

Time to buy all of them quickly, and resell them once they are banned ;)

Sounds like a golden biz.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


what ever happened to that? this shit is crazy...... i don't know what it's going to take for people to wake up and start seeing the shit that is going on in this country.

it's ok to wipe your ass with the bill of rights now? great...

Did I miss the source?

Don't you know that on gfy you can post anything and claim it to be true? No source needed.

I thought I read somewhere a while back that the last time something like this passed what happened was the gun makers, or whoever, simply took those weapons and made a few small modifications and released them as a different weapon... essentially being the same damn thing. Maybe a weapons enthusiast can clarify on this issue.

Why on earth are they wasting more time, again, trying to pass legislation that will do absolutely nothing? To appease constituents I suppose... sometimes constituents just need to be told to fuck off.

right now the issue is, fuck americans right and make sure the terrorists are happy, get on a arab station as soon as you take office, close the prison for the terrorists and also stop using the word "enemy combatant" in addition anything we can do to start talks with the taliban and possibly iran would be great too.

I mean not too long ago anyone saying the things above would be charged with treason

Somebody enlighten me on this one - do american fags really keep their heads stuck in the 18th century, still following the piece of paper that was signed when guns were not as advanced as they are today? Are these fags really almost 300 years backwards?

Please be more precise. Are they proposing to ban existing guns, eg, a confiscation... or are they banning NEW sales of the guns?

I assume the latter...

who cares, legalize pot and were all good. ;)

Yes they are.

And if they aren't ready to sell their childrens lives to protect that bill of rights, they will do it for another collection of papers put together 2000 years ago.

Almost all those weapons above have no place in a civilians hand. Fucking ridiculous. They are weapons of war and distruction, not of protection and security.

There are I believe 8 bills presented now. More or less if you own one of the above the main one makes it illegal to own or purchase those. You will have x amount of time to comply. You won't be able to buy it and if you have one they can and will confiscate it. If you read into that list it pretty much eliminates every gun. One of the bills in addition to this one makes any other gun ownership a privilege and not a right. There are all sorts of obstacles you will have to go through before you can own. If you are on the no fly list (which is only identified by name and increases by the tens of thousands a month) you can't own one. If you are on any anti-depressant, ever seen or see a psychologist went to rehab, PTSD, had misdemeanors etc. The list can and will go on and on meaning it's open-ended to the exclusions. In addition to all that you will have to take a psychological examination amoung other things and the "privilege" expires every few years. More or less they are going to come for the guns because they know the things that they are going to do in the near future they can't have all of those guns out there.

First off, the Bush admin is the one who used the constitution as TP, and they were going around listening in to YOUR phone calls, as well as the calls of American Servicemen overseas phoning home.

Second off, you highlighted the WRONG part of the second amendment. The Framers were talking about each state having the right to let the militias take the guns home off duty. Have you ever been actively enrolled in your states independent militia? I doubt it as we have not had those for over 170 years.

Even if you were allowed to keep an AK47 in your house,(which you are not now) if you are a typical american gun nut would
a-be more likely to kill a family member than a criminal
b-be more likely to kill himself or a family member BY MISTAKE than kill a criminal
c-Would be smoked in a few seconds by any mid sized city's SWAT team.

Let's assume you are a fresh out of the service Delta Force Bad ass. 3% body fat, never touches a drop of booze, have a night vision set up and body armour to go with the AK47, and you still are not crap.


If the government wanted you dead, they could have a chopper strafe your house from a half mile away while you were asleep, so having guns will not protect you from the government.

Does having a gun protect you from criminals? Only if you are wearing your AK as you go to the ATM, and buying groceries.

The reality is...even if you above list was NOT unsourced and bogus, having a gun in YOUR hands does not make me, you, or our families safer.

I would give it one month after gun seizures in America before home invasions and robberies went up 100 fold. It would complete chaos. And you're wrong it states the gun of that time. The militia had better guns that the armies did. Most states still have the right to organize militias and that is actually what the National Guard is suppose to be but the federal government has taken over them.

You are right, BUT this bill the person is talking about, would ban by Name or Maker.
Examples, it would ban ALL AR-15's no matter what modifications it had.

My question is, would it be like the old bill you are talking about that just bans the New Production and Sale, or would they make it illegal to own grandfathered in weapons.

I would also like to see the source of the other 7 bills someone above said.
If there 8 bills, dang peeps are pushing hard to ban Many weapons.

The problem is, people try to pass laws or judge others, when they have no knowledge of
the subject at hand.

I would rather be shot with my AR-15 .223 round, than my 7mm Deer Rifle.
If reading the bill, I would be able to keep my semi-auto Deer Rifle which hold 5 rounds.

NONE of this will take the Weapons out of Criminals Hands!!!!!

They try to ban these things all the time. I really dont think uncle sam has the balls to actually do it.

:2 cents:

A shotgun blast (no need for a sawed off) would be all that was required to protect a home. Try coming thru the front door if I have one. But if you open up with an ak, you are going to waste the family across the street.

If you want YOUR state to organize a militia, get to steppin, son, and wind one up in your state, no one is stopping you. Call your mayor or gov!!!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


You can't be fucking serious. Must be the dumbest thing I've heard all month.

I don't guess you read the list. It says rifles and shotguns and the list is open-ended meaning it can be added to after passing.

As far as a militia we do have one in my state. :)

Oh I'm very serious. Thieves aren't as badass as you think they are. They are scared shitless of getting their asses blown away from a homeowner. If they don;t have that worry then they have free reign. Compound that with a souring economy and hold on to your assets.

Right, you need an assault rifle to keep a thief out. Uh huh.

1-post a source for the lsit, or stop talking about it. We ALL think you made it up.

2-even if we take the lsit at face value, it only bans sawed offs and street sweepers, are you REALLY that bad a shot?

I didn't post the list but I know what it's from. It's from a bill presented last year. Which was re-introduced within the first few days of sessions this year. I'll have to do some digging but I will post some sources later.

The retards that say this means the "State" has a right but not people are full of shit.

The British just got done kicking in doors and taking all the guns they could from the people so the framers in the federalist papers were clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was for you and me and not the gov't.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not for hunting or protection from thiefs it's to protect us from the Gov't !

Time to buy all the ammo you can. It won't be long before they restrict ammo :winkwink:

This will never happen. They did the assault weapons ban before that made it so you couldn't buy one that was manufactured before x date. The US will never remove your rights to not own a gun. Look at DC. the Gun ban there was declared unconstitutional and now residence of the district can now own a firearm. Though its still hard to legal own one in DC but you can run through the loops and get one.

Ever Class III weapons you can purchase/buy legally as long as you don't have a felony. Just takes time to get the paper work done and go through the motions.

As a devoted supporter of the right the own a firearm, I can still say honestly that no one has any business owning the majority of the guns in that list. Oh, they're banning the ownership of AK-47's? NO WAY! However, I do see a lot of perfectly reasonable firearms getting pulled into this in the process, which is ridiculous.

Why anybody need AK in hes house?

Here's just one of the references for starters.

He's is re-instituting this via the Global Poverty Act which states any participants abide by the small arms ban.
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf

Do your own research on it and I'll add more. You see they are coming at the guns from all different directions that just being one.

Here's one of the bills. This is the revised bill above the above list

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

"and anything else the Attorney General deems appropriate." Figure out who the Attorney General is and how much he loves guns.

There gonna take your gunnsss..


http://www.gwally.com/news/photos/catintinfoilhat.jpg

You fucking fag, if you need to protect yourself from your own government, then you're either living in a wrong country or you deserve the government like that, cause you voted for it. But then again - american fags elected Barack Obama for president :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Exactly.




source http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm

info on the HR1022 in that source http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?id=238

I can't seem to find the exact ban list.....need some help

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1022:

You ever look into a Lion's eyes at the Zoo? I have... :disgust

Where is this list from??

I just downloaded the PDF file for HR 1022

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...22ih.t xt.pdf

Of course. Though they'd LOVE you to believe so.

Umm.. this post is a parity. He just listed every gun type ever created.

It's not, it's from the bill submitted last year. What someone did is list all of the guns under the general description given in the bill itself. The original bill had this "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" which was changed to ""and anything else the Attorney General deems appropriate" in the new bill. I'm still looking for a mainstream source since that what everyone seems to believe..lol

More verbage

“there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

You are absolutely correct about this (and everything else you posted in this thread). Obama is a dedicated gun grabber who is developing a number of different lines of attack on how to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It has to be done in a stealthy manner because the public support for this type of gun control is low.

As for all the arguments back and forth on whether US citizens should be able to own these weapons........ the US Supreme Court recently affirmed an individual right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with "sporting purpose" and has everything to do with defense against crime and tyranny. If you don't believe me then listen to Thomas Jefferson.

Obama and the other gun banners know this but they feel their Marxist big government agenda is more important than what they consider quaint objections based on the Constitution and the natural right to self defense.

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual?s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can?t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

If you want semi-auto rifles with big magazines you should have them already.

If you don't, then you are just a dumb-as-fuck inbred wingnut.

All you crybabys are just showing how ill-prepared and shortsighted you are.

Of course, your real goal is just to spread hate and fear and stick a knife in the countries back, while we deal with the economic collapse you caused.

Good, ban them.

Yeah ban them, just like drugs are banned....and you can get them on every corner.

I bet you can get a hand gun quicker then you can buy fireworks in NYC. They should put the owners of these gun companies in prison...because all those guns mentioned above are in criminals hands.

Wow, ok rest my case on my other thread.