(03-24-2021, 12:28 AM)Grace Wrote: The moronic side of the statement is in the fact if something is already banned, how can it be banned again...
So he either failed and didn't "get it done" or we have an ever shifting definition of "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" to include non-assault assault weapons, and ever smaller magazine sizes being included under the banner of "high capacity"...lol
Of course such things will be all but lost to media..
Lol
The "Assault Weapon Ban" he is referring to was the Clinton AWB of 1994. Biden didn't have much to do with it other than providing a vote in favor of it, among many other Marxists voting for it. It's laughable that he is trying to take credit for it now. Is he so senile he thinks none of us who were affected by it can remember the culprits now?
Chuck Schumer was one of the Culprits, as was Lautenburg, and both of them were much higher on the culpability list than Biden was. Biden was close to the bottom, almost off the sheet entirely.
It banned several "assault weapons" by cosmetic features, not functional features. If a firearm was semi automatic, and had any two of a variety of cosmetic features such as a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, a threaded barrel that could take a flash suppressor, a barrel shroud, a detachable magazine, or a folding stock, it was classed as an "assault weapon" and banned from further sale in the US. Magazines were limited to 10 rounds. It might be good to point out here that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment had just come out on the winning end of a war against a government, and their thinking was that the people of a nation should be armed at least as well as the military of that nation, for that reason.
That comes in because neither military nor police were affected by the various bans. THEY could still get those arms, whereas citizens could not. I had some Law Enforcement Only magazines for my pistol, and they were stamped right on the magazine "For Law Enforcement Only", so that folks knew they were legal. Likewise for the AR trunk guns LE carried - they were stamped as well. So, not only did it violate the letter of the Constitution, it also violated the spirit of it by arming government against citizens, and to a higher degree than the citizens were allowed.
During that ban, I met with the ultimate irony when I saw an ad in Russian for a weapon MADE IN AMERICA, that Americans could not buy, but Russians could freely buy and possess. That was my moment of truth, when I knew that Russia had become a freer nation than America, after the fall of communism there. The feeling that one fought to free his enemy, and enslave his own people, never ever leaves a man. It has a coppery taste in the mouth, same as blood does.
The ban had a "sunset clause" built in that forced a revisiting of the legislation after 10 years. A Congressional vote was required to extend it, otherwise it died or "sunsetted". Studies were done, it was found that it had no effect on crime or shootings at all, and Congress could not get enough votes to reauthorize it, so it died in 2004. I recall it vividly. I sat up until midnight on the night it was set to expire, with all the tools and parts I needed to uncripple a rifle I had and put it back to the proper configuration. At midnight I started, since it was then legal, and had it done within a half hour.
The term "assault weapon" is likewise not a real term, it's just an emotionally charged political one. In the military, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The military does not use them. They have instead "assault RIFLES", a term that is well defined militarily and stems from the German word "sturmgeweher", which means "assault rifle". An assault rifle is defined as a rifled weapon, man portable, that is chambered in an intermediate cartridge and is selective fire. "Intermediate cartridge" means a cartridge that is bigger than a .22 rimfire, but smaller than a full powered "battle cartridge" like a .30-06 or a .308 or a Russian 7.62 x 54R. The AR-15 is chambered for either a .223 Remington or a 5.56 NATO cartridge, which is classed as "intermediate". The Russian AK series is chambered for 7.62 x 39 mm or 5.45 x 39mm, both of which are also "intermediate", since neither has the powder capacity of a full sized battle cartridge. Where the AR-15 fails the assault rifle test is in the firing mechanism. it is not selective fire, it is semi-automatic only, and therefore fails the "assault rifle" definition. So politicians had to come up with a new, but similar term to define it, one that would still ramp up emotional reactions. They settled on replacing "rifle" with "weapon", and the meaningless term "assault weapon" was born.
An "assault weapon" is nothing more than a deer rifle or a groundhog gun that has enough cosmetic features to make it look "scary" to children and Marxists. I take that back - in some states, Virginia is one of them - it is illegal to deer hunt with a .223 or 5.56 NATO cartridge, as the politicians here feel the cartridge is not powerful enough to kill a deer. I guess none of them have ever been deer hunting. So, really, an "assault weapon" is just a flashy varmint rifle.
Likewise, a new term they have taken to using has come into vogue, since "assault weapon" has been repeatedly shown to be the lie it is. That new term they use is "weapons of war", usually in conjunction with the phrase "on our streets". To borrow a phrase from Obama (because I like using Marxist's own speech against them) let's be clear here: no AR-15 in existence is a "weapon of war", whether it's on our streets or at the back of our closet. No war has ever, in the history of the world, been fought with AR-15's. They are not selective fire, and no military uses them. No war has ever been fought with MAK-90's, either, or any of the other weapons they are trying to reclassify as "weapons of war". NONE of them are selective fire, NONE of them have ever been used in a war, NONE of them are "weapons of war".
I can throw as many rounds downrange with 10 round magazines as I can with 50 round magazines. I just have to carry more magazines... but I can swap fresh ones in about as fast as I can pull a trigger, which has to be done for every single shot on a semi-auto weapon. I can change magazines quite a bit faster than I can work the bolt on a bolt action
sniper erm, I mean "deer" rifle, (don't think for an instant they will stop at "assault weapons" - Uncle Homer's old over-a-hundred-year-old bolt action deer rifle will be reclassified as a "sniper weapon, a weapon of war" and they'll come after it, too). So, "high capacity magazines" (actually "standard capacity magazines", the capacity the guns were designed to work with) are not deal breakers at all. So, the campaign against "high capacity magazines" is really a nothing burger, too, just more feel-good bullshit that they want the emotional masses to eat up.
I'm tellin' you right here and now, all that will do is give folks a false sense of security, and some of those folks with that false sense of security don't need to be breathing up the air that sane people need anyhow.
They can't have my firearms. They can't fall back on that old saw of "well, you can just call the police" when they have a hard-on for defunding the police. The only protection we have is ourselves, and I'll be damned if I'll allow them to violate a clear Constitutional imperative and turn me into a helpless victim for their pet criminals.
.
![[Image: Biden-Doctrine1.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/QfxcCrn/Biden-Doctrine1.jpg)
![[Image: SIG-Aug-20-2022.png]](https://i.ibb.co/FHtcy4W/SIG-Aug-20-2022.png)
