Federal Assault Weapons Ban
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Assault Weapons Ban)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. There was no prior legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to its enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision

interesting.....who do we think actually pays attention to this???? and what kind of folks are they???? We all walk among ourselves....

1 cqn of WD 40-  adapted with an extended range spray nozzell-  ( like for engine cleaning-)

1 Zippo wind proof flame lighter

While technicly this mineratrure flame thrower is non leathal- it will stop almost anything-

Quoted from Sombody

1 cqn of WD 40-  adapted with an extended range spray nozzell-  ( like for engine cleaning-)

1 Zippo wind proof flame lighter

While technicly this mineratrure flame thrower is non leathal- it will stop almost anything-

You are a wealth of information! Thanks for the tip!

Quoted from senders

To carry all of that one must be in fit shape......I'd take a Rambo knife too......

err - no.  One does not have to be in fit shape, first of all.  Second of all, that Rambo knife is pure Hollywood bullshit.  It's huge, and therefore unacceptable.  The Gerber is much closer in size and design to the Scottish dirk, which is a weapon of considerable worth.  The Guardian, a four inch double edged honed blade, can be carried in a variety of methods, including on the forearm or the bottom of a woman's purse, and with very little training proves to be an awesome defense device.  Used properly, only a firearm has a distinct advantage. however firearms have a limited capacity, and edged weapons never run out.  The rest of the junk is easy and light, and I wouldn't leave home without it.

Ock----what color is your trenchcoat????? Dungeon Master????

Levi blue, and dungeons have no place in my world - they're the stuff of the frightened. I live here, on earth, in this county, and I was raised with an anachronistic moral ethic.  I am responsible for myself, and to a degree, for those about me.

Ockham-

What do you think of this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIjkBVEtyE

That's almost as good as the old pen guns that fired a single shot 38 caliber round.

I wouldn't be able to see the buttons to shoot it until I got my glasses

Quoted from 47

I wouldn't be able to see the buttons to shoot it until I got my glasses

That makes two of us.

cool!!! 007 here I come........

Ock-I had to make sure you meant this??? Are you Shirley McClaine?? ------Or old and wise(I would think this to be it, respectfully of course)

Quoted Text

Main Entry: anach·ro·nism  
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-krə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from Middle Greek anachronismos, from anachronizesthai to be an anachronism, from Late Greek anachronizein to be late, from Greek ana- + chronos time
Date: 1617
1: an error in chronology ; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other
2: a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place ; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present
3: the state or condition of being chronologically out of place

Quoted from Sombody

Ockham-

What do you think of this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIjkBVEtyE

Vague question there. First of all, it's relatively huge for a cell phone, and seems to require two hands. I'll have to admit that, had I not seen that video, it probably could have been used against me quite effectively; my curiosity might have over ridden my concerns about the four open holes that were being pointed at me. In defending yourself, one of the issues that's usually near the bottom of the list, but always there is the 'prudent person' rule. Simply, what would a prudent person do in any particular situation. Before seeing the video that question would become, "What would a prudent person do in defending themself against a bulky cell phone?  The answer is, "nothing," unless it was about to be used as a cudgel of sorts, or something similar. Having seen the video one can now ask, "What would a prudent person do defending themself against a potentially lethal weapon disguised as a ridiculous looking cell phone?" Depending on the rest of the situation, responding with lethal force might be acceptable - might be. The Bush Doctrine has no standing in our criminal court system.

Therefore, if you're asking if I'd ever own such a weapon, then I'd have to say that I couldn't imagine that happening.

You would have to admit it would make a great coffee table conversation piece....even if fake.......great ideas do come from the rediculous or things
that appear to be impossible....

Quoted Text

George Will
Court’s right to rule on guns is questionable
George Will is a nationally syndicated columnist.

    Of conservatives’ few victories this year, the most cherished came when the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Now, however, a distinguished conservative jurist argues that the court’s ruling was mistaken and had the principal fl aws of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling that conservatives execrate as judicial overreaching. Both rulings, says J. Harvie Wilkinson, suddenly recognized a judicially enforceable right grounded in “an ambiguous constitutional text.”
    Writing for the Virginia Law Review, Judge Wilkinson of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Heller, like Roe, was disrespectful of legislative judgments, has hurled courts into a political thicket of fine-tuning policy in interminable litigation, and traduced federalism. Furthermore, Heller exposed “originalism” — the doctrine that the Constitution’s text means precisely what those who wrote its words meant by them — as no barrier to “judicial subjectivity.”
    The Second Amendment says: “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.” Until June, the question was: Is the right guaranteed to individuals and unconnected with military service, or only to states as they exercise their right to maintain militias? The court held, 5-4, for the former view.


............................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....000&ViewMode=GIF