Here is the wise and great Senator Feinstein of CA's Assault Weapon Ban proposal

[Lemon law]

While I may agree someone ignorant about guns like Feinstien is going to be somewhat incapable of drafting gun laws.

But the NRA, IMHO, is even a bigger part of the problem in saying no to any sensible gun legislation.

So what we end up with now, is a binary outcome with no compromise possible. As I maintain the NRA is now bat shit crazy, to pretend their less than 2% of the US population can become a third rail in American politics. At exactly the same time when assault weapons nut case shootings are becoming almost a once a day occurrence.

As I predict, if the NRA as a lobby, demands all, they will find US politicians will answer rising American fears by drafting legislation even more hostile to the NRA. And such laws will sail through and be signed into law at both the Federal and State Level.

And the louder the NRA howls, the more the majority of the American voters will feel safer. And will be probably be proved correct in the end.

As for me, as a gun owning hunter, I can only see the NRA as my greatest threat to my right to own guns for legitimate hunting, or even for home defense.

Just MHO, but my opinion counts for nothing. As the end outcome will be everything and all that matters. If the NRA extremists then want to still parade around with assault weapons, no problem, we can find the jails cells to put them in.

 

[HumblePie]

*golf clap for the mods*

 

[SilentRunning]

... These baby killers are even now sharpening their claws and beaks, bathing in the blood of children to get reelected. ...

Sounds like you are talking about the liberal pro-abortion crowd.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

While I may agree someone ignorant about guns like Feinstien is going to be somewhat incapable of drafting gun laws.

But the NRA, IMHO, is even a bigger part of the problem in saying no to any sensible gun legislation.

So what we end up with now, is a binary outcome with no compromise possible. As I maintain the NRA is now bat shit crazy, to pretend their less than 2% of the US population can become a third rail in American politics. At exactly the same time when assault weapons nut case shootings are becoming almost a once a day occurrence.

As I predict, if the NRA as a lobby, demands all, they will find US politicians will answer rising American fears by drafting legislation even more hostile to the NRA. And such laws will sail through and be signed into law at both the Federal and State Level.

And the louder the NRA howls, the more the majority of the American voters will feel safer. And will be probably be proved correct in the end.

As for me, as a gun owning hunter, I can only see the NRA as my greatest threat to my right to own guns for legitimate hunting, or even for home defense.

Just MHO, but my opinion counts for nothing. As the end outcome will be everything and all that matters. If the NRA extremists then want to still parade around with assault weapons, no problem, we can find the jails cells to put them in.

You do realize several states have passed laws to preemptively nulify enforcement of any federal assault weapons ban in their state don't you? Not to mention that many sheriffs have said they will oppose enforcement as well.

Even Diane Frankenstein admits that only 35 people per year have been killed by assault weapons in the last ten years. More people than that get killed on a single holiday weekend in Chicago.

 

[exdeath]

While I may agree someone ignorant about guns like Feinstien is going to be somewhat incapable of drafting gun laws.

But the NRA, IMHO, is even a bigger part of the problem in saying no to any sensible gun legislation.

So what we end up with now, is a binary outcome with no compromise possible. As I maintain the NRA is now bat shit crazy, to pretend their less than 2% of the US population can become a third rail in American politics. At exactly the same time when assault weapons nut case shootings are becoming almost a once a day occurrence.

As I predict, if the NRA as a lobby, demands all, they will find US politicians will answer rising American fears by drafting legislation even more hostile to the NRA. And such laws will sail through and be signed into law at both the Federal and State Level.

And the louder the NRA howls, the more the majority of the American voters will feel safer. And will be probably be proved correct in the end.

As for me, as a gun owning hunter, I can only see the NRA as my greatest threat to my right to own guns for legitimate hunting, or even for home defense.

Just MHO, but my opinion counts for nothing. As the end outcome will be everything and all that matters. If the NRA extremists then want to still parade around with assault weapons, no problem, we can find the jails cells to put them in.

I'm not a criminal. Anything that prevents me from buying a particular model gun, is not reasonable by definition.

A ban on something is not a limit, or restriction, a compromise, or middle ground, it is a complete prohibition.

Trying to sell complete prohibition as a "reasonable restriction" is why it's unreasonable. A restriction means there may be more scrutiny but that I still end up getting my product once I'm proven not a restricted person.

We will not accept a compromise because the anti gunners aren't compromising. A compromise is something like : 5 day waiting periods and exhaustive background checks for any high output assault weapons but as long as we are making sure killers aren't getting them now we can let citizens have machine guns again.

 

[OrByte]

We will not accept a compromise because the anti gunners aren't compromising. A compromise is something like : 5 day waiting periods and exhaustive background checks for any high output assault weapons but as long as we are making sure killers aren't getting them now we can let citizens have machine guns again.

I'm not saying I disagree with you.

I am saying I think this arms ban is questionable in it's usefullness

I also am thinking, given that none of the weapons currently out in the general public are going to be TAKEN AWAY..how is this not a compromise?

Reading the language, it seems there is a great many ways to "grandfather" in weapons and materials. This ban impacts future sales and imports of firearms and materials and its also makes changes to the original ban. But no firearms are being taken away...right?

 

[HumblePie]

I'm not a criminal. Anything that prevents me from buying a particular model gun, is not reasonable by definition.

A ban on something is not a limit, or restriction, a compromise, or middle ground, it is a complete prohibition.

Trying to sell complete prohibition as a "reasonable restriction" is why it's unreasonable. A restriction means there may be more scrutiny but that I still end up getting my product once I'm proven not a restricted person.

We will not accept a compromise because the anti gunners aren't compromising. A compromise is something like : 5 day waiting periods and exhaustive background checks for any high output assault weapons but as long as we are making sure killers aren't getting them now we can let citizens have machine guns again.

Correct. Or that buying in bulk for straw purchases carrying more stringent penalties. Especially when said straw purchases have firearms later used in a crime. THOSE are reasonable gun laws. So long as I can own anything I want and I don't have to jump through tons of hoops just for the sake of making things difficult, then I'm fine with gun laws IF they can be shown to provide an actual benefit to society at a reasonable cost.

I posted a litmus test for any gun legislation. It is very broad in scope, but has defined requirements.

1) Does the proposal infringe in anyway a law abiding citizens right to eventually obtain and own a firearm? If No proceed to the second question. If Yes then this is not a good gun law at all.

2) Does the new legislation have an actual impact upon public safety?
a) What is direct and indirect impacts?
b) What is the cost versus impact(s) ratio?


That's what all new, and really even old, gun laws should be measured up against. Infringement against ownership includes the following for reference, but the following list is not all inclusive:

1) Bans of any type of firearm
2) Bans of any type of ammo
3) Bans of any type of firearm related accessory or part
4) Required permanent registration
5) Permits to own
6) Undue "hoops" to go through to obtain ownership
7) Undue costs to pay to own (extra taxes, insurance policies, etc)


Any gun law that infringes upon legal ownership of firearms is by definition against the Constitution and is NOT reasonable. Everything else is open to discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not a criminal. Anything that prevents me from buying a particular model gun, is not reasonable by definition.

A ban on something is not a limit, or restriction, a compromise, or middle ground, it is a complete prohibition.

Trying to sell complete prohibition as a "reasonable restriction" is why it's unreasonable. A restriction means there may be more scrutiny but that I still end up getting my product once I'm proven not a restricted person.

We will not accept a compromise because the anti gunners aren't compromising. A compromise is something like : 5 day waiting periods and exhaustive background checks for any high output assault weapons but as long as we are making sure killers aren't getting them now we can let citizens have machine guns again.

Hog shit. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[Moonbeam]

Howcome Canada let's their citizens buy any semi-automatic rifle they want (including the imported ones that have been banned for import here since 1989) and they don't have mass shootings? The only limitation is that their 30 round magazine have a plastic spacer installed that limits it to 10 rounds or less. A spacer that can easily be removed by a would be criminal.

We have a violence problem, not a gun problem.

True, but guns are the popular and available means to express it. If there were no guns people wouldn't be dying from them. People might take to putting big rocks in the road because they look pretty, but we would outlaw that too if it got to be a habit.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Correct. Or that buying in bulk for straw purchases carrying more stringent penalties. Especially when said straw purchases have firearms later used in a crime. THOSE are reasonable gun laws. So long as I can own anything I want and I don't have to jump through tons of hoops just for the sake of making things difficult, then I'm fine with gun laws IF they can be shown to provide an actual benefit to society at a reasonable cost.

I posted a litmus test for any gun legislation. It is very broad in scope, but has defined requirements.

1) Does the proposal infringe in anyway a law abiding citizens right to eventually obtain and own a firearm? If No proceed to the second question. If Yes then this is not a good gun law at all.

2) Does the new legislation have an actual impact upon public safety?
a) What is direct and indirect impacts?
b) What is the cost versus impact(s) ratio?


That's what all new, and really even old, gun laws should be measured up against. Infringement against ownership includes the following for reference, but the following list is not all inclusive:

1) Bans of any type of firearm
2) Bans of any type of ammo
3) Bans of any type of firearm related accessory or part
4) Required permanent registration
5) Permits to own
6) Undue "hoops" to go through to obtain ownership
7) Undue costs to pay to own (extra taxes, insurance policies, etc)


Any gun law that infringes upon legal ownership of firearms is by definition against the Constitution and is NOT reasonable. Everything else is open to discussion.

I have a question, what type of laws would you want fully automatic or select fire weapons be covered by?
Right now they fall under 5,6,7 of your bad gun laws requirements. Making them expensive to obtain and keep. But the idea of cheap, easy to purchase SMGs in the hands of criminals is not something that I think most people (even those supportive of 2nd amendment rights, like myself) is a good thing.

 

[Doppel]

Love to see a troll banned, it's what I get up for in the morning.

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles

This wording is quite telling. It implies clearly that the banned weapons are not "legitimate hunting and sporting rifles" despite weapons like the AR-15 being exactly a sporting rifle, with virtually every round ever fired from any of them used in a sporting capacity.

It's really no wonder many gun owners are concerned about these kinds of bills being attacks on the 2nd amendment, because they are exactly that. Some of the ideas are good like background checks. Essentially all the comestic things are stupid.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets.

This is a plain lie. I bet nobody called her on it. The best studies on the ban have absolutely not found it was "effective at reducing crime."

My simple conclusion is that Feinstein can go fuck herself, and this is why:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

How dare she enact legislation based on demonstrable falsehoods? What she is saying is not just a questionable opinion, it's downright objectively wrong.

 

[ultimatebob]

I love how she added my Beretta CX4 Storm to the proposed banned list, even though it only has an 8 round magazine and none of the co-called "military" features in the rest of her bill.

I guess that she decided to ban it anyway just because it looks cool, and therefore it must be evil

Yeah... it's stupidity like this that caused me to leave the Democratic party and join the NRA. Some mad man shoots up a school just a few miles from my house, and my local politicians have decided to make me and my guns the scapegoat for easy votes. Bastards.

 

[sigurros81]

The draft is idiotic. I consider myself a sensible liberal and I find myself awestruck how misinformed this Congresswoman really is. I browsed through the list of firearms being banned under this bill and pretty much of all of them are pretty hard to get a hold of if you're a civilian. Meanwhile, we have the shooters at all these massacres using firearms that can be purchased at any chained sporting goods store. CONGRESS FAILED again. /facepalm

On the flip side of this, the NRA are just as idiotic. Are there no sensible people anymore?

 

[BoberFett]

At exactly the same time when assault weapons nut case shootings are becoming almost a once a day occurrence.

LOL! Democrats... Pathetic wastes of space.

 

[marvdmartian]

Diane Feinstein's "logic" has never been encumbered by facts or common sense. She uses big scary words to frighten the ignorant masses into believing whatever she says as gospel, so they can be led, like lambs to the slaughter, to give up more of their rights.

Perhaps it would be easier to make Diane Feinstein illegal? I'm betting we'd get a majority vote in both the House & Senate for that one! :hmm:

 

[Phanuel]

I'm not saying I disagree with you.

I am saying I think this arms ban is questionable in it's usefullness

I also am thinking, given that none of the weapons currently out in the general public are going to be TAKEN AWAY..how is this not a compromise?

Reading the language, it seems there is a great many ways to "grandfather" in weapons and materials. This ban impacts future sales and imports of firearms and materials and its also makes changes to the original ban. But no firearms are being taken away...right?

Grandfathering in things is a ban. Stop being pedantic and trying to say this is a compromise.

How about I grandfather in your right to have children or eat food. Your future children will no longer have the right to reproduce or eat. How does this work? Oh right, they starve and die without being able to have children of their own.

 

[jpeyton]

But the NRA, IMHO, is even a bigger part of the problem in saying no to any sensible gun legislation.

Define sensible.

At exactly the same time when assault weapons nut case shootings are becoming almost a once a day occurrence.

Going along with my "sensible" comment, do you think it's sensible to draft legislation that targets firearms used in less than 3% of gun crime?

As I predict, if the NRA as a lobby, demands all, they will find US politicians will answer rising American fears by drafting legislation even more hostile to the NRA. And such laws will sail through and be signed into law at both the Federal and State Level.

Right now an AWB is getting the stink eye from Harry Reid and a handful of Democrats in right-leaning states. We're not even talking about Republicans yet, who in the House hold a 33 seat majority and vehemently oppose any AWB. "Sail through" wouldn't be my choice of words.

As for me, as a gun owning hunter, I can only see the NRA as my greatest threat to my right to own guns for legitimate hunting, or even for home defense.

If the NRA is your greatest threat, by that logic Andrew Cuomo would be your greatest ally. All you need is 7 rounds, as long at you have a 100% hit rate under stress.

If the NRA extremists then want to still parade around with assault weapons, no problem, we can find the jails cells to put them in.

Most of the Sheriffs in my state, including the one in my county, already pledged not to enforce any Federal AWB. I can parade as much as I want.

 

[xj0hnx]

silencers

Actually, threaded barrels are for brakes, and compensators. Suppressors can be fitted to them, but that's not what they are for. Suppressors will not be banned, or regulated by any of these AWB's.

 

[Doppel]

As I predict, if the NRA as a lobby, demands all, they will find US politicians will answer rising American fears by drafting legislation even more hostile to the NRA. And such laws will sail through and be signed into law at both the Federal and State Level.

I'm really on the fence with this and here's why: I have found damn near nobody online who thinks these are good ideas. Normally you get left vs right but I truly have come across nobody other than a few people on these forums (one of whom has admitted he was a troll and, oh, actually created this thread) who believes something like the magazine ban is really all that important. Much of the legislation being proposed is completely indefensible and stands up to no scrutiny.

Support for universal background checks is high but some of this other stuff takes a good bill and covers it in scat.

 

[Phanuel]

Actually, threaded barrels are for brakes, and compensators. Suppressors can be fitted to them, but that's not what they are for. Suppressors will not be banned, or regulated by any of these AWB's.

Yeah, honestly the only time you're ever directly threading a suppressor to a firearm is on a pistol (no real need to flash hiders or compensators on these in the first place) or precision bolt guns (even this is a toss up, the tactical precision competition market is moving towards having a brake installed and then a quick detach suppressor).

 

[michal1980]

No no no, Lefties don't have the same moral principles at work as Righties so they don't value the same moral statements, don't react to things with disgust, as one example, and thus have more trouble understanding the reactions of folk on the right. This would be like you not understanding a hummingbird paying attention to certain flowers because they are red but you can learn why scientifically. And I don't hate myself because I don't judge morally as you do. I was told I was disgusting, like you were, but it didn't imprint in me like it did for you.

And it's easy for you to understand why the murder of children by guns is something not to be desired, because while the concepts of fairness aren't as meaningful to you as they are to me, you still have that moral concern. That is why I appeal to that part of you that is like me, because I understand you. What you don't understand is yourself and how you work because you don't like to feel pain. I was forced to know the truth as a moral imperative. My Mommy told me to be honest. Try that for pain.

the left has been supporting the mass murder of babies for decades.

 

[HumblePie]

I have a question, what type of laws would you want fully automatic or select fire weapons be covered by?
Right now they fall under 5,6,7 of your bad gun laws requirements. Making them expensive to obtain and keep. But the idea of cheap, easy to purchase SMGs in the hands of criminals is not something that I think most people (even those supportive of 2nd amendment rights, like myself) is a good thing.

Full auto isn't useful even to criminals. Full auto is a suppression method of combat. It is not designed to kill masses of people instantly as idiotic politicians would have you believe.

For reference, a well trained person can fire multiple shots per second and keep it sustained for awhile. One can go through a 30 round magazine in a good 5-10 seconds by squeezing the trigger as fast as possible. That is inaccurate as hell and the muzzle rise is going to cause more misses than hits even shooting at a target rich environment. A fully automatic weapon can do all 30 rounds in about a second though. Which would cause the muzzle rise to be even worse. The reason for full auto is a spray suppression to get enemies that may be firing at you to take cover. It is a tactic not really meant to hit anyone and rarely does. To make full use of the tactic though you need more than 30 bullets. Many automatic weapons can fire thousands of rounds per minute. Do you know how much thousands of rounds weighs????? Even in the smallest bullet in common production a few thousand rounds is quite heavy to carry. More so on bigger calibers of ammo. Nor does using fully automatic even with that much ammo to spend will even kill that many in a target rich environment. Nor is it needed to shoot people that are shooting back.

What most mass murderers do is methodically hunt down and shoot as many people as they can. They make as many bullets count per shot as they can. Mass murderers are for the body count and not for the wasting all their ammo in a 1 second press of a button that might kill 1 or 2 people.

As for other criminals using guns, those are almost all done with handguns as they are easy to conceal.

I am all for laws that make it harder to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands and penalize those that allow it. I am against trying to use a gun ban to prevent it when it deprives law abiding citizens the use of such weapons for defense. And make no mistake, the 2A is put there for defense of the common man against all enemies foreign and domestic.

So yes I do have a problem as well with the current gun ban on fully automatic weapons. Out of all 175,000 fully automatic weapons allowed to be privately owned, only 2 has ever been used in a crime. BOTH crimes were done by law enforcement officers. Go figure.

 

[Lemon law]

Diane Feinstein's "logic" has never been encumbered by facts or common sense. She uses big scary words to frighten the ignorant masses into believing whatever she says as gospel, so they can be led, like lambs to the slaughter, to give up more of their rights.

Perhaps it would be easier to make Diane Feinstein illegal? I'm betting we'd get a majority vote in both the House & Senate for that one! :hmm:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth to marvdmartian, even if partially agree with you, you understand zero about law making. If Pelosi and her ilk can summon up a 50.1% majority in the House and Senate, and the Prez signs, it becomes the law of the land.

Nothing in the constitution gives you, marvdmartian, veto power.

And if the cops have to pry your guns out of your cold dead hands, that too can be arranged.

 

[TallBill]

Screw her. Screw this Bill.

 

[Agent11]

Bills like this are why the filibuster exists.