HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Feinstein will introduce ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:25 AM

Feinstein will introduce assault weapons ban in Senate

Source: Washington Post

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) vowed Sunday to introduce legislation to ban assault weapons at the start of the next Congress.

“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” during a discussion about guns following Friday’s deadly mass shooting as a Connecticut school.

Feinstein said she was confident such a measure could pass. In a separate interview on Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he too was was optimistic about the prospect of passing a gun control measure.

“I think we can get something done,” said Schumer on CBS’s “Face The Nation.” Schumer advocated focusing on three areas: Banning assault weapons, limiting the size of clips, and making it harder for “mentally unstable” individuals to obtain firearms.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/16/feinstein-will-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-in-senate/

190 replies, 19287 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 190 replies Author Time Post
Reply Feinstein will introduce assault weapons ban in Senate (Original post)
jsr Dec 2012 OP
Buddaman Dec 2012 #1
krispos42 Dec 2012 #6
Cooley Hurd Dec 2012 #27
krispos42 Dec 2012 #30
exboyfil Dec 2012 #55
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #77
exboyfil Dec 2012 #106
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #107
pasto76 Dec 2012 #98
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #115
Recursion Dec 2012 #153
krispos42 Dec 2012 #123
PavePusher Dec 2012 #124
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #178
CreekDog Dec 2012 #67
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #82
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #100
CreekDog Dec 2012 #125
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #130
CreekDog Dec 2012 #134
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #135
Left Coast2020 Dec 2012 #138
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #141
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #103
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #177
krispos42 Dec 2012 #179
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #180
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #128
krispos42 Dec 2012 #2
Maraya1969 Dec 2012 #13
krispos42 Dec 2012 #16
Maraya1969 Dec 2012 #91
beevul Dec 2012 #137
PavePusher Dec 2012 #39
Maraya1969 Dec 2012 #90
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #75
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #78
Maraya1969 Dec 2012 #88
PavePusher Dec 2012 #110
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #118
oldbanjo Dec 2012 #174
Maraya1969 Dec 2012 #144
NickB79 Dec 2012 #146
Maraya1969 Dec 2012 #176
NickB79 Dec 2012 #190
oldbanjo Dec 2012 #175
oldbanjo Dec 2012 #173
adieu Dec 2012 #28
krispos42 Dec 2012 #32
Flatulo Dec 2012 #57
CreekDog Dec 2012 #69
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #83
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #81
CreekDog Dec 2012 #68
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #85
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #101
cantbeserious Dec 2012 #49
CreekDog Dec 2012 #65
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #86
krispos42 Dec 2012 #87
adieu Dec 2012 #93
krispos42 Dec 2012 #112
Mr.Bill Dec 2012 #121
Earth_First Dec 2012 #3
krispos42 Dec 2012 #7
Earth_First Dec 2012 #8
krispos42 Dec 2012 #12
CreekDog Dec 2012 #72
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #84
krispos42 Dec 2012 #116
adieu Dec 2012 #94
krispos42 Dec 2012 #126
PavePusher Dec 2012 #41
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #136
krispos42 Dec 2012 #142
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #160
krispos42 Dec 2012 #167
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #168
krispos42 Dec 2012 #170
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #171
Ter Dec 2012 #111
slackmaster Dec 2012 #4
OhioChick Dec 2012 #5
Buddaman Dec 2012 #9
slackmaster Dec 2012 #14
axetogrind Dec 2012 #24
PavePusher Dec 2012 #43
adieu Dec 2012 #95
Ter Dec 2012 #113
Recursion Dec 2012 #155
krispos42 Dec 2012 #10
slackmaster Dec 2012 #11
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #20
dairydog91 Dec 2012 #37
PavePusher Dec 2012 #42
Javaman Dec 2012 #15
tawadi Dec 2012 #23
Flatulo Dec 2012 #59
Callisto32 Dec 2012 #60
Javaman Dec 2012 #66
mainstreetonce Dec 2012 #17
slackmaster Dec 2012 #18
axetogrind Dec 2012 #25
PavePusher Dec 2012 #44
horsedoc Dec 2012 #19
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #22
Orrex Dec 2012 #36
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #64
djnicadress Dec 2012 #21
livetohike Dec 2012 #26
Tutonic Dec 2012 #29
PavePusher Dec 2012 #45
LonePirate Dec 2012 #33
PavePusher Dec 2012 #46
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #73
LonePirate Dec 2012 #89
kwolf68 Dec 2012 #159
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #162
onehandle Dec 2012 #34
sellitman Dec 2012 #53
Dustlawyer Dec 2012 #31
lancer78 Dec 2012 #117
question everything Dec 2012 #35
Fearless Dec 2012 #38
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #40
thucythucy Dec 2012 #48
Ter Dec 2012 #114
TinkerTot55 Dec 2012 #47
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #74
Bonhomme Richard Dec 2012 #50
DFW Dec 2012 #51
Clames Dec 2012 #52
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #54
Flatulo Dec 2012 #56
lancer78 Dec 2012 #119
RickFromMN Dec 2012 #58
Flatulo Dec 2012 #61
hack89 Dec 2012 #92
RickFromMN Dec 2012 #166
hack89 Dec 2012 #169
RickFromMN Dec 2012 #188
hack89 Dec 2012 #189
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #62
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #70
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #147
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #163
Flatulo Dec 2012 #71
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #63
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #76
madville Dec 2012 #79
Missouri Lad Dec 2012 #96
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #80
high density Dec 2012 #97
NickB79 Dec 2012 #99
CreekDog Dec 2012 #149
NickB79 Dec 2012 #150
CreekDog Dec 2012 #152
NickB79 Dec 2012 #157
mimi85 Dec 2012 #102
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #104
NickB79 Dec 2012 #129
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #132
NickB79 Dec 2012 #133
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #182
Mr Peabody Dec 2012 #181
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #145
Joe the Progressive Dec 2012 #105
SunSeeker Dec 2012 #120
Maineman Dec 2012 #185
nolabels Dec 2012 #108
defacto7 Dec 2012 #109
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #122
The Second Stone Dec 2012 #127
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #131
Hekate Dec 2012 #139
Lewis00 Dec 2012 #140
Blandocyte Dec 2012 #143
CreekDog Dec 2012 #148
Recursion Dec 2012 #151
jonesgirl Dec 2012 #154
mother earth Dec 2012 #156
NickB79 Dec 2012 #158
mother earth Dec 2012 #161
Xithras Dec 2012 #172
triplepoint Dec 2012 #164
Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2012 #165
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #183
Maineman Dec 2012 #184
Maineman Dec 2012 #186
Sunlei Dec 2012 #187

Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:30 AM

1. Outlaw owning the fucking things also!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddaman (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:36 AM

6. People will just grind off the bayonet lug

Or weld the shoulder stock in the extended position. Then, viola!, no longer an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:34 PM

27. Then ban those as well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:48 PM

30. Like I've been saying...

...if you want to be serious about this, propose banning semi-automatic long guns. Don't try to pussyfoot around with arbitrary and useless lists of cosmetic or ergonomic features.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:05 PM

55. Yes please stop with the term assault weapon

The semiautomatic feed from a magazine is what allows for the rapid fire/capacity/and ease of reload. Frankly I see no sportsman reason for having these features (how many prairie dogs can you shoot before they go back into their holes). I guess if you wanted to take on a bear with a .223 - otherwise it has two purposes - armed combat or slaughter of multiple people. Am I missing something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:51 PM

77. Doesn't matter if you see it or not.

It exists.

Taking on a bear with a .223 is a good way to really piss off the bear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #77)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:32 PM

106. I guess you missed the sarcasm

Should have put out an alert. What sportsman needs a semiautomatic .223 with a 30 round magazine? I agree with making the bear very angry and not being effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #106)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:06 PM

107. Well, prairie dogs and rock chucks are a valid example.

Nutria. Coyote's. Not much bigger than that, though, as hunting regulations limit the number of rounds in the gun, and the type of large game you can take with something as small as a .223.

The rest would be competitive or self-defense. Or just plain old plinking to have fun. Competitively, the AR-15, which is not the only, but the most common .223, is the single most popular center file rifle in the country. A 30 round mag is considered, by most owners, to be 'standard'.

It might not sound 'reasonable' to some people who don't shoot, but there's nothing shocking or unusual about that mag size.

If I might offer a non-lethal, or less lethal analogy. (Certainly high performance cars can and do kill drivers, passengers, and totally innocent bystanders) Consider the Ford Mustang. The car is far more powerful than anyone needs to get to and from work, or whatever. Shockingly overpowered, and it can be misused to a very lethal degree.

Consider the backlash if the government tried to RPM limit them to being incapable of going over 60mph. That might be a very prudent thing from a public safety perspective. Owners, and prospective owners are... not going to like it. EVEN THOUGH you could totally sell it as being certain to save some lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:37 PM

98. yes you are missing the name. Assault Weapon. For assaulting military targets

a lot of you seem hung up on this. They are in fact, assault weapons. designed for use by soldiers like me in assaulting military objectives.

While a good assault weapon has many features that make it useful for this compared to "your daddy's shotgun" or your deer rifle, the semi auto ability combined with a high capacity magazine is the core of what makes it useful. It is still US doctrine that we have more bullets loaded into magazines than the russians or chinese, and that we also carry more magazines.

Look at WWII there were myriad of weapons issued to our troops. M1 garand. Semi auto with a moderate capacity clip, good range. Tommy gun. Automatic pistol round, shitty range. That goofy small 30 caliber automatic. BAR, 30-06 automatic with a 20 round clip. all of them are at least automatic. All of them require only pulling the trigger as opposed to lever action or bolt actions. In the 60s we moved to a smaller caliber, less recoil to improve accuracy but higher magazine capacity, and an auto option for when you need lead downrange...primarily for suppressive fire.

Now I can go to the store and buy a .223 caliber semi auto weapon _without_ a pistol grip or bayonet lug, and it is, frankly, still as lethal in my hands as my issue M4.

we need to focus on the semi auto and round capacity. If it is semi auto, there should'nt be more than 4 rounds (including one in the chamber). bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks are red herrings.

And isnt is illegal to hunt big game with a 223 caliber in most states anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #98)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:06 PM

115. You have fallen for the "assault weapon" trap.

You obviously have a good notion of what an assault rifle is. However, "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are two different things. The name "assault weapon" was purposely chosen to confuse people into thinking about assault rifles when they hear the misleading term.

> bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks are red herrings.

Unfortunately, these items are at the core of the common definition of "assault weapon", as featured in the federal Assault Weapon Ban (AWB). The usual definition of "assault weapon" has nothing to do with the abilities of the rifle, only the cosmetic features.

> Now I can go to the store and buy a .223 caliber semi auto weapon _without_ a pistol
> grip or bayonet lug, and it is, frankly, still as lethal in my hands as my issue M4.

Good to see that you have a good understanding of the current problem with the AWB in all its forms.

> And isnt is illegal to hunt big game with a 223 caliber in most states anyway?

Most states allow it for the smaller game, like coyotes. A few allow it for the (smaller) white tail deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:03 AM

153. How can you call *what defines an assault weapon* a red herring?

bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks are red herrings.

Well, but that's what makes a weapon an "assault weapon".

If it is semi auto, there should'nt be more than 4 rounds (including one in the chamber).

That could be a good idea. That's not the assault weapons ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:27 PM

123. Well, people are also pretty fast with a lever-action

and a pump-action. Bolt actions are the slowest, but they still aren't all that slow.


There are people out there that hunt dangerous game, and like to have quick follow-up shots handy. Wild pigs are pretty dangerous, and like to live in dense undergrowth that keeps shooting ranges short and intimate. And of course, when you're not only the hunter but also the hunted, you don't want the adrenaline surge and the frantic activity to inhibit your ability to reload and fire again.


Lots of people like semi-autos. They recoil softer, the detachable magazine makes them a cinch to unload before getting into a vehicle or climbing a tree stand, and they are much easier to shoot from awkward positions like prone or squatting. Particularly follow-up shots on fleeing game animals which may be wounded. And things like the pistol grip that upsets Senator Feinstein so much are actually more ergonomic and thus better for the shooter's hand and wrist than the traditional straight stock.

Lots of people like bolt-actions, too. They're cheaper, they can handle much more powerful cartridges, they tend to be more accurate, they are very reliable, and they work very well with hand-loaded ammunition.


But that's for sporting use. For self-defense (armed combat, if you will) the semi-auto is preferred for simplicity of operation.

The eternal problem is that a weapon that works well for self-defense also works well for offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:29 PM

124. See #110.

 

Also note that every "traditional" style hunting rifle is a direct decendant of a former military-issue rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:09 PM

178. Looks like you're missing pig hunting

 

They seem to travel in packs and in areas such as Texas they try to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible due to the overpopulation and damage that they cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:52 PM

67. you don't know anything about this topic as evidenced by your stupid statement about Feinstein

upthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:11 PM

82. Fail. Your factually deficient insult doesn't seem to be working.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #67)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:58 PM

100. He actually knows quite a bit about it

The last AWB failed because of stupid pols not understanding the real issues. Until we see what is proposed, it would be reasonable to see more of the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #100)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 PM

125. If he knew then he lied when saying her position was insincere

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:19 AM

130. She has feet of clay on this issue

A better standard bearer should be chosen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #130)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:58 AM

134. you're moving the goalposts, the poster said she was insincere in her position

or ignorant of its basis.

he and you said he was not ignorant of her history.

therefore, you and he agree that the other poster was lying about her position.

have it your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:06 AM

135. No I am not, I am taking the position that there are better standard bearers on this issue

that will not detract from the discussion. I you want to make it harder to pass, have it your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #100)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:02 AM

138. I believe there was an assault weapons ban on the books when Clinton left office.

Then the Repugs undid it after he left. I don't know remember how strong or weak it was, but he apparently did have an AWB law.

And as for Finestine (my senator), I have had many doubts about her in the past--starting with when she supported the Bush Crime Family. She lost points with me a long time ago. I see her as too reactionary than preventative in her approach to fixing problems and offers no leadership as Bernie Sanders or the Senator from Ohio would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Left Coast2020 (Reply #138)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:21 AM

141. The Federal AWB had a sunset clause and was not renewed

It was marginally effective at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:08 PM

103. Bingo. it's not the scary-looking "special features" that make the weapon dangerous

It's the rapid reloading / firing capacities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:08 PM

177. What about AR-15 pistols that fire the same 5.56 NATO round? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #177)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:08 PM

179. That's a pistol.

Banning those would also mean banning pistols that fire regular pistol ammunition.



There is no shortage of "regular" handgun cartridges equal to or more powerful than a 5.56 fired from a handgun. There are "regular" handgun cartridges that are more powerful than a 5.56 fired from a rifle, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #179)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:27 PM

180. Exactly my point

 

Banning semi-auto 16" AR-15s is basically a feel-good, do-nothing measure when someone can get the same gun as a "pistol" with a shorter barrel, thus making it easier to conceal. Banning semi-auto pistols isn't going to be easy, either, I don't imagine. I'm pretty sure that guns are here to stay, and I'm glad that they are. They allow the weak to have a fighting chance when the strong try to oppress them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddaman (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:11 AM

128. A law impossible to enforce. Nazis coming into your house to search for assault weapons?

Your house, my house, all houses?

It's a shame the last time they were banned it was temporary. That made no sense. Now there are even more in teh country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:33 AM

2. She's pandering to pro-control voters....

...and doubtless many on DU would lap it up as progress.

Many more will want it to pass just so they can have a "victory" over the NRA boogieman and the red states and "gun cultists" or whatever the term de jour is.



If Feinstein had the courage of her convictions, she would push for a ban of all semi-auto long guns.

But she doesn't. She's like those people that want to outlaw abortion, except in the case of rape and incest. No moral standing or consistency, but damn, it gets good PR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:44 AM

13. I don't know much about guns but I think anything that shoots more than one bullet put pull

should be outlawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:56 AM

16. They are tightly restricted

The legal term is "machine gun".

The number of privately-owned "machine guns" in the US is now fixed. The Treasury Department's registry of "machine guns" was closed in 1986 via an act of Congress, so the number in the country has been fixed for nearly 30 years, and prices are in the 5-figure range to own a "real" AK-47 or M-16 or M-60 or Uzi.

The gun used in Newtown fired one shot per trigger pull. It was a semi-automatic rifle. Each times you pulled the trigger, it would fire, eject, and load itself and wait for the trigger to be released and re-pulled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:28 PM

91. Then those semi-automatics don't need to be around either. Why does anyone need one of those?

Except to go on killing sprees? They should be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #91)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:42 AM

137. Exactly, thats why police carry them, to go on killing sprees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:24 PM

39. Then, with all due respect....

 

you need to find out what the laws currently are, because such a restriction already exists (essentially) at both the Federal and State level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #39)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:25 PM

90. I didn't know that and I posted below that I didn't realize how easy it is to fire so rapidly with

a semi-automatic gun. So I think they should be banned also. I think changing the constitution is a hard gig to take on and people should be allowed to hunt for meat to eat. I think it is a humane way of killing for food if you are a meat eater. But like I said I don't know much about guns and I just learned how easy it is to rapid fire with a semi-automatic gun. There are probably a lot of other guns I don't know about that are really bad that I am not mentioning. I know we need to do something to get all these damn guns off the streets!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:48 PM

75. You are right, they should be outlawed.

 

Except for in the movies and in the imaginations of some people, they already are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:53 PM

78. Why?

How many crimes have been committed in the last 50 years with legally owned fully automatic NFA weapons?

(I'll give you a hint: less than 10)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:18 PM

88. OK I did not realize how easy it was to fire these semi automatic guns. I thought this kid

had an automatic weapon. Like I said I know nothing about guns. To me if you can shoot rapidly than there is no reason to have that gun. If you are going hunting you take a shot and aim good. I did not know how fast a semi-automatic gun could load and shoot. Now that I know I think they should be banned also.

I don't see any reason why a person would want that type of firearm. What do they think they are going to use it for? People do not hunt with those things right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #88)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:45 PM

110. Actually, they've (semi-auto rifles) been used in hunting for over 100 years.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #110)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:12 PM

118. Learn something new every day....

I didn't realize that you can get a pump-action rifle in calibers bigger than .22 .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:46 PM

174. Remington is on of the best guns made,

the bolt action model 700 is a good 1000 yard gun for target shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #110)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:28 AM

144. My grandparents and uncles were all hunters and they used shotguns. Why aren't they good

enough to use now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #144)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:10 AM

146. Depends what your grandparents hunted

Ducks? Deer? Squirrel? Coyote? Bear? All of these can require a different caliber weapon, depending on the circumstances. Ducks can only be shot in flight, which requires a shotgun firing birdshot. At close range, you can hunt deer with shotgun slugs as well, but in some states, you need to be able to hit a deer 100-200 yd away across a corn field. A shotgun generally can't reach that far accurately; slugs are less accurate and have a lower velocity. A coyote can hold up at 200-300 yards in the middle of a snowy field. Squirrels are often hunted with .22-cal rifles since you don't want to tear up the meat too badly. Bear are usually hunted with rifles since they're larger and tougher than deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #146)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:43 PM

176. First off what the hell are you hunting bears for? You don't need bear meat. And if Native

Americans could use a bow and arrow and my grandfather's could hit dear and moose with their shotguns than why can't you? You must not have that great aim then to have to rely on some slick gun to do it for you.

And if you can't get a good shot from 100-200 yards away then you move up closer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #176)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:42 PM

190. Bear meat makes good sausage

Black bears are a common species in the Eastern US that is widely hunted for it's meat. You might not like that fact, but they are legal to hunt in dozens of states, with their numbers actually increasing due to habitat management due to hunter-sponsored support.

And like I said, not all environments support "getting closer". Ever try to sneak across a newly cut cornfield towards a group of deer? You might as well be stalking them across a football field, absolutely no cover. Since your grandfather used a shotgun, and you stated he hunted moose, it sounds like he hunted in a heavily wooded area of New England very much unlike the mixture of woodlots and open field common throughout most of the country. And no "slick gun" out there shoots for you; it's HARDER to shoot at long range than at close range no matter what gun you're using. If my aim sucked, I'd be forced to get closer, not buy a new gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:53 PM

175. I hunt Ducks and Deer, when their 40- 50 yards or so with

shot gun, farther than that I use a rifle on Deer. If I'm in an area where the shot could be longer than 200 yards I use a bolt action rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:43 PM

173. I've hunted with an Browning auto rifle and shotgun sense 1969,

You aim and fire just like a bolt action rifle if a deer is running you can get another shot with an auto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:39 PM

28. Why does she need to pander to anyone?

She has a lock in CA for the foreseeable future, and she's probably retiring after one more term, if that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:58 PM

32. Because like most media personalities, she's emotionally invested in her relevance.

Politicians are, by necessity, media personalities and, if not egomaniacs, not very far from that status.

She's been invested politically and emotionally on this issue for a couple of decades now. I would think she sees herself as a hapless underdog, working to make America safer despite the self-centered-ness and ignorance of gun owners.

She's a smart person. She knows what she's selling is feel-good placebo stuff, but I would guess she thinks that, as the underdog beset on all sides by powerful interest groups and cultish gun owners, it's the best she can do, and maybe it will lead to a cultural change, or at least open the door for more laws later on.


And now, the Senate, which through inaction is making the lives of all 310 million of us measurably worse every single year, is now going to be tied up on this feel-good knee-jerk "never again" stuff instead.

We're 80% below the do-nothing Congress of 1947 (or thereabouts) in terms of legislative productivity. the country is sinking into an economic morass of corporatism and greed and dysfunction. And now the post-9/11 "never again" frantic mindset is going to distract time and resources away from THEIR failures as elected lawmakers to pass some pompous, useless, piece of crap.


We're going to spend the same amount of political capital as we did to get the ACA through, take the same legislative losses in 2014, all to ban... what? Bayonet mounts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:12 PM

57. ^^^ exactly correct ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:58 PM

69. you don't know what you're talking about as you illustrated upthread

you posted a gun advocate meme to apply to a politician who became mayor via assassination via immediate succession to office.

and then said she was just "pandering".

the week of the Jonestown massacres and assassinations by gun of Leo Ryan, and shooting of current congressperson Jackie Speier.

you had a nice little narrative which ignorance of the facts allowed you to believe and post

and the thing is it's all BULLSHIT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #69)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:11 PM

83. Fail. Your factually deficient insult doesn't seem to be working.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:09 PM

81. x2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:53 PM

68. she's not pandering on this, she became mayor via assassination

and has supported vigorous gun control ever since.

Krispos doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Just completely ignorant of the topic he just decided to bloviate on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:14 PM

85. Fail. Your factually deficient insult doesn't seem to be working.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #68)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:00 PM

101. Another fail on your part

Pelosi is really the wrong stalwart for this one as others here have pointed out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:50 PM

49. Let Her Pander If It Moves Us To A World Without These Weapons Of Mass Destruction

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:51 PM

65. Feinstein has been pro-gun control since colleagues Mayor Moscone and Sup. Milk were assassinated

what's the matter with you? if you don't know what you're talking about just BE QUIET.

this incident is how Feinstein become mayor of San Francisco in 1978. by succession upon the assassination of Mayor Moscone.

she was the one who announced that they were assassinated.


this was the same week that my congressman, Leo Ryan was assassinated in Guyana and current congressperson, Jackie Speier was shot in the same incident.

but you are SO IGNORANT of this history that you've allowed yourself to make a stupid statement about Feinstein on this topic, NOT knowing a thing about why she has come to the positions she has --Jackie Speier is also vigorously anti-gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:20 PM

86. Fail. Your factually deficient insult doesn't seem to be working.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:54 PM

87. I know about that

Here is the question, though. I'm assuming that she is a smart, intelligent person. She had to know her proposal is all about cosmetic features that does not affect the operation of the gun in the slightest.

Then why is this being proposed as a solution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #87)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:01 PM

93. We don't even know

what Feinstein's proposal is. There was an assault weapons ban done previously that people didn't like because it was hard to determine what is or isn't an assault weapon, especially if one were to personally modify the weapon (removing or replacing stock, removing bayonet mount, etc).

What do you think would happen if Feinstein drafted legislation that would really mean something? Maybe a maximum number of bullets in a magazine. Maybe all future guns must have biometric sensors. Maybe all bullets must have ID numbers stamped on them. I don't know. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #93)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:51 PM

112. I understand that...

...she re-introduces what is the basically the same thing every session; the previous AWB, only with no sunset clause.

And I believe that included in the AWB proposal is a magazine-capacity limit of 10 rounds.

We could try that again, but I doubt it will do anything except irritate people. Remember, there are probably over a billion "pre-ban" magazines in the country for the various guns that use them, and properly maintained they will last for decades or centuries.

And many states still have a magazine-capacity limit. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc.

And while we're focusing on the slaughter in Newtown, we're forgetting that 44 people a day are murdered in America, about 30 or so of them with guns. And most of those killed with guns were were handguns, with only a handful of shots fired, and by somebody they are familiar with.

The problem with biometric guns is that they are unproven, and will of course add considerably to the cost of a gun. I don't see the police rushing to embrace the technology, for example, and they carry guns every day. I say, let the fuzz be the testbed for such technologies. If it works, it will trickle down into civilian firearm sales. At that point, maybe we can consider making it law, when it's proven, common, and cheap.

I'm not against it, but it has not been developed and I would not trust it if my life depended on it.


As to bullet serial numbers, that's got a host of problems. One is the sheer logistics of keeping track of bullets with numbers stamped on them. Remember, every bullet in a box of ammo has to have the same number, and it has to match the printed number on the box. Bullets are mass-produced; it would like trying to put a serial number on every chicken nugget McDonald's sells.

Because the bullet is crimped in the brass case, the buyer can't verify that number on the box is what's really on the bullet. AND, finally, it would require ammunition registration... which would not help much with stolen guns and stolen ammunition.



What we're really looking at is people frantically looking for some way to prevent the un-preventable, in this case a low-probability but high-impact mass murder.

People are saying "take away all guns!", which of course will not work.

"Take away assault weapons", which simply means people will buy "almost-assault weapons", or "sporting weapons", and those will instead be used.

"Ban high-capacity magazines", which doesn't affect used magazines, and even with limited-capacity magazines great slaughter can be committed in a short time due to reloading.



I've got solutions to lower the overall crime rate. I don't have any solutions to lone-wolf, unplanned mass shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #65)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:22 PM

121. No gun legislation will be passed until

we control all three branches of government. We've got two down (President and Supreme Court nominees) and one to go. We must take back the House of Representatives in 2014. It's been made clear this is a matter of life and death. It couldn't be more clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

3. It should have NEVER been lifted to begin with...

...and while were at it, get rid of gun shows.

You want to buy a firearm, you do it the same as every other law abiding citizen at a federally licensed dealer, not a fairground livestock shed in west Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:38 AM

7. The federally licensed dealers are pretty much the entire gun show.

Or at least as relates to buying and selling guns.


Gun shows attract federally-licensed dealers from all over the region to buy and sell guns. And because they're FFLs, they do the entire background check, waiting period, whatever state and federal law requires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:41 AM

8. It still contributes to the 'gun culture' stigma

A gun show in and of itself is a sick idea of 'entertainment'

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:43 AM

12. So you want to wage a culture war, then?

This will somehow save more live and make the country a better place to live than, say, universal single-payer health insurance or legalizing pot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:06 PM

72. you started off posting in this thread with a big blast of ignorance, why take you seriously now?

maybe by now you'll actually realize where that politician's gun policies came from.

and then you'll probably try to convince us that you knew all that anyway.

you may be crafting a response that salvages your reputation.

if you had spent the time learning history instead of just gun history...

you might have know it, or at least, not having known it, realized that your broad brush statement of a gun control proponent doesn't apply to every politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:12 PM

84. Fail. Your factually deficient insult doesn't seem to be working.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:10 PM

116. Like I said...

...she has to know that her AWB proposal is mostly cosmetic. It's window dressing. It's trying to ban weapons that operate in a certain way BUT have too many cosmetic features on them that look military.

The only thing in the proposal that might, MIGHT, in the future sometime, make a difference is the ban on 11+ magazines.

So why did she propose it? Either she knows it's fluff, but it will satisfy the public's demand for action, or she wants to do more but knows it won't pass Congress.


She became the mayor after the two people above her in the line of succession were assassinated by a man with a handgun. She's been a leading proponent of gun control for quite a while now. People are looking to her and a few other politicians for leadership on this issue, and she brings up the same thing as was done 18 years ago.

She's got the spotlight on her.


Remember, it wasn't very long ago that people on DU were hoping she would get primaried and replaced with a progressive, because they were very tired of her being a 3rd Way-type on things like national security, warrantless wiretapping, and a whole litany of other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:06 PM

94. Yes, it is a culture war

and that war must be won to remove the culture of killing and death.

Germany and Japan (hate to Godwin this thread) had a fairly militaristic bent for most of their histories. After WWII, both have culturally defanged themselves, with some resistance (not much, of course, given that their most militaristic people were killed in war or executed or jailed after the war). They both now have a very pacifistic culture and attitude. The same can happen here in the US, but for some reason, there's a group of people who think "shoot first and ask questions later" is the right mindset.

Well, there's no such thing as a "right mindset". It all depends on the context and situation. But given that the situation we have here is generally peaceful, getting people to be more peaceful as their new cultural identity would be a nice thing to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #94)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:44 PM

126. Well, violent-crime rates are down pretty good

The last generation has seen the rates drop by nearly half, to rates not seen since the late 1960's.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:27 PM

41. It's no more "entertainment" than a farmers market (to extend your obvious analogy and bias). n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:06 AM

136. So No Loop Hole?

That is Your Argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #136)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:49 AM

142. That's been my argument.

I actually support making private transactions go through a background check. The issue is that there is no "loophole", but the talking-point is hammered like a blacksmith forging a horseshoe, and it dodges the real issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #142)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:07 PM

160. OK

I'll bite. Which is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #160)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:06 PM

167. Private transactions should still go through a background check

There are various ways to do this. The simplest is to make private transactions go through an FFL.

Another way to do a background check when you get a government-issued ID, and mark the ID as "okay to buy a gun", or "unable to buy a gun". Then the seller can just check the buyer's ID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #167)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:30 AM

168. Interesting

first suggestion is better than second in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #168)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:57 AM

170. It uses the existing infrastructure

and the ATF could make a special FFL for people that want to act as a transfer agent, but not as a gun seller. I can see a number of people specializing in that category who want to make some extra money.



Ultimately, though, this has to be mandated on a state level. It's my understanding that the feds can't govern in-state private transfers.

And of course, the state has to keep its goddamn database up to date!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #170)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:38 PM

171. hhmmmm

Sounds like that's would be a challenge.

Very frustrating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Earth_First (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:51 PM

111. It wasn't lifted

 

It was a 10 year ban, and expired on its own in 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:34 AM

4. As she has done every year since 2004

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:35 AM

5. Don't know why the assault ban was allowed to expire in the first place n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:41 AM

9. That was W. that let it expire..........

Fuck Bush!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddaman (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:47 AM

14. Actually, W said he'd sign it if Congress put the bill on his desk

 

FWIW, but a renewal never made it out of committee in either the House or the Senate.

Proponents of a renewal had 10 years to make a case for it, and they came up empty-handed. No evidence that the law improved public safety one iota.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddaman (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:31 PM

24. Bush didn't let it expire,

 

the Congress let it expire, bush said that if it made it to his desk, he would sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddaman (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:31 PM

43. Belive it or not, it wasn't his fault.

 

You can't blame everything on that asshole, no matter how convenient it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:08 PM

95. He knew it wasn't going to hit his desk

so he can say anything politically expedient. This way, he can say he's for "gun control" and know that he'll still placate his base because they know he's working with congress to never let that bill see the light of day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #95)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:53 PM

113. Blame the authors of the 1994 ban

 

They made it a 10 year ban rather than permanent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buddaman (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:05 AM

155. W said he would sign an extension. Congress didn't pass one, probably because it's a dumb law

Congress seems to have come to its senses and realized it was a stupid law, though they didn't come up with a better one to replace it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:42 AM

10. Because it was a dumb idea.

And it remains so.

It tries to draw an imaginary line between sporting and unacceptable semi-automatic firearms. The defining characteristics are cosmetic items, not functional ones.


I can have a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, as long as it only has ONE item from the following list:



Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Rifle-grenade launcher


If I only have one or none of the features, it's not an assault weapon.



Take your AK-47, grind off the bayonet lug or weld the folding stock in place, and *boom*, it's a sporting long arm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:42 AM

11. I remember the debates in Congress well. The 10-year sunset clause was one of the last compromises.

 

There were a couple of (IIRC) Republican members of the House who would not have voted for it without the sunset clause.

IOW without that compromise it never would have been passed in the first place. That's how close the vote was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:23 PM

20. Because both parties, R & D, refused to do it. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:22 PM

37. You could have purchased a virtually identical weapon while the AWB was in effect.

Not to mention, both Connecticut and New Jersey also ban purchasing "assault weapons" using the same definition of "assault weapon." Yup, sounds like a real effective law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:29 PM

42. Beacause it was useless law that had no measurable effect on crime. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:55 AM

15. And when some right wing moron yells "Obama is taking away my guns!!11!!" you reply

no, a shooter in Connecticut did that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:31 PM

23. Perfect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:17 PM

59. That's actually pretty profoundly true. If the mother had kept those guns securely locked up

perhaps this could have been avoided.

The gun culture will be its own undoing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:22 PM

60. Meanwhile, back in reality.

The perpetrator of this act is dead and has no volition. Any action afterward is on the hands of those that take it.

Actions are ultimately the responsibility of those that choose to take them. You cannot blame anyone but the shooter for this. You cannot blame the shooter for the actions that came after his death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:52 PM

66. And like many people

who frequent the gudgeon, you are now on ignore.

And I won't part without this little tidbit...

Newton gunman blasted his way in, says Connecticut Gov. Malloy
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/16/newton-gunman-blasted-his-way-in-says-connecticut-gov-malloy/

The gunman in the Connecticut school massacre that left 20 small children dead blasted his way through a locked glass door, climbed through and proceeded with his killing spree, the state governor said on Sunday.

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

if there was no gun, there would have been no blasting through the locked glass door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:03 PM

17. If the weapons are bannec

The ones already registered should be turned in

Laws need to be tough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:05 PM

18. They're registered only in a handful of states

 

A large majority of ordinary firearms (meaning non-NFA) aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:33 PM

25. None of my weapons are registered.

 

Not required by law where I live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainstreetonce (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:32 PM

44. Are you volunteering to be on the door-to-door confiscation team?

 

Point-man or nothing....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:11 PM

19. This does not even go far enough, not even close

We need to go the way of Australia and Germany!

If you havent read it yet, read the excellent Mothers Jones story on mass shootings. In the last 30 years ONE gun owner stopped possible more murders. The other two gun owners that tried to intervene, one was killed and the other severely wounded and barely slowed the murderers down.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to horsedoc (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:27 PM

22. More than one. Here is a list:

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Mass Shootings Stopped
Pearl MS school shooting stopped by armed citizen 1997:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Golden Food Market Shooting 2009 (Edit - New Link. Old one didn't work)
http://blasphemes.blogspot.com/2009/07/golden-food-market-shootout-update.html

New Life Church Shooting 2007
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1638879

Winnemuccca, NV bar shooting, 2008
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

Trolley Square Mall
4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

LAC stops bar shooting in Plymouth, PA
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-shooter-wasn-t-provoked-1.1371854

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:20 PM

36. 3rd link apparently not working

FYI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:40 PM

64. Thanks. I fixed it. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:25 PM

21. Feinstein just give those seats away

Talk about trying to give Republicans more seats. I am about as progressive as you can get except for the gun issue what really gets me is every time the left talks about guns they always say we are not trying to take your right to hunt away that's not the issue. The issue is about being able to protect yourself and your home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djnicadress (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:34 PM

26. Enjoy your stay. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djnicadress (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:41 PM

29. Yeah and the issue requires a little more thought

than buying a hunting rifle. The "Left" of which I am proud to be a member of recognize that the USA has had more mass gun slayings than any country (except perhaps Yemen) in the last ten years. How many guns do you really need to hunt down a fleeing deer? and by the way--Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tutonic (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:34 PM

45. What arbitrary limit do you propose, and why? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djnicadress (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:05 PM

33. Why not hunt with a bow and arrow? Or a spear?

Why does a ban on guns hinder your "right" to hunt? Speaking of which, why is hunting a right? We have advanced enough as a society where we no longer need to hunt in order to survive. Mother Nature managed to control wildlife populations for millions of years without relying on humans for assistance. I don't see why we need to continue to interfere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:39 PM

46. Some people like being a little more in touch with where their food comes from.

 

It doesn't appear in neat plastic packages by magic. Hunting is actually being closer to the process, rather than divorcing oneself from it.


And humans have always evolved more efficient tools for every purpose. Hunting is no different. But with that efficiency comes a need for good management practices, especially since we've nearly eradicated most predator species and continued to expand our own habitat. Hunting is not, and never should be, the primary control method, but it currently plays an important part of the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:10 PM

73. You don't know much about game management do you?

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Humans have greatly altered the predator/prey balance by almost eleminating the major predators. That causes prey poplation to grow unchecked until they consume their food supply and have a massive, sudden, die-off. Human hunting stabilizes the prey population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #73)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:20 PM

89. Do you value human life?

We should stop interfering in the predator\prey populations worldwide and let nature run its course, even if it means sudden die offs from overpopulation. That's a small price to pay to prevent another massacre like the one on Friday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:06 PM

159. No not really


Human hunting COULD stabilize animal populations, but the goal of wildlife management agencies is to expand the number of hunting opportunities, nothing more/nothing less. Hunting has very little to do with actual science.

Human hunting is an erratic, non rational and non scientific way to 'manage' a population. While some hunters hunt for food, many hunt for the thrill of the kill and the trophy. Next time you go to the house of your hunter friend with deer heads hanging on his wall, ask him where the does are? Nowhere, because they don't make for acceptable trophies.

Hunters selectively take the actual animal that should be LEFT in the herd. Hunters should be taking the old, weak, sick, injured, ugly if you will. No, the hunters take what THEY want. When hunters shoot wolves, who do they want? The alpha, because that's the best, when (if you're taking a wolf) another member of the pack should be removed so as to not disrupt the social balance of the pack.

I am seeing data, slow coming, showing prey biomass in direct influence of human hunting is retarded as compared to natural hunting. Hunters are the ones who WANT to remove predators so as to expand hunting opportunities for the hunter. Hunters want to replace predators, but the trouble is they just can't do it...at least not as effectively as a natural predator.

I have no issue with hunting. It's actually more humane (though less natural) than natural predation. However, don't pretend hunters are some sort of quasi-scientists out there preserving the delicate balance of nature, because they aren't. The only thing hunters care about is hunting.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwolf68 (Reply #159)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:14 PM

162. Depends upon the game.

If one is hunting small game (rabbit, squirrel, etc.) then you are hunting meat. There are no trophy rabbits.

I one is hunting larger game, then the permits are managed by the state. There are no doe heads on the wall, but that doesn't mean they aren't in the freezer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djnicadress (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:07 PM

34. Not going to work. Don't waste your time.

A world of gun control is coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djnicadress (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:02 PM

53. Bull

No one needs an assault weapon to protect their family.

Enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:56 PM

31. Even if it passes, it is a crying shame (literally), that it would take the murders of so many

children and heroic educators all at once to just get some sensible restrictions. Also, that the NRA continues to resist any and all restrictions instead of coming to the table with their own proposals. There is an old saying, "If you keep doing what you have always done, you will get what you always got!" I guess the staus quo is perfectly acceptable with them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:11 PM

117. I think....

the reason the NRA fights any regulation is the same reason why pro-choice groups fight any regulation or limit on abortion. They are both afraid of the slippery slope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:07 PM

35. And make it stick. Don't let it expire in 10 years

the way the previous one was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:22 PM

38. +1000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:26 PM

40. I doubt it will succeed.

 

There's only one way to ban "assault weapons".

And that is to ban all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.

The problem with the AWB is it was all about cosmetics. It banned nothing based on functionality.

You could have any two: detachable magazine, pistol grip, threaded muzzle, or bayonet lug.

So all the manufacturers/importers did was grind off the threads and bayonet lug.

In places like California where you still can't have the pistol grip people have made funky stocks that make it awkward to hold the gun but make it comply with the letter of the law and do not change the functionality of the firearm at all:



Nothing about the furniture changes the fact that an AR rifle is still an AR rifle.

The only effective, real assault weapons ban will have to ban all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.

That is going to be an awful long row to hoe. You are talking about firearms that have been in circulation for over 100 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:43 PM

48. Point taken. So lobby and advocate for a a bill

that will work.

As for the "awful long row to hoe" I can remember as recently as 2008 being told that endorsing marriage equality would doom the Democratic Party to minority status for at least another fifty years.

Times change. Events, as they say, "are in the saddle" and the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of the American people will support a sane and effective ban on hyper-lethal hyper-effective killing machines.

Those that won't, for the most part, vote GOP anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:55 PM

114. It would probably be struck down by the SC anyway

 

Maybe even on grounds of the 10th Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:42 PM

47. Compare and Contrast:

It's instructive that in the same time frame that the slaughter in Newtown took place, a knife-wielder in China attacked an elementary school class and injured 21 children. He was able to terrorize the children, and injure so many.....but not a single child ( so far? ) has died. Gun ownership is NOT a right ( what State Militias? ) but a privilege, and one that needs stringent regulation. Enough is enough. The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment is destroying my rights under the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TinkerTot55 (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:16 PM

74. Gun ownership IS a right.

It is settled law. You can quit beating that dead horse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

50. I say limit the magazine to 5 rounds. If you are caught with a....

larger magazine it's a felony.
And it's a beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:53 PM

51. Making it harder for the mentally unstable to obtain firearms?

How do you get a bill through Congress that makes it difficult for Republicans to buy a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:57 PM

52. Again?

 

Oh right, it's another year so that means she gets another chance to introduce an AWB bill. 0/8 so far and I don't think that will improve this year. Or next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:03 PM

54. What does "not retroactively but prospectively.." mean, anyway

The day they outlawed pot, it wouldn't have been a crime to have had it (and presumably smoked it up) a week earlier, but after that day, your stash was contraband.

There's a lot for the reich wing to dissect in her words today...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:08 PM

56. And this bill will do absolutely nothing to prevent another massacre, except

cause another 20 million or so semi-auto rifles to be sold before the bill passes.

10 round clips? Fine, just carry a backpack full of them.

No more AR-15s? Fine, just grab a Ruger Mini-14 (functionally the same, but not particularly scary looking).

The 100 million or so that are out there? They'll stay out there.

Typical stupid government response. Fact is, absolutely nothing can be done to prevent mass shootings. A determined killer will outsmart every move the government can make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:16 PM

119. True

The worst school massacre in this country occured in Bath township, MI in 1927. The killer used bombs to kill 45 people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:13 PM

58. Could we require a license to operate a gun like we require a license to drive a car?


I suspect we would need a license to own a gun instead of a license to operate a gun.

Here me out.

Drivers must, regularly, renew driving licenses.
We do this because we don't want unsafe drivers on the road.

Drivers must take a written driving test.
They get an eye examination.
On rare occasion they may even need to take a behind the wheel driving test.

Why can't we require something similar for gun ownership?

Shouldn't they take a written examination to see if they remember how to handle a gun?
Shouldn't they, if they wish to hunt, demonstrate they know what they can hunt?
Shouldn't they, if they wish a gun for protection, demonstrate they know when to use lethal force?
Shouldn't they demonstrate gun proficiency? Shouldn't they get a regular eye examination?
Shouldn't they get a regular background check?
I would go so far as to ask, is there a psychological test they could be forced to take to show they won't snap and use their guns as weapons against other people? I read, somewhere, Israel is very good at interrogating people, to weed out potential terrorists. Can we do something similar?

Could someone who has a permit to carry a revolver tell me if they need a regular examination?
Is this regular examination rigorous enough?

For hunters, why can't we have a similar, regular examination?

I realize people will say they don't want to register their guns for fear those lists will be used to take away their guns. Sadly, we are reaching a point when the safety of innocents must trump their fears. We have to deal with guns in the hands of unstable people, somehow. We have to deal with guns that are stolen, somehow. Too many innocent people have died.

Personally, I would let people keep weapons for hunting purposes, but would want those weapons registered and would want the people possessing those weapons having regular examinations.

I realize hunters would object, but what if hunting weapons were kept in a locked area in a police station? What if hunting weapons could be checked out for cleaning, for target practice, for hunting?

I would not outlaw hunting.

I would let people own a revolver for protection if they submit to regular examinations including psychological examinations.

I like the idea of a buyback of guns to get guns off the street.

To those who say, if we follow my advice, only criminals will have guns, I respond, we can't do nothing. We have to find a way to reduce the number of guns out there and control the guns that are out there. Why not make it harder for criminals to get guns? We have to start somewhere.

Too many innocent people have died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:24 PM

61. Adam Lanza would be in big trouble under your proposal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:31 PM

92. You don't need a license to drive on private property, only on public roads

you don't need a license to own a gun on private property but you need one to carry one in public.

You are looking for something that is not there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:39 PM

166. I would suggest they need a license even if the gun were kept on private property.


I would suggest they need regular examinations to keep their guns no matter where there guns are kept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #166)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:17 AM

169. Some states require such licenses - it is a state matter.

what kind of examinations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #169)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:01 PM

188. I honestly don't know what kind of examinations should be done.


I seek suggestions.

I believe some sort of psychological examination.
I believe an examination regarding the laws of gun ownership.
I believe a physical examination such as an eye examination.
I believe a practical examination shooting a gun to prove capability to handle a gun.

I believe such an examination should be yearly.

I don't know what to include in a psychological examination.
I am not a psychologist. I don't know what psychologists can learn.
I don't know how effective a psychological examination will be.

I'm trying to find a solution for hunters.
Hunters don't need automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

I don't know what kind of solution should be available for self defense.
I don't believe one needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon for self defense.

I would tightly regulate gun ownership. I would tightly regulate the kind of guns that can be owned.

If I had my way, all guns and ammo would be stored at a central police facility.
People would have to check out their gun, plus a small amount of ammo.
They would have to explain what they why they wanted their gun each time they got it.

My biggest problem is finding a way to deal with people who can prove they need a gun for self defense.
I don't know what to think about these people.

Are there statistics that show the effectiveness of guns in the home for self defense?
If I should learn guns are not effective in homes for self defense, I would not want self defense to be used as an excuse to possess a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #188)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:31 AM

189. You need to read Heller

self defense is a constitutionally protected right. People have a right to keep guns in their homes for self defense. You cannot ban entire classes of guns. You cannot mandate home storage requirements that render the gun unusable for self defense.

I suggest before trying to pass new laws you take the time to study and understand existing law and judicial precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:07 PM

62. To all you idiots who says she's pandering

How many more babies must die before you all get this? HOW MANY MORE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:02 PM

70. What you are asking for is not what she is proposing.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:31 AM

147. I'm not asking for an all out ban you idiot. God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #147)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:31 PM

163. I never said you were asking for an all out ban.

(Reading is fundimental...)

However, if you choose to educate yourself by reading the old AWB and its various re-proposals, you will find that what you desire and what is being proposed are two very different things.

Feel free to ask questions, we are happy to help you understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:04 PM

71. I don't think she is pandering, but there is nothing in this bill that would have

stopped this shooting. There are literally hundreds of millions of semi-automatic firearms out there, both rifles and pistols, that would not be affected by this ban.

These types of so-called assault weapon bans speak only to the cosmetics of the gun, not the function, and are very easily circumvented when the manufactures simply remove a feature or two, like a flash suppressor or or bayonet lug. But the function of the weapon are unaffected.

As to limiting magazines to a 10 round capacity, a shooter can simply carry a backpack full of them and still bring hundreds of rounds of ammunition to a school/mall/theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:16 PM

63. This will give a big boost to Scott Brown's campaign

But, hey, who needs that Senate seat?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:50 PM

76. Let me remind you wus Brown lost by 8 points.

Dems got some strong candidates they could run against him. I'm not worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:02 PM

79. The federal assault weapon ban in its traditional form was worthless

I'll be interested to see what changes, if any, they make. If they just try the one that was around before its more of a PR stunt than anything since it is worthless and doesn't actually ban anything, mainly just the way they look and everything that's already around is grandfathered anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:16 PM

96. Banning these guns will not past the "dudes" in Congress

 

My suggesting is two fold... People can have all the guns they desire. The ammo (bullet)that will determine who shoots the guns. The first shell (ammo) will cost $400.00 and any shell thereafter will be $50.00 ea. All ammo can only be purchase from federal ammo centers with a fully background check and proof of gun that is registered with Federal Gov't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:08 PM

80. With such legislation, at least we won't have to worry about another job-transferring "free-trade"

 

agreement, letting the statute of limitations run out against the banksters (they are almost officially immune from prosecution), or the cost of the endless wars in the Middle-East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:24 PM

97. It seems what we need is a constitutional amendment

...Which will never pass anything in this political environment. Banning "assault weapons" gets us nowhere just as it did in the '90s and will not prevent similar horrors from happening. It's not 1791 anymore. We don't have a need for "well regulated militias" that "keep and bear arms."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:47 PM

99. If it's the old 1994 AWB, it will be useless

I was still selling brand-new AR-15 rifles in the gun store I worked at in college in 1999-2000. Fully legal under the 1994 AWB, background checks OK'd through the ATF, all the paperwork done, etc.

All the manufacturers did was remove the bayonet lugs and folding stocks and call them "target rifles" or "varmint rifles".

If the AWB had never been lifted, the school shooter would still have had access to that AR-15 he used. It would have still fired at the same rate. The high-capacity mags would still have been available (any made before 1994 were grandfathered in). It would have still been just as lethal. It wouldn't have changed a damn thing, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #99)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:40 AM

149. then help write a better law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #149)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:57 AM

150. I'd love to, but I can't find any good ideas

My wife and I have been discussing this since it happened. Just a couple nights ago, it was a hot topic at a big dinner a friend threw. We all came up with nothing, and we like to consider ourselves fairly intelligent, college-educated professionals.

Like I said, the old AWB was all about cosmetics, not functionality, so renewing it wouldn't make a difference. You have to focus on the functioning of the rifle, what makes it so lethal, but that's virtually impossible to enforce.

Short of a police state, we can't ban and round up all the assault-style rifles currently out there. You could offer to buy them back, but with 50 million of them out there at $1000 and up each, you run into funding issues, and then what do you do to get the ones people don't voluntarily turn in?

Most handguns today are semi-autos, and function the same way as those assault-style rifles. I seriously doubt we could ever get those banned either, given how widespread they are.

There are tens of millions of perfectly legal, non-assault-style hunting rifles that use the same semi-automatic functioning that the AR-15 uses that would be caught in any kind of functionality ban. Millions of shotguns for duck hunting are semi-auto, for example, as well as the .22-rimfire rifle I like to use for target practice and hunting squirrels and rabbits in the fall.

Ban all but 10-rd magazines? That's fine with me, but it doesn't change much. You can reload an AR-15 in about 5 seconds, and if you grandfather in old 30-rd magazines they'll be easy to find online for sale. If you tried to ban them and destroy all of them, good luck. There are literally hundreds of millions of them in this country.

The background check system is already pretty good as it is. A waiting period wouldn't hurt anyone, but it wouldn't do much good either, so it's right up there with banning cosmetic features on guns. Same goes for 1-gun-per-month rules.

Ever since this shooting, I've been reading posts here on DU about it, hoping someone would give some good ideas that would both improve safety in this country AND stand up to the court challenges. Mostly though, all I've seen is "fuck guns, ban them all!" without any thought given to the fact that the Supreme Court would never sign off on that. When that's pointed out, it becomes "fuck the Supreme Court", like that's any better.

Mental health screening would help, but by all accounts the mom was the one purchasing the guns, not the son. Plus, it sounds like she had more than enough money to get her son the proper treatment for his personality disorders, but just didn't want to. How do you treat that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #150)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:01 AM

152. right, so you just encourage us to give up

and you've given up.

because you don't really want any regulation in the first place.

2nd tier of NRA talking point training.

1) don't discuss gun control (too soon); gun control doesn't work
2) gun control is a great idea, but there's no way to do it right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #152)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:19 AM

157. No, I'm asking for suggestions

Like I said, 90% of what I've read here so far is basically a reiteration of "ban all the guns" and "fuck the Supreme Court's rulings".

If you can suggest something that actually has teeth, I'm more than willing to listen. I honestly don't care if they renewed the 1994 AWB; it doesn't affect the guns I like to hunt and target shoot with. I don't give a damn what the NRA says, because I cancelled my membership with them over 10 years ago when I voted for Gore in 2000.

My problem is that the 1994 AWB was all about cosmetic features that did NOTHING to actually control the spread of assault-style weapons. I was selling AR-15's brand new from the gun shop I worked in during college in 1999 that were AWB-compliant. They still shot as fast, hit as hard, and were as accurate as ones made before or after the AWB. This isn't an NRA talking point; it's the truth. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less real.

If we want to actually do something, we need far MORE than what was in the AWB. The problem is, when assault rifles and common hunting guns and guns for self-defense share so many features, where do you draw the line? How do you regulate dangerous weapons without infringing on rights the Supreme Court has ruled US citizens have to own guns for self-defense?

If you have some ideas, I'd be more than happy to listen to them and discuss their pluses and minuses with you as adults. Like I said, I want us to do something to address this. I have a little girl who will be three this spring; I don't want to have to worry about sending her off to school or taking her to the mall. But, we also need to present some serious laws that could actually stand a chance of standing up to Supreme Court scrutiny. Like it or not, those are the rules we currently have to play by.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:03 PM

102. The MSNBC Shows

will be on fire tomorrow. Especially Lawrence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:08 PM

104. I seriously hope it includes an enforcement provision that allows for

searches of homes and seizure of banned guns from recalcitrant gun nuts. Because they are going to need it. And I fully support such measures now.

We the People are coming for your dangerous toys, you freaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:17 AM

129. Are you calling for warrantless searches and seizures?

Because law enforcement already has the ability to get search warrants for people suspected of violating gun laws.

The bill Feinstein is proposing would grandfather in all assault weapons and magazines manufactured and sold before her ban would go into effect. From the OP's link:

It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively.


It sounds like a simple rehash of the original 1994 AWB. Thus, there would be no need to seize banned guns, since the bill would only ban the sale of NEW assault weapons.

Feinstein's bill wouldn't give anyone the right to be "coming for your dangerous toys", as you said. If it is indeed just a reintroduction of the 1994 AWB, AR-15's will still be as available after it's introduction as they are now, just like they were during the 1990's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:35 AM

132. Feinstein's bill doesn't go nearly far enough.

Time to yank every last one of those things out of circulation and melt them all down.

I no longer give one whit about how gun owners feel about this sort of thing, BTW. They have collectively lost their right to complain.

Sorry. I have had QUITE enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #132)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:47 AM

133. So, police state it is then?

Because the only way we'll see every one of those guns melted down in our lifetimes is if we nullify Supreme Court rulings and precedents and say fuck it to the rule of law.

I'd rather not throw our entire justice system out the window if it can be avoided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #133)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:04 AM

182. The Supreme Court used to say slavery was ok and now it doesn't.

I rest my case.

A nation without guns would be pretty effing nice right about now. People obsessed with their guns and their gun rights absolutely terrify me. Because they are cowards who shoot first and ask questions later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:53 PM

181. need to round up all the "odd" people and put them in a hole also just to be safe I assume?

 

does this sound rational to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #129)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:38 AM

145. More like advocating violence against citizens.

 

Search and seisure is usually done with gun barrels going in first.

Political power does come from the barrel of a gun. (Mao)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:09 PM

105. The Republicans want to revert back to the old west

The Republicans, or as I like to call them, the "Regressive Party", want to go backwards again. The NRA has them under their thumb with the threat of funding an opposition candidate in the primary if any of them vote for stricter gun laws. So, today I have heard a number of conservatives say the answer to this tragedy is more guns - arm everybody...Yee haw!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe the Progressive (Reply #105)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:17 PM

120. Welcome to DU, Joe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe the Progressive (Reply #105)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:19 AM

185. Guns: boy-toys for boys that never grew up.

They are like 8-year-olds playing cowboy. They probably watched The Lone Ranger and numerous other westerns on TV, and never really grew up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:35 PM

108. Closing the barn door after the horses have wandered off sounds like a bad idea

The problem is all those guns have reached superstar status. It seems to me that probably more than half our blockbuster movies, our military and a good part of culture revolves around some kind of gun or such. It's the problem solver and just about everything else it seems. Sort of like outlawing drugs after half the population has become junkies.

The problem is education about the mythical thing known as 'firearm'. Only god (if you believe in such) and gravity has more power than the gun in our society.
I feel sorry for all that has happened but we brought it on ourselves and maybe even thousands of laws will not change the status of superstar known as "the gun"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:35 PM

109. Call it

The Missing Children of Sandy Forks Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:23 PM

122. Question is will it withstand a SCOTUS challenge? 20 years ago I would have said it had a 50/50

chance of not being thrown out but now after the way Bush stacked the court I would guess it has a 20% chance of survival assuming it even can get passed with congress being controlled by the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:56 PM

127. Feinstein has had a safe seat for a twenty years

in a State that had its own assault gun ban. She hasn't worked hard for doing something about assault guns since the 1990s, when she just kinda gave up.

She became mayor of San Francisco on the back of a gun tragedy and was a new Senator when she rode the 101 California Street assault gun massacre to the nation's assault weapons laws. Then she coasted.

I wish her the best with this project, but she should have kept the bully pulpit on this issue for the past 20 years rather than coasting.

I am in favor of treating gun use and ownership and possession like cars. Licensing and regular mental health certifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:28 AM

131. Ban magazines of more than 5 bullets while you're at it.

And throw something in there about harsh mandatory sentencing for negligent gun owners, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:15 AM

139. Carpe diem, Senator! Make us proud of you!

What my Senator and Chuck Schumer are talking about would be an excellent start, and THIS IS THE MOMENT.

I hope you all can stand the comparison, but LBJ rammed through Civil Rights legislation in the aftermath of JFK's assassination. Screw that politicization-shaming, you have to get people when they are still shocked, outraged, and revulsed to the core.

Barack Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, but he can throw his Executive weight behind such bills, and with Feinstein and Schumer adding their weight in the Senate, Gods help us all, it could pass.

Hekate

edited to add: for Creek Dog's factually and historically correct information in his post #65 and others in this thread, i.e.,

65. Feinstein has been pro-gun control since colleagues Mayor Moscone and Sup. Milk were assassinated

My comment: Good Lord, when did all of this bloody history become forgotten and lied about? She was THERE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:03 AM

143. This will cause a rush on the stores!

The gun manufacturers and stores will love her! I wonder if supplies will dwindle and prices "shoot" up this week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blandocyte (Reply #143)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:39 AM

148. who the hell cares?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:00 AM

151. An assault weapons ban like Connecticut has?

*facepalm*

If you want to ban semi-automatic rifles, ban semi-automatic rifles. The Assault Weapons Ban was stupid in 1994 and is stupid now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:04 AM

154. See...this is the real problem:

Powerful politicians will not do anything unless they have their name on it. This process needs to end, and they need to drop their ego level. Honestly though, how can they know what to do if they've never lived it, or experienced it? How can we allow this vicious useless cycle to continue? They don't know how to fix anything, and they need We the People to do it for them. I'll step up to the plate, and I'll make the first hit...
I need to know the pros and cons of amending our 2nd Amendment. This will help me begin my thought process, and brainstorm for tomorrow's change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:16 AM

156. Banning assault weapons makes sense. Who's watch did this happen under, I wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mother earth (Reply #156)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:23 AM

158. Except they weren't banned in 1994

The manufacturers removed the bayonet attachments and folding stocks, and called them "semi-automatic target rifles". Perfectly legal to do, as they complied with the letter of the law.

Millions of AR-15's and AK-47 clones were sold during the AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #158)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:01 PM

161. Then that should be taken into consideration. If someone is hell bent on death and destruction,

they'll find a way, no matter what laws are in place. I'd be more interested in the red flags of those buying bullet proof vests & volumes of ammunition, those are red flags & should warrant scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #158)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:49 PM

172. Exactly. "Assault weapons" are still banned in California. And yet you can find them in any gunshop.

Why? Because the "assault weapon" name itself simply denotes cosmetic features. When those features are outlawed, the manufacturers just tweak the cosmetics so they no longer qualify as assault rifles.

I've always liked this image because it illustrates the problem perfectly:



At the end of the day, both pencils can do the same thing. One just has more "stuff" on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:28 PM

164. The Time To Act is Now

 

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:03 AM - Edit history (3)

The "People" are way ahead of their elected officials on this one.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
You assholes who can't come to grips with reality need to get a fucking psych eval. Here's the photo of the weapons used by adam lanza. If the rifle isn't an assault weapon, what is..a bazooka?
.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
Reference Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine
.
.
.
"...We have to save each other because all victims are equal and none is more equal than others. It's everyone's duty to start the avalanche."

--Bartholomew "Barley" Scott Blair, "The Russia House"
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:36 PM

165. The Democrats need to grow a pair and support DiFi!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:38 AM

183. Regardless of how well it does in the Senate...

 

it'll never make it through the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:11 AM

184. Not Retroactive? Then it is mostly grandstanding. Get serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:26 AM

186. One simple question for our politicians:

Are you going to facilitate mass murders, or are you not? No gray area here as with many other issues? Yes or no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:30 AM

187. good news and any future elections of any type, those who vote against this are doomed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread