Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws! [View all]rrneck
(17,671 posts)190. Well okay...
Here is Diane Feinstein's bill.
The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:
Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bills enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (ed. Remember post 180?)
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.
Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bills enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (ed. Remember post 180?)
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.
If you plan to make anybody do anything you have to pass a law that will accomplish that goal. An unenforceable law is worse than useless. It makes the legislators that endorse it look like idiots and damages their chances of reelection. Plus, any law that gets passed will inconvenience somebody. If they are inconvenienced unnecessarily, that just pisses them off and they are more likely to vote for whoever opposed the stupid useless law.
Now, if you knew anything about guns you would know that this shotgun, which is allowed by the proposed legislation (remember that video)...
Is significantly more powerful than this scary military looking rifle...
And to top it off, this sorta kinda scary looking rifle is more powerful too, and it's exempted by the legislation as well.
The proposed legislation unveiled with such fanfare and media buzz is useless and if enacted into law will be unenforceable. It's not legislation, it's a shopping list. She's trying to ban 150 specific guns and guns that look a certain way. I have already shown that there is no real difference between semi automatic guns (the ones she wants to ban) and manual guns (the ones she wants to allow). There is no real difference. And I have posted videos to prove it.
Now, at this point I could demand you produce some sort of policy proposal that would be better than that proposed by the Senator from California, but I have already provided it. The only way to get rid of those guns is to ban autoloading firearms. Picking and choosing between ergonomic and aesthetic features or among certain specific firearms in production is a waste of time and quite frankly just plain stupid. It's stupid because it wastes the people's time and money. It's stupid because it wastes political capital. And it's stupid because it puts lives at risk. That's right, if that legislation is passed into law it will endanger the public. Here's why.
If by some miracle that legislation gets passed into law millions of people will think that the problem of spree shootings has been solved. Public attention will turn to more important matters like Snooki's boobs or something. And between now and the next election somebody will take either a grandfathered firearm or a non ban firearm and shoot a bunch of people with it. The law will not inhibit that shooter at all. Not one little bit. And more people will die.
So why is Feinstein pushing such obviously bad legislation? Well, look at it from the politician's point of view. The oldest and most powerful natural resource on earth is human emotion. That's what drives political will. It's what gets politicians elected. But as with any other natural resource, people's emotions must be exploited judiciously to extract the most political capital from the will of the people. She knows there is no way in hell she could possibly ban all autoloading firearms. So what does she do? She says she wants to "dry up the supply of assault weapons". I have already shown that her proposed "supply side gun ban" actually does nothing of the sort. She's a United States senator. There isn't a CEO at any gun manufacturer that won't return her calls. Nor is there a military officer that won't show up in her office and salute her doing it. She has a staff. There is no reason she shouldn't have the information I just found for you in five minutes. She is ginning up political support off the deaths of those children and when her legislation fails and more people die she will trot out another shopping list and do exactly the same thing. Assuming she doesn't get thrown out of office along with a whole bunch of other Democrats.
I could go on about AR15 lowers and uppers, caliber, shot size and quantity, and a bunch of other stuff that would turn this post into more gun porn than it already is, but suffice it to say that in the end there are only three kinds of guns: Machine guns, autoloading guns, and single shot guns. The vast overwhelming majority of guns in private hands today are autoloading guns. But if you don't like them, by all means support banning them and good luck with that. About half the voting public owns one of them, and they will hear anything like "dry up supply" as a gun ban, which is exactly what it is. And if they let it happen, it won't be for long and with disastrous consequences for this country.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws! [View all]
CTyankee
Jan 2013
OP
well, from what I am learning, since that time gun technology has rapidly advanced in a way that
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#4
well, there you go. I am obviously not qualified...I must have gotten false information...hmmm
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#15
but from what I am reading in the liberal press, we ARE talking about "capabilities" this time.
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#26
What are you seeing discussed about capabilities? I've only seen the extended magazine ban...
Recursion
Jan 2013
#37
i believe new jersey has a 2002 law requiring new pistols to be smart guns
Phillip McCleod
Jan 2013
#43
I've seen mostly discussion around the extended magazine ban. My governor, Dan Malloy, was
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#64
But why voice something that would infringe on legitmate rights while failing to find real solutions
Nuclear Unicorn
Jan 2013
#60
I am not hearing anybody "voicing something" that would infringe on legitimate rights.
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#65
There's a lot more "if you don't know (insert arcane detail about guns) STFU" out there...
caraher
Jan 2013
#159
Those who know all about the technical specs of a gun often know very little about gun violence
Bjorn Against
Jan 2013
#8
well, we haven't really tried recently have we? I think we come better armed (sorry for the pun)
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#22
The vast majority of firearms in circulation are semi-autos with detachable box magazines.
Pete Cortez
Jan 2013
#38
Good! Now I want you to sit down and write exactly what you said to your Congressperson and
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#68
Yeah, Yeah, It's All The Democrats' Fault. And About Those "Technical Minutiae":
Paladin
Jan 2013
#67
Really? I complain about Republicans legislating from a position of ignorance all the time
Recursion
Jan 2013
#12
You know what? It's the dawn of a new day. Read the NYT piece. You will appreciate it.
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#23
Promptly respond to the article with your LTTE, saying exactly what you said here. Perhaps the
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#69
If we truly characterize any weapon as "assault" then it would logically follow that we would
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#109
I would characterize it as a "weapon capable of assaulting people in high numbers and rapidly."
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#162
The asshole Republicans in Ohio took away law enforcement's ability to maintain safety in the cities
Kolesar
Jan 2013
#14
I am sure you have written to both Rep. McCarthy and Mayor Bloomberg, haven't you?
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#70
As it turns out most her contact form won't accept my comments because I don't live in her district
aikoaiko
Jan 2013
#71
Then write to your own congressperson pointing out what you feel is a mistake. I don't see that
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#72
You're giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. Sugarmann *said he was being dishonest*
Recursion
Jan 2013
#75
I don't see anything in that quote other than the fact that he obviously wants to impose
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#83
but you are ascribing a bit more gloss to his statement than I find in his words.
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#90
I would agree since my family experienced handgun violence. But in thisi instance, a man
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#167
Senator Feinstein, the Brady Campaign, and VPC have all criticized grandfather clauses.
Pete Cortez
Jan 2013
#57
That's not definitely: "to turn in firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat"
ellisonz
Jan 2013
#81
There's a description of what the AWB actually does towards the end of this article
Recursion
Jan 2013
#46
Republicans are always writing laws that attempt to govern women's reproductive rights...
left coaster
Jan 2013
#48
The ON-GOING AGENDA is to "brand" Democrats as ignorant. Recall the "Obama voters in least-educated
WinkyDink
Jan 2013
#59
Hey, you've given me a great talking point for my rep. Rosa deLauro! "differently shaped grips."
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#96
Well, then make suggestions to chairs of committees where the bills will be considered.
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#164
it's better to understand the intent of a law than the mechanics of how guns fire
samsingh
Jan 2013
#95
I'm guessing (I really don't know) that he is an exhibitionist of the gun variety...
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#100
As I have said before, we will having hearings on this legislation where experts will testify and
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#160
If the opponents oppose just for the sake of their ideology, not based on actual problems in the
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#172
All right, then how do we limit the capability of these to inflict so much death and destruction?
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#179
Crafting the legislation is easy. Getting it passed and making it work is the problem.
rrneck
Jan 2013
#180
Some of your suggestons sound fine. But I don't agree with you that making a gun less capable
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#181
We have to get with the 21st century in this country. The fact is that other countries DO "get
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#183
Interesting that you bring up booze. I have seen the comparison with laws against drunk
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#185
your final paragraph brought to mind something that was said by George Wallace:
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#187
I still can't understand why she would deliberately pass something totally ineffective, tho.
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#191
A distopic picture of the U.S. but I'm afraid you are right. If we can't do any better than this
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#193
You know what, rrneck, it ain't that great, even if we have some meeting points...
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#195
If the perceived problem you are trying to solve with your ban on assault weapons...
krispos42
Jan 2013
#196
Ban? Well not only or not really. Let's just do something along the lines of what Australia
CTyankee
Jan 2013
#197