Scumbags Feinstein, Warner, Schumer and DeSwine intro AWB.

[skippythwndrdog]

I despise these scumbags. Feinswine, Warner, Schumer and DeSwine should all be banned!

http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/05releases/r-awbintro2.htm

an excerpt below.

Washington, DC – Six months following the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban, U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John W. Warner (R-VA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Mike DeWine (R-OH) today introduced legislation that would reestablish the ban in federal law.

“Since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire, it has been open season for criminals who want the most dangerous types of military-style assault weapons,” Senator Feinstein said. “Let there be no doubt, these weapons are the weapons of choice for those seeking to do the most harm in the least amount of time – terrorists, gang members, and grievance killers. We know the ban worked. We voted for its renewal in the Senate last year. Yet, it was allowed to expire. This failure will have deadly consequences on the streets of America. It is time to reestablish the ban and help make our communities safer.”

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. While I do support gun owners rights, I am for the assault weapons...

ban.

[skippythwndrdog]

5. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

Please tell us what features make these guns evil.

[rkc3]

13. Uh... Let's see...

Aside from a miliraty operation what need is there for a gun that shoots several dozen (or hundered) rounds per minute?

As a homeowner, why do you need to have a gun like that - do you think the local Muslim group will raid your house?

As a business owner, do you think the neighborhood gang will stage a full frontal assault at your front door?

Or are you worried that the Girl Scouts will force feed their cookies on you?

There's no reason for any of us to own one - making them legal makes it easier for those groups who would do you harm to get one.

[slackmaster]

24. Do YOU know what the legal term "assault weapon" meant?

From your reply, it appears that you do not.

Aside from a miliraty operation what need is there for a gun that shoots several dozen (or hundered) rounds per minute?

It sounds like you think "assault weapons" were fully automatic. Only a belt- or drum-fed machinegun can fire hundreds of rounds per minute.

[skippythwndrdog]

32. You didn't answer the question.

Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

in response to your others:

Aside from a miliraty operation what need is there for a gun that shoots several dozen (or hundered) rounds per minute?

What are you talking about? They fire one bullet per pull of the trigger, just like all the other self-loading rifles in the world. Military? These are certainly not suited for military use, they don't fire fast enough, no full-auto capability. Need? I need it for all lawful purposes. And, the Second Amendment says it is OK.

As a homeowner, why do you need to have a gun like that - do you think the local Muslim group will raid your house?

Ohhhh, nice zinger there, bucky. Nice rhetoric. I certainly hope that no terrorists target my home, but if they do, they'd be in for a big surprise. In all seriousness, the "assault weapons" I own are well suited for home defense, and have been used for such purposes.

As a business owner, do you think the neighborhood gang will stage a full frontal assault at your front door?

Or are you worried that the Girl Scouts will force feed their cookies on you?

There's no reason for any of us to own one - making them legal makes it easier for those groups who would do you harm to get one.

I doubt that a gang will make a "full frontal assault", but they have been known to break in through windows, tie up the occupants, and rape the women. Anybody doing so in my home will meet fierce resistance. Also, the guns are fun to shoot, accurate, and fire a low-powered easy to acquire round.

So, I ask again, "Do you know what an 'Assault weapon' is?"

[Liberty Belle]

37. One was used to gun down students at a school in my kids' district.

These should be outlawed. I intend to write Feinstein and thank her, unlike our idiot Republican Congressman, who voted to get rid of the assault weapons ban even after TWO mass murders at high schools in his district (Santana and Granite Hills).

When I walked precincts for his opponent, I told every person I met about his vote. All those good Republican moms with toys scattered around the yard were horrified and fully supported banning these awful, murderous weapons.

You don't need an assault weapon to shoot deer.

[slackmaster]

49. Wrong on three counts

1. The Santana High School shooting was done with a .22 caliber target revolver, not an "assault weapon".

2. The Granite Hills High School shooting involved a pump-action shotgun and a handgun, neither of which were "assault weapons".

3. Congressman Hunter never had an opportunity to vote to "get rid of" the ban, because it expired automatically. Congress took no action to renew it.

I think you really don't know what an "assult weapon" was.

[sellitman]

2. Huh?

Are you on the wrong board? Since when does anyone need assault weapons for hunting?

[Township75]

4. Since when has the right to own firearms been limited to hunting?

?

[goju]

6. Who said ...

who said "need" or "hunting"? I do believe those terms are verboten. Unless of course, you're also willing to ask who "needs" a keyboard for "free speech".

[skippythwndrdog]

7. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Yeah but an assault weapon won't protect you from the tyranny

of gov't...how come you can't have a nuke?

[sellitman]

12. Sensible guns laws don't erode your Second Amendment.

Owning a weapon of mass destruction is over the edge. You don't need it to protect your family and it isn't used for hunting. Your argument is the reason those further left of me want to ban all guns. I don't ...I just think common sense should at some times enter into the equation.

[skippythwndrdog]

14. What the hell are you talking about?

What weapon of mass destruction are you rambling about? Do you even know what an "assault weapon" is? Can you define it? They are excellent for protecting my family, and even my wife uses them. I even have one exclusively set up for hunting prarie dogs and ground hogs. All of your arguments are bunk. Common sense? Get off it. The "assault weapons" ban had no sense behind it at all.

[sellitman]

20. I'm surprised you haven't armed your wife with a Nuke.

Only an assault weapon? Tisk, tisk. What kind of husband are you?

[skippythwndrdog]

33. Come up with something better.

And attempt an actual reply.

[iverglas]

40. and note that it was "EVEN my wife"

(Even my wife can figure that out, do this task, follow those directions, operate some other thingy -- imagine how easy it must be, and how stupid one would have to be not to be able to do it.)

The real colours do leak through so often.

This whole thread exhibits a virtual rainbow of them. Such a diversity of people in the Democratic Party and among its friends: assholes, scumbags, authoritarians ... I merely quote what I've read here, of course ...

[Township75]

16. This law isn't sensible at all

and good riddance to it...free speech zones I guess don't erode the first amend either then, right?

AWs could protect a family quite easily, and they can be used for hunting.

These guns are used less in crime than handguns, and as far as being deadly, I would be more concerned about hunting rifles, as they have an astonishing combination of range and accuracy, plus some are powerful enough to go through a bullet proof vest.

The AWB didn't accomplish anything other than moving Dems out of the federal legislature. Slight modifications to AWs made them legal after the ban, and one could still buy preban AWs. It was not common sense at all, it was a stupid, ineffective law.

[goju]

3. Is that really the most important work they have to do?

Surely they can think of more pressing issues, which might also allow them to get their names and faces in the press. I could be wrong, maybe assault weapons ARE the only thing they can think about. Maybe that is the only issue they are ready to tackle. Either way, its a damn shame.

[Postmanx]

8. Feinstein, Warner, Schumer, DeSwine et al

Are busy torpedoing the party.

[skippythwndrdog]

9. Warner and DeSwine (DeWine) are Republicans.

Authoritarian Assholes, all. None of these people deserve to be in the Senate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. I support AWB as flawed as gun enthusiasts say it is

We saw several occasions where people with automatic ( i know i know you are all going to ask me to describe which one) weapons killed numerous victims. Anyone who thinks they are going to organize a militia against a tyrannical government that can nuke you, cut off water supplies, commerce and food is delusional.

Those people who think they should have AWB's or any kind of weapon they want need to explain to me how it is that the 2nd amendment authorizes you to have said weapon but not a nuke.

[rkc3]

15. How about the bank robbery in CA a few years back?

These guys entered the bank fully armed and in body armor. The cops didn't have the right firepower to deal with them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Does the ban apply to cops?

[rkc3]

23. What are you talking about?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. I think we're on the same team :)

Your post was to me so I wasn't clear of the point you were making..I am now

[rkc3]

34. For a moment I thought I was losing my mind.

I was giving you some ammo (ha ha) for your comments.

Although, it appears I am getting a good lesson in Assualt Weapons and associated theologies on this thread.

[Township75]

36. and that is a good thing

"Although, it appears I am getting a good lesson in Assualt Weapons "

in all seriousness, some of the most vocal supporters of the AWB dont know what they are supporting, and I am not aiming this comment at you, BTW.

This is why gun ownwers like myself strongly oppose the AWB, and I don't own an AW. If these firearms are banned, how can one NOT ban the others? The other are used more often in crime, almost all are more deadly, and many less expensive. Doesn't that pose a greater risk than some gun that mearly looks scary and does a lot of damage in tv shows and movies. If nothing else, I hope this provides some understanding of why some of us oppose this so much.

[rkc3]

51. I have to agree - the argument has been framed to include

automatic weapons. As I've learned, these guns are already banned.

It appears that a lot of people continue to use a slippery slope argument to gun control - that if one type of gun is banned, all guns will soon be banned. Your argument appears to be the opposite - there are more dangerous guns than a pistol-grip shotgun that carries seven rounds - and perhaps these (like a cheap .38 Special) should be banned.

[Township75]

19. Those were full auto firearms, the AWB doesn't cover those.

Those types of weapons are even an issue here as the original post is about assualt weapons.

[rkc3]

22. Then please define an assualt weapon.

I'm at a loss.

[slackmaster]

29. See the expired sections of the United States Code - Here's a link

Please go to http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html - Search for "assault weapon".

Weapons covered by the "assault weapons" ban were semiautomatic firearms specifically designed for civilian sporting use and gun collectors.

[Township75]

31. Here are some characteristics

I am looking for the link to the exact definition of an AW but can't find it now...maybe one of the other posters has it.

An "assualt weapon" is a made-up term by Feinstein et al. to make these guns sound scarier. If you went to a gun store in 1989 and asked for an assualt weapon, no one would know what you are talking about. They are NOT automatic, as those have been regulated since 1934.

Some characteristics of an AW are:

Flash suppressor, folding stock, capable of holding a clip which carries more than 10 rounds, a bayonet lug, and I believe there were more. I also recall there being ~19 firearms that were listed by name, like TEC-9.

The AWB was based on a firearm having so many of the characteristics to qualify as an AW, and therefore be banned. So, gun manufacturers simple removed bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors, and now the gun became legal....this is why the law was stupid, ineffective, wasted Dem seats, not to mention a violation of individual rights.

The entire ban was based on fear, much like Bush uses fear to get the patriot act stuff through. Handguns are used way more than AWs in crimes. AWs have been demonized because they look scary, and they look like the guns people see in movies and TV.

[slackmaster]

26. Assault weapons were not automatic

They were semiautomatic. One round per trigger pull, just like any other sporting semiautomatic firearm.

Those people who think they should have AWB's or any kind of weapon they want need to explain to me how it is that the 2nd amendment authorizes you to have said weapon but not a nuke.

Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own any particular kind of firearm, there is no federal law against a person owning a nuclear explosive device.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Good..do wave one in front of a cop and see what happens ;)

[slackmaster]

30. Here in San Diego all you need to wave is a trowel

Seriously, brandishing ANY kind of weapon at police is likely to get you shot, and rightly so. They have a right to defend themselves. That's why they carry guns.

[Township75]

35. Go wave a muzzleloader in front of a cop and see if it makes a difference

what is your point

[Redneck Socialist]

18. Scumbags?

C'mon! Their bizarre fascination with gun control aside both Feinstein and Schumer are good senators. That being said their afore mentioned obsession with scary looking guns has done, and continues to do immeasurable harm to our party. I wish there was some way we could convince them to drop it.

Their press release is full of the same old gun grabbing gobbledygook. I guess they are borrowing from bush's 'if we say something enough times it will make it true' playbook. If it weren't so bad for the party it would be sad really.

[Township75]

21. They are scumbags if they insist on pushing legislation that costs the Dem

party seats. States can enact their own AWBs, and take a guess at how many have...CA, NY, and I think NJ, MA, MD. There may be more, and some of the one listed may not even have an AWB.

The desire of these two senators to attack rights of individuals in this country to own firearms is despicable. They seem so hellbent on it too, despite the fact the party got its ass handed to itself back in 94 over this. What assholes!

[Redneck Socialist]

25. I agree that their position on gun control

is harmful to the party, however I hope you will excuse me if I don't share your vitriolic dislike of these two Senators. IMO they are neither "scumbags" nor "assholes." List any Democratic Senator you care to and I can find an issue upon which I vehemently disagree with them. That one issue, however is generally not enough for me to overlook their otherwise good work.

on edit: typo

[Liberty Belle]

38. Amen. Feinstein & Boxer (a cosponsor) are protecting the public,

unlike my Republican gun-toting Congressman, Duncan Hunter, who voted to overturn the assault weapons ban. This was right after two school shootings/mass murders at high schools in his district!

As a mom with kids in this school district, I found his action shockingly irresponsible--and I applaud Feinstein and Boxer for putting children's safety ahead of the ridiculous claim of NRA members that they should have the "right" to own these weapons of mass destruction.

I'm far more worried about another nut with an assault weapon shooting up my kids' school than I am about foreign terrorists bringing WMDs to our neighborhood.

People should have a right to own reasonable weapons for self defense or hunting, but not assault weapons. If the school shooters hadn't had weapons capable of firing so many rounds so quickly, a lot of kids' and teachers' lives would have been saved.

Doesn't the poster here care about saving lives?

[skippythwndrdog]

39. You are sorely misinformed.

I think you have no idea about what an "assault weapon" is. It is a made up term to describe (mostly) rifles that have (usually) have one or more of the following:

1. A flash reducing device (prevents fireballs from ejecting from the gun...a good thing)
2. Screw threads on the end of the barrel (used to attach #1)
3. An adjustable or folding stock (so that people of different sizes can use the same rifles)
4. A bayonet/bipod attachment point/lug (the cause of all the drive-by bayonettings we've been hearing about)

It should be painfully obvious that the above are completely harmless. For the manufacturers to make a gun that isn't an "assault weapon", all they have to do is save money by not adding these mostly cosmetic features. In other words, the guns are the same! Weapon of mass destruction? That is absurd on its face. These are functionally identical to millions of other guns, they fire only ONE bullet when you pull the trigger. The ban had nothing to do with machine guns.

[slackmaster]

44. Nobody voted to overturn the AW ban - It expired automatically

As it was designed to do by the Democratic Congress that passed it, and President Clinton who signed it into law.

The issue of renewing it has never been put before Congressman Hunter.

...I found his action shockingly irresponsible--and I applaud Feinstein and Boxer for putting children's safety ahead of the ridiculous claim of NRA members that they should have the "right" to own these weapons of mass destruction.

By defining the term "weapon of mass destruction" down to the level of small firearms, you have minized the tragedy of the victims of real WMDs - Chemical weapons from World War I on, and the people who were vaporized or died slow, painful deaths from the nuclear bombs used by the US against Japan in World War II.

People should have a right to own reasonable weapons for self defense or hunting, but not assault weapons. If the school shooters hadn't had weapons capable of firing so many rounds so quickly, a lot of kids' and teachers' lives would have been saved.

Do you know that the firing rate of an "assault weapon" was no different than that of any other semiautomatic firearm? One round per trigger pull.

[Redneck Socialist]

46. I think you misread my post

Feinstein's promotion of an AWB has been hugely detrimental to our party.

The AWB saved no lives, but it did cost the Democratic Party countless votes.

Though I sharply disagree with Senator Feinstein on this issue I am however, uncomfortable describing her as a "scumbag" or "asshole."

[skippythwndrdog]

41. Feinstein also rolled over on the Bush nominations.

I have no use for her or her kind. Democrats are supposed to be for freedom, but with her gun-grabbing agenda and support for Bush's nominees, she seems to be against freedom.

[Columbia]

42. She also voted for the Patriot Act and to send me to Iraq

But oh no, we can't criticize her! She has a D next to her name! Heaven forbid!!!

[Redneck Socialist]

48. Criticize away

Heaven knows she has done much that warrants criticism. "Scumbag" isn't a terrible effective critique of her actions however.

[Columbia]

52. Effective or not

If they are my feelings, I will continue to post as such. It is a good release valve if nothing else.

[Redneck Socialist]

53. Fair enough. n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

47. And she should be held accountable for those votes

IMO labeling her as a "scumbag" does little to advance criticism of her, criticism that, in those cases and in the case of the AWB, is well founded.

However much I may oppose her on these issues, on others I count her as an ally and as such tossing about terms such as scumbag is, again IMO, counterproductive.

[jody]

43. Feinstein and Schumer have saved the GOP

hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign advertisements by stirring the RKBA divisive issue.

What she doesn't say is that the revised AWB bill she sponsored would have banned nearly all semi automatic shotguns including the ubiquitous Remington model 1100.

Sponsors of the revised AWB bill are either incredibly ignorant of the bill's true impact or they are extremely duplicitous. :shrug:

[iverglas]

45. scumbags ...

... assholes, authoritarian assholes, seems to be against freedom ...

Somebody pass me a map. I seem to have wandered into a netherworld where these words describe Democrats.

Now, if we were talking "Democrats" ...

[Columbia]

50. I'll call them whatever I want

What do you care? You can't even be a Democrat. Only down here do people get up in arms about criticizing fellow Dems. Go up in GD and anything goes pretty much, as it should be. People there seem to understand that politicians should be judged on their actions and their votes rather than party affiliation.

Only people who have nothing to add to the discussion would make insinuations like you do that Democrats can't criticize other Democrats.

If a scumbag is a scumbag, I'll call them as such. I don't care what letter they have next to their name.

[Wickerman]

54. Only in the Gungeon would we let a thread where Dems are called names

like scumbag to remain open.

However, like anything, all good things must come to an end. We've made note that the RKBA side doesn't think much of Diane and her cronies. Under the rules as now present you are free to say so until it comes election time. Then, such will be seen as campaigning against such ilk. That will not be tolerated - you will be free to malign to your hearts desire - using someone else's bandwidth.

In the meantime, threads with reasonable discussion stand more chance of staying open than ones with such a heavy layer of name calling.

thanks, and have a nice weekend - come shovel some of my snow if you have some anger to burn off.