Do You Support This Bill?
Yes
26.7% (16)
26.7% (16)
No
70% (42)
70% (42)
I am Indecisive
3.3% (2)
3.3% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Senator Feinstein Introduces Assault Weapons Ban

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I read the bill and Senator Feinstein is a hypocrite. She excluded herself from the ban. All federal agents and officials are exempted from the ban. The research she has done consisted of looking at pictures of guns in 1993 and 2012. Joe Biden( the man leading the task force) doesn't have a clue when it comes to firearms(he thinks it takes two minutes to change a magazine for a modern rifle) and President Obama gave fully automatic weapons to drug cartels resulting in over 500 people dieing. These people do not exactly fit the idea of "qualified" when it comes to firearms. The items that are planned on being banned aren't the problem.
1) Bayonets? When did you last here of a drive-by bayoneting?
2) Pistol grips? A large amount of people are unable to turn their elbow, shoulder, and wrist joints in certain ways after traffic accidents and need a pistol grip to hold a firearm.
3) Collapsible stock? It is racist and sexist. Women tend to be a few number of inches shorter than men and require a shorter stock for better handling. Asians also tend to be shorter and also require a shorter stock.
4) Grenade launchers? Those are already highly regulated and the only grenades allowed in private ownership(to my current knowledge) are smoke grenades.
5) Flash suppressors? These make it easier to fire a weapon since you can see what you're shooting at after your first shot and since every bullet is followed by lawyer you don't want to hit some innocent bystander.
6)Magazines that hold more than ten rounds? Most rifles and pistols being made are now well over ten rounds. The last thing you want to hear while in a shootout with some criminal is "click." Most shootouts involving criminals tend to last two to four minutes. Every second counts and you don't want to worry about reloading.

drnogood59:
I read the bill and Senator Feinstein is a hypocrite. She excluded herself from the ban. All federal agents and officials are exempted from the ban.

Well, yeah. They (Federal Agents, Law Enforcement, etc) have always been exempt from any and all weapon bans. That's why they still carry automatic weapons despite those having been banned back in like '36.

drnogood59:

6)Magazines that hold more than ten rounds? Most rifles and pistols being made are now well over ten rounds. The last thing you want to hear while in a shootout with some criminal is "click." Most shootouts involving criminals tend to last two to four minutes. Every second counts and you don't want to worry about reloading.

I don't have much of an issue with anything else you said, but that bolded bit seems quite off to me. I believe that most incidents involving an armed citizen and a armed criminal don't last longer then a few seconds as most occur at close range and shots are exchanged quickly. Do you have some source on that?

Kopikatsu:

drnogood59:
I read the bill and Senator Feinstein is a hypocrite. She excluded herself from the ban. All federal agents and officials are exempted from the ban.

Well, yeah. They (Federal Agents, Law Enforcement, etc) have always been exempt from any and all weapon bans. That's why they still carry automatic weapons despite those having been banned back in like '36.

I think his issue is that in the wording of the law(at least how he puts it, I would have to read it again) a member of congress could legally get one of these weapons while a citizen could not. I don't think being a Congressman really involve much shooting...well not in the US anyway.

thaluikhain:

Not G. Ivingname:
Here are some of the more outlandish and quite silly parts of the bill.

1. All Semi-Automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Rocket Launcher.

Umm... I don't think any rifle, or gun for that matter, has also had a Rocket launcher as an attachment. The closest I can think of his a handful of rocket launchers that a small pistol round used for range sighting.

They mean an attachment for firing rifle grenades, don't they? (IIRC, rocket launchers tend to use standard rifle ammunition for spotting rifles. EDIT: I was thinking of recoiless rifles and tank guns)

Not G. Ivingname:
2. All semi-automatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: Capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip.

How many pistols can anyone name that has a detachable magazine that is outside the trigger besides revolvers and the German Lugar? The only other one I can think of is dedicated target pistol: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/olympic-target-pistol.jpg

Off the top of my head, the Skorpion. There is one other I'm thinking of, but the name eludes me...it's more like a small SMG with no stock than a pistol though. Actually, certain small SMGs might fall under the US definition of "pistol". MP5K with no fore grip or stock, for example.

...

But...what's actually wrong with those rules? Sure, they don't apply to many firearms, but surely that makes them less of a big deal?

Actually, the latter does apply to far more guns than I considered. It just that, most of those guns are not often used in many crimes. Most crimes relating to pistols are ones involving pistols with the magazine inside the grip, by a wide margin (most common being 9mm pistols: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf ). There is no reason to ban these guns, there are not deadlier than any normal Glock (the ones that are shortened versions of AR-15's and what have you tend to have massive amounts of recoil for their size and are hard to use either in a single hand or with both hands on the pistol grip). The only "advantage" they have is that the magazine can be used as a grip, which only makes the gun more comfortable to hold.

The bill already bans "grenade launchers," which ALSO are already illegal by existing laws. Rocket Launchers themselves are also basically completely banned already, so this is a case of quadruple redundancy.

Shock and Awe:

drnogood59:

6)Magazines that hold more than ten rounds? Most rifles and pistols being made are now well over ten rounds. The last thing you want to hear while in a shootout with some criminal is "click." Most shootouts involving criminals tend to last two to four minutes. Every second counts and you don't want to worry about reloading.

I don't have much of an issue with anything else you said, but that bolded bit seems quite off to me. I believe that most incidents involving an armed citizen and a armed criminal don't last longer then a few seconds as most occur at close range and shots are exchanged quickly. Do you have some source on that?

Kopikatsu:

drnogood59:
I read the bill and Senator Feinstein is a hypocrite. She excluded herself from the ban. All federal agents and officials are exempted from the ban.

Well, yeah. They (Federal Agents, Law Enforcement, etc) have always been exempt from any and all weapon bans. That's why they still carry automatic weapons despite those having been banned back in like '36.

I think his issue is that in the wording of the law(at least how he puts it, I would have to read it again) a member of congress could legally get one of these weapons while a citizen could not. I don't think being a Congressman really involve much shooting...well not in the US anyway.

Sorry, my math was off. As I was averaging the time, I was using the decimal system (tenths) instead of 1 minute = 60 seconds. I probably should have double checked before posting. Thank you for pointing that out.

These "assault weapons bans" are just ridiculous pandering to public hysteria. They accomplish absolutely nothing worthwhile but allow politicians to pretend like they've actually done something. It doesn't matter how you slice it, they don't actually have any effect on homicides. They are based on a proposition which is patently and demonstrably false, so don't expect them to make much sense.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's capacity to utter Big Lie(s) without batting an eyelash is remarkable. Please, don't take my word for it. Go to the web site assaultweaponsbanof2013 dot blogspot dot com and view and read actual US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics report to get an idea of the MAGNITUDE of the Big Lie she and others of her ilk are spreading across the USA with the help of many sympathizers in the news media. You'll understand WHY there is a FEDERAL BAN on firearms research. It's because the information and statistics acquired by the US Department of Justice don't square with the well-coordinated propaganda (propagating the agenda, another totalitarian refinement) circulated by anti-gun zealots. The US Department of Justice cannot be compelled to "cook the books", ergo the ban on firearms research.

I have a question. Wby do you the citizens, need so many different kinds of guns? You may be able to have guns, but why so many types that you want? Why not let everybody have the same make and model of gun so that everybody still equal in terms of firearms, and ban the rest?

Grandcrusader:
I have a question. Wby do you the citizens, need so many different kinds of guns? You may be able to have guns, but why so many types that you want? Why not let everybody have the same make and model of gun so that everybody still equal in terms of firearms, and ban the rest?

Because different people have different needs and abilities.

However part of the reason AR-15s are so popular is because you can take a standard AR-15 lower and attach anything from a .300 blackout competition upper, to a black powder upper, to a crossbow upper.

Just thought I'd drop this little tidbit off here. It seems Senator Feinstein has a problem with the NRA teaching kids how to not shoot themselves on accident.

Grandcrusader:
I have a question. Wby do you the citizens, need so many different kinds of guns? You may be able to have guns, but why so many types that you want? Why not let everybody have the same make and model of gun so that everybody still equal in terms of firearms, and ban the rest?

Many reasons:

1. Not all guns are good at all things. Bolt action rifle isn't nearly as good at bird hunting as a shotgun is, while a glock is much better in closer quarters defense than both of them. Many different guns are better and worse at different things, with hundreds of possible combinations.

2. Economics. Having one make an model would mean that there is no innovation allowed in the firearms industry, copetition is reduced to nothing, and monopolies would more easily rise up, meaning prices would go through the roof.

3. Personal needs and preferences. Not everybody can use every gun. My father can't currently use high caliber weapons like shotguns just because he open heart surgery last year and the recoil could kill him. Other people cannot hold a gun without foregrip/pistol grip do to smaller arm length, hand problems, etc. Many variations of the same models are made. Some people like black plastic finish, others like good old fashion wood. Some people want shorter barrels, or X features for Y reasons.

Mr.BadExample:
I don't understand why anyone would possibly object to such reasonable weapons control other than being a felon.

Does any hunter really need more than ten bullets? If you can't kill a deer with so many bullets, it deserves to get away. You people with your thirty clip magazines are just nuts.

There is no such thing as a "thirty clip magazine". Please learn the correct terminology of firearms and maybe learn what a firearm is before you try to support a ban against them.

Grandcrusader:
I have a question. Wby do you the citizens, need so many different kinds of guns? You may be able to have guns, but why so many types that you want? Why not let everybody have the same make and model of gun so that everybody still equal in terms of firearms, and ban the rest?

Why do we need different types of vehicles? Or Computers? Or cellphones? Or different types of anything?

Grandcrusader:
I have a question. Wby do you the citizens, need so many different kinds of guns?

What difference does variety make?

If your real question is, why do I need an AR-15 with a EO Tech holographic site, steel plated body armor, and 30 round magazines- then that answer is easy. I need it to kill other people who have similar equipment. I certainly don't need it to commit a mass shooting, I could do that with a pump action shotgun and bandoleer or two of extra shells. I would just reload as I go, you barely have to break sight picture to keep shoving shells into the magazine tube if you do it right.

In case of government tyranny, you do not want to bring a shotgun to an assault rifle fight.

Grandcrusader:
I have a question. Wby do you the citizens, need so many different kinds of guns? You may be able to have guns, but why so many types that you want? Why not let everybody have the same make and model of gun so that everybody still equal in terms of firearms, and ban the rest?

Well, because people use them for different things. Hunting big things, hunting small things, learning to fire a weapon using cheap ammunition, etc.

Mind you, I do sometimes wish that there was more standardisation, but that's because I like standardising things. You'd still need different varieties of things for different purposes, but less than what already exists.

Shock and Awe:
Just thought I'd drop this little tidbit off here. It seems Senator Feinstein has a problem with the NRA teaching kids how to not shoot themselves on accident.

You must've used a wrong link. There's no connection between what that website said and your rather outlandish claim.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
Just thought I'd drop this little tidbit off here. It seems Senator Feinstein has a problem with the NRA teaching kids how to not shoot themselves on accident.

You must've used a wrong link. There's no connection between what that website said and your rather outlandish claim.

Senator Feinstein:
This morning on the front page of the New York Times, I was reading about their program now to provide weapons and training for youngsters from 8 years old to 15 years old. And this is supported by the gun manufacturers.

The program she is referring to is essentially a course for the proper and safe use of firearms. The NRA has been doing this since before either of us were born if I recall correctly. The way she is wording it (and probably the way the Times worded it) makes it sound like this is some kind of para-military training when it is not.

Shock and Awe:
The program she is referring to is essentially a course for the proper and safe use of firearms.

That's an oxymoron. You can't 'safely' train children to use deadly weapons for murdering other people. That's like trying to teach people how to safely transmit HIV to one another, and probably only slightly less stupid than that comparison

And obviously Feinstein was right. You mustn't expose small children to weapons or violence. That's being a bad parent. Heck, some of that violence is even a crime.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
The program she is referring to is essentially a course for the proper and safe use of firearms.

That's an oxymoron. You can't 'safely' train children to use deadly weapons for murdering other people. That's like trying to teach people how to safely transmit HIV to one another, and probably only slightly less stupid than that comparison

And obviously Feinstein was right. You mustn't expose small children to weapons or violence. That's being a bad parent. Heck, some of that violence is even a crime.

You know nothing John Snow. Firearm safety is a very real thing. To put it simply, its how not to shoot yourself or someone else on accident. There is a very real difference between safe handling and unsafe handling of a weapon regardless of what you think of the firearm itself. Would you rather kids (soon to be adults) know how to safely handle a firearm without blowing their foot off or be completely ignorant and be a danger to themselves and others regardless if they want to or not?

Blablahb:
You mustn't expose small children to weapons or violence.

You see, my parents were much the same way. And you know what happened to me? I got the shit kicked out of me until I hit a growth spurt in year 10.

The best way to prevent your child from harming themselves or others with a weapon is to teach them they are not toys and that they shouldn't play with them. Violence, on the other hand, you'll have to teach them that it is deplorable, but there are times when there are no other alternatives.

Like when some 5th grade bully is bashing your little 2nd grade skull into a jungle gym. But that's just my experience.

New York City Statistics:
2,493 of the 2,779 illegal firearms (~90%) seized from suspects in arrests in the city last year were handguns.

By contrast, a total of 77 assault weapons were seized in arrests in the city, less than 3 percent of the total.

Three of nearly 1,400 shooting incidents last year were ballistics associated with assault weapons.

Not that facts are relevant.

Blablahb:
That's an oxymoron. You can't 'safely' train children to use deadly weapons for murdering other people. That's like trying to teach people how to safely transmit HIV to one another, and probably only slightly less stupid than that comparison

There are children who not only know more about firearms than you, are more experienced, responsible and unlike you, not afraid of a tool they were taught to respect.

In fact I would wager, forbid you happened upon some trouble, if a twelve year-old ran and got her daddy's gun, pulling your bacon out of harm's way, you would probably sue her parents after managing to dislodge your own foot crammed into your mouth.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
The program she is referring to is essentially a course for the proper and safe use of firearms.

That's an oxymoron. You can't 'safely' train children to use deadly weapons for murdering other people. That's like trying to teach people how to safely transmit HIV to one another, and probably only slightly less stupid than that comparison

And obviously Feinstein was right. You mustn't expose small children to weapons or violence. That's being a bad parent. Heck, some of that violence is even a crime.

You do realize people in America do teach children the usage of a firearm from as far back as 4-5 years old right? You also realize that the boyscouts do teach boys how to use a firearm also. So yes you can teach children how to safely use a firearm.

Blablahb:

Shock and Awe:
The program she is referring to is essentially a course for the proper and safe use of firearms.

That's an oxymoron. You can't 'safely' train children to use deadly weapons for murdering other people. That's like trying to teach people how to safely transmit HIV to one another, and probably only slightly less stupid than that comparison

And obviously Feinstein was right. You mustn't expose small children to weapons or violence. That's being a bad parent. Heck, some of that violence is even a crime.

A friend of mine taught his kids to hunt squirrels with a .22 and they're not even 10 years old. It can in fact be done, I've seen similar things in hunting magazines.

Shock and Awe:

Would you rather kids (soon to be adults) know how to safely handle a firearm without blowing their foot off or be completely ignorant and be a danger to themselves and others regardless if they want to or not?

Funny story about that. When I was about, I dont know 10, my grandpa took me to the little shooting range he has in his basement and taught me and my brother how to shoot. It was just a little pellet gun, but at one point I got yelled at by my grandpa because I almost hit my brother with the pellet gun. Now granted, it wasnt entirely my fault, he walked in front of me while I was aiming, but my grandpa still ripped the gun out of my hands and started yelling at me. Due to my Aspergers, I dont take yelling well, so I just locked down and refused to shoot again. Hell, I didnt touch a gun until I used a Luger[1] we got from my other grandpa when he passed away, 9 years later.

Of course, when I have my own kids, I am going to teach them to shoot as well, but It will be with an airsoft gun rather than a real gun.

[1] Although, it is chambered in .22LR rather than the normal 9mm

Shock and Awe:
As it currently stands one can find the proposed measures here.

Mostly all cosmetic, other that the magazine size limit, big surprise there. At least I'll get to keep my AK with it's pistol grip, foregrip, and folding stock, since it will be grandfathered in (from the sounds of it).

Magenera:
You do realize people in America do teach children the usage of a firearm from as far back as 4-5 years old right? You also realize that the boyscouts do teach boys how to use a firearm also. So yes you can teach children how to safely use a firearm.

That's terrible. And I thought that third reichish attitude of 'breed little soldiers for the empire!' had become extinct after World War II...

Smagmuck_:
You see, my parents were much the same way. And you know what happened to me? I got the shit kicked out of me until I hit a growth spurt in year 10.

And using firearms to murder your assailants would've improved this situation... how exactly? Or in other words I don't see what exposing children to guns has to do with it.

Blablahb:

Magenera:
You do realize people in America do teach children the usage of a firearm from as far back as 4-5 years old right? You also realize that the boyscouts do teach boys how to use a firearm also. So yes you can teach children how to safely use a firearm.

That's terrible. And I thought that third reichish attitude of 'breed little soldiers for the empire!' had become extinct after World War II...

Smagmuck_:
You see, my parents were much the same way. And you know what happened to me? I got the shit kicked out of me until I hit a growth spurt in year 10.

And using firearms to murder your assailants would've improved this situation... how exactly? Or in other words I don't see what exposing children to guns has to do with it.

Ahhh, Godwin. I haven't seen you in a while. How are you doing? Are the kids well?

Smagmuck was more talking about violence than guns. He wasn't advocating murder. He is talking about why you shouldn't shelter your kids. Quit your horrible strawmen.

Blablahb:
And using firearms to murder your assailants would've improved this situation... how exactly? Or in other words I don't see what exposing children to guns has to do with it.

I didn't mention firearms. I was addressing your claim that children shouldn't be exposed to weapons or violence. And while teaching your kids to avoid weapons is in some cases a good thing. Trying to keep them completely isolated from violence in general is nearly impossible.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked