And... it's back: The ASSAULT weapons ban

[olds]

Supposedly from what I heard on the news as I didn't read this thread, this won't be retroactive to current owners.

Curious about something.
With an AR 15, the lower is the rifle. The upper is not the rifle.
I wonder if they will regulate uppers?

 

[mizzou]

i heard no grandfather clause, how the hell would this be enforced effectively?

 

[Genx87]

Heh no grandfather clause? So how many cops are these idiots going to get killed when they go to take away millions of guns from citizens?

 

[olds]

i heard no grandfather clause, how the hell would this be enforced effectively?

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said. "There will be a bill."

 

[HumblePie]

Knee jerk reaction of gun control will not solve the issue of mass murders.

 

[olds]

Knee jerk reaction of gun control will not solve the issue of mass murders.

Of course not. But we can't tackle the real issues. We are a microwave/feel good society. We want it now, whether or not it is good for us.

 

[exdeath]

No grandfather clause = millions more unnecessary deaths.

My property will not be taken from me, I don't care what your are wearing.

 

[Darwin333]

Supposedly from what I heard on the news as I didn't read this thread, this won't be retroactive to current owners.

Curious about something.
With an AR 15, the lower is the rifle. The upper is not the rifle.
I wonder if they will regulate uppers?

Nope. They will regulate the actual gun itself and the magazines. Thats why I have already bought me some stripped lowers and am getting ready to buy a few complete lowers and a bunch of mags. The rest I'll still be able to get if the ban goes into effect and make a fortune flipping them.

 

[blankslate]

Here are just a few stories in which it was reported by the authorities that his gun jammed as he switched mags. Those 30 round mags are incredibly cheap chinese junk and have a huge tendency to jam. They aren't really useful for anything other than plinking at the range when your ass isn't on the line if your gun doesn't go bang. Heck, I wouldn't even bring them to the range but depending on the progress of this AWB bill I might pick a few up for investments. I have already bought a few AR-15 lower receivers (the part that is considered a gun), if the AWB actually goes through I could potentially quadruple my investment depending on how long I want to hold them and/or if I feel like building a full rifle. If not I can sell them locally and not take a loss so there isn't much of a downside.

So according to the L.A. times article he fired all the the rounds in the extended magazine and suffered a weapon's malfunction with the 2nd magazine.

Like I said in my previous post.

For instance the shooter in AZ did have an extended magazine in his pistol and was tackled when he had to reload.

But in most cases it wouldn't seriously affect the amount of times a person could fire because it's fairly easy reload if you don't care about retrieving a spent magazine. Additionally how would a new law address the high capacity magazines already in possession by gun enthusiasts.

It's not a simple issue and I didn't say banning large capacity would really solve anything, but since the ones made for pistols are generally pieces of crap and really make conceal carry problematic why would anyone need them?

They can't be too much fun at the range if you're spending too much time dealing with jams that they're reputed to cause.

I'll say it again. I think it's a mental health issue. Particularly how to keep firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people who might decide try a mass killing. It's too frequent and this discussion about one person's gun jamming or not is the same thing as

"No one is taking my guns"


"Guns are only for killing people"


A distraction from a real issue that seems to be a very common factor in the mass murders that happened in the recent years. People who haven't gotten the mental health treatment they needed and their access to weapons they had no business possessing.

Why aren't more people talking about that apparently common factor in all of these shootings instead of drawing lines in the sand over an issue that will always be contentious.

 

[HumblePie]

Putting laws that keep guns from mentally ill people does not stop mass murders being committed by mentally ill people. Even if such a measure could be 100% effective, for the sake of argument, all you do is turn the tool of choice from a gun to something else.

Bombs are easily made and an easy choice to cause mass killings. Gas agents as well. Ammonia and Bleach anyone? Bar the doors, and toss in a bunch of ammonia and bleach would still result in quite a bit of mass murder. And that's just the simple stuff. There is stronger stuff that is readily available to use.

 

[blankslate]

Putting laws that keep guns from mentally ill people does not stop mass murders being committed by mentally ill people. Even if such a measure could be 100% effective, for the sake of argument, all you do is turn the tool of choice from a gun to something else.

Bombs are easily made and an easy choice to cause mass killings. Gas agents as well. Ammonia and Bleach anyone? Bar the doors, and toss in a bunch of ammonia and bleach would still result in quite a bit of mass murder. And that's just the simple stuff. There is stronger stuff that is readily available to use.

It's a better use of resources and time than getting into a pissing match about banning firearms.

It won't work 100% of the time but merely banning firearms for mentally ill people wouldn't be the only focus. Some mentally ill people can become well if treated properly and if a mentally ill person becomes well chances are they won't seek a firearm or a bomb or try to create a chemical weapon.

There's no denying however the effort to create a bomb or a chemical weapon would be prohibitive to a sizable portion of people compared to if they had easy access to a firearm.

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen but that some people would scale down to to attacking with a knife or bludgeon rather than become a chemical making mastermind.

Additionally in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Some chemical companies developed fertalizers that are less explosive.

Making it harder for someone to do something like this again is worth trying and you don't have to enact a ban on firearms to do so.

A gun ban is attacking a symptom of a cause which in this case seems to be Mentally ill people and their access to items that can cause extreme damage and loss of life and the lack of treatment for that person before they really go off the rails. Mental illness could very well be the cause.

Yes people will still kill people with firearms poison, pushing them down the stairs, puncturing a persons brakeline with many tiny holes.

However, these threads started in the wake of a mass shooting. In almost all of the mass shootings that gained national attention the mental condition of the killer was in question. Why not do something about this seemingly common factor in recent mass shootings?

 

[dmens]

I do find it odd that everytime some people get shot now we have to have a gun control debate. It seems a little too convenient.

Hell, at this point, I am just waiting for Obama to turn into the Antichrist.

After the Luby's Massacre, Suzanna Hupp (who had both her parents murdered) went in front of CONgress and chewed those tyrants out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Of course that powerful testimony had absolutely no effect whatsoever, because three years later the "Assault Weapon Ban" was passed, which of course does not even cover the guns used by the wackjob at Luby's.

As with the CT school shooting, the government used the event as an excuse to seize yet more power while the public is emotionally pliant.

 

[HumblePie]

After the Luby's Massacre, Suzanna Hupp (who had both her parents murdered) went in front of CONgress and chewed those tyrants out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Of course that powerful testimony had absolutely no effect whatsoever, because three years later the "Assault Weapon Ban" was passed, which of course does not even cover the guns used by the wackjob at Luby's.

As with the CT school shooting, the government used the event as an excuse to seize yet more power while the public is emotionally pliant.

Damn good video. Never seen it before and glad I took the time at work to nef this one

 

[RampantAndroid]

Heh no grandfather clause? So how many cops are these idiots going to get killed when they go to take away millions of guns from citizens?

You know, a couple of friends posed the question last year, "If cops/natl guard tried to confiscate your guns, what would you do?" The answer was universally "I'd kill as many of them as I could."

It's one thing to say it, and another to DO it, but I bet that if you try to confiscate guns there WILL be plenty of dead police and national guardsman. It's foolish to try to just collect all guns.

 

[BladeVenom]

Now at least one source said his mom was trying to have him committed to an asylum. It sounds like it's harder to get someone committed in Connecticut than many other states. http://news.yahoo.com/sandy-hook-shooting-adam-lanza-lashing-against-treatment-231300962.html

So why doesn't the media place the same blame on the ACLU as they do the NRA? It's the ACLU who's keeping dangerous crazies on the streets.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...ation-law-that-might-have-prevented-killings/

 

[olds]

You know, a couple of friends posed the question last year, "If cops/natl guard tried to confiscate your guns, what would you do?" The answer was universally "I'd kill as many of them as I could."

It's one thing to say it, and another to DO it, but I bet that if you try to confiscate guns there WILL be plenty of dead police and national guardsman. It's foolish to try to just collect all guns.

Sure they would

 

[HumblePie]

Sure they would

I highly doubt it either. I'd bet most would bury/hide their weapons and claim them lost or destroyed.

 

[marincounty]

And Feinstein would love to turn the whole country into the kool-aid drinking Calimexifornia if she had the chance. That's the first step to acknowledging the actual problem. Does Feinstein have anything to say whenever a gun prevents a violent crime from occurring? Or does the propaganda media, for that matter? Does Feinstein even have any background in criminal justice that would qualify her to make an informed decision about reducing violent crime? No, because in her delusional mind, if she could prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms, then we'd all be holding hands and singing kumbaya.

Feinstein has been a Senator for many years, one of the most powerful govt positions you can have. She represents millions of voters. What are your qualifications for commenting?
Guns preventing violent crime? It does happen, but not nearly as often as a gun is used in a crime.
When did she ever say she just wanted to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms? She wants to stop mass killings using semi-auto firearms, don't you?
As for your problems with California, don't like California, don't come here. California thanks you.

 

[TallBill]

Feinstein has been a Senator for many years, one of the most powerful govt positions you can have. She represents millions of voters. What are your qualifications for commenting?
Guns preventing violent crime? It does happen, but not nearly as often as a gun is used in a crime.
When did she ever say she just wanted to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms? She wants to stop mass killings using semi-auto firearms, don't you?
As for your problems with California, don't like California, don't come here. California thanks you.

Actually they are used way more than most people think to prevent crime. Statistics very consistently show that letting citizens arm themselves lowers crime rates.

And you're a fool if you think that she wants to stop mass killings with her legislation. The last assault weapon ban did absolutely nothing to reduce crime or mass shootings.

 

[olds]

Feinstein has been a Senator for many years, one of the most powerful govt positions you can have. She represents millions of voters. What are your qualifications for commenting?
Guns preventing violent crime? It does happen, but not nearly as often as a gun is used in a crime.
When did she ever say she just wanted to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms? She wants to stop mass killings using semi-auto firearms, don't you?
As for your problems with California, don't like California, don't come here. California thanks you.

She's also a fucking moron.

 

[Munky]

Feinstein has been a Senator for many years, one of the most powerful govt positions you can have. She represents millions of voters. What are your qualifications for commenting?
Guns preventing violent crime? It does happen, but not nearly as often as a gun is used in a crime.
When did she ever say she just wanted to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms? She wants to stop mass killings using semi-auto firearms, don't you?
As for your problems with California, don't like California, don't come here. California thanks you.

Her senator background amounts to credentialist BS when it comes to dealing with criminal justice. Had she even the slightest clue, she would have known that the majority of gun homicides are done with handguns, not big bad scary-looking "military-style" assault rifles. She would have also known that armed people present a high risk target for a criminal, and that the criminal would rather attack an unarmed target. And she would have most definitely known that these criminals plan their attacks in advance so as to put themselves at an advantage and minimize risk of death. Lastly, she would have known that criminals can and do obtain firearms illegally, and use them in a gun-free zone.

In other words, the only thing she will accomplish with her idiotic plan is using the recent tragedy to score brownie points with the anti-gun crowd, and to put additional restrictions on legally acquiring guns, none of which will matter to the next criminal.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by HumblePie
-snip-
Bombs are easily made and an easy choice to cause mass killings. Gas agents as well. Ammonia and Bleach anyone? Bar the doors, and toss in a bunch of ammonia and bleach would still result in quite a bit of mass murder. And that's just the simple stuff. There is stronger stuff that is readily available to use.

There's no denying however the effort to create a bomb or a chemical weapon would be prohibitive to a sizable portion of people compared to if they had easy access to a firearm.
-snip-

There's nothing difficult about making bombs.

Black powder and black powder substitutes are readily available and in large quantities. The only restriction I see on purchases is a limit of 50lbs.

Pipe bombs are easy to make and quite deadly.

Fern

 

[Tom]

The fact is, if the assault weapon ban had not expired, the killing of 20 children and six adults would not have happened as it did.

It might have happened in a different way..but there's no particular reason to think that's the case.

1. the mother could not have bought the ar-15 in the manner she did. There's no reason to think she would have bought it illegally.

2. if she didn't own it, she never could have let her son learn how to use it.

 

[Tom]

Her senator background amounts to credentialist BS when it comes to dealing with criminal justice. Had she even the slightest clue, she would have known that the majority of gun homicides are done with handguns, not big bad scary-looking "military-style" assault rifles. She would have also known that armed people present a high risk target for a criminal, and that the criminal would rather attack an unarmed target. And she would have most definitely known that these criminals plan their attacks in advance so as to put themselves at an advantage and minimize risk of death. Lastly, she would have known that criminals can and do obtain firearms illegally, and use them in a gun-free zone.

In other words, the only thing she will accomplish with her idiotic plan is using the recent tragedy to score brownie points with the anti-gun crowd, and to put additional restrictions on legally acquiring guns, none of which will matter to the next criminal.

If you knew her history you would know how foolish you sound.

 

[Fern]

The fact is, if the assault weapon ban had not expired, the killing of 20 children and six adults would not have happened as it did.

It might have happened in a different way..but there's no particular reason to think that's the case.

1. the mother could not have bought the ar-15 in the manner she did. There's no reason to think she would have bought it illegally.

2. if she didn't own it, she never could have let her son learn how to use it.

What are you talking about?

The gun used was legal under the AWB.

Are you referring to the magazine? Those have been for sale legally the whole time, too.

Fern