Feinstein admits gun control unlikely to get passed

[Texashiker]

Even if he did buy the gun from the Internet, he would have to pass a background check from his local FFL before said gun would be release to him. It was not like anyone could order a gun from the net and a few days later, it would show up on his/her door.

Or, he could have driven to the next state and bought it.

It is perfectly legal to buy a long arm in anther state. You are just not supposed to buy a handgun in another state.

 

[Tom]

How far do your rights have to be eroded before you say enough is enough?

Please be exact and to the point.

I don't agree that gun control "erodes" the 2nd Amendment.

It could make it stronger. A law that required gun ownership would be gun control. How would that "erode" the 2nd Amendment ?

But my personal view has nothing to do with my post you're responding to. It's about why action or inaction by the Congress doesn't necessarily correlate to the will of "the people".

 

[Venix]

Not that anyone expects you to, but we have a problem with people using guns to kills lots of other, innocent people.

We should be helping those who are mentally ill with their illness, but that would require, at a minimum, paying for health care for people who often have no jobs or means of paying for it, and more likely re-establishing some sort of (expensive) mental health facilities (shut down in California when Reagan was governor because it *gasp* costs money to take care of mentally ill people, rather than dumping them on their families and then the streets once the families are broke). Neither is politically likely, because any attempt to give health care to the poor is evil socialism!!!!

We should be keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but any attempt to do so is slippery slope towards Nazi socialism!!!!

The NRA is basically the Society for the Slippery Slope Fallacy, ginning up outrage at any rational reforms to actually help things by pretending it's 'fasco-communists out to get yer guns!!!!!!!' instead of a specific fix to a specific problem (mentally ill people getting guns and killing people with them) that basically everyone agrees should be in place. It's intensely frustrating to discuss, because gun people will never accept that you're not actually trying to take away their guns - literally any suggestion, no matter how small or reasonable, gets blown up as the next coming of StalinHitler.

Meanwhile, we somehow have laws in all kinds of things that don't spiral into totalitarianism! Blind people can't drive, yet most people can, once licensed to show they have the appropriate skills! Companies can't sell spoiled meat or faulty equipment, yet capitalism somehow lives on! Basically only on guns do you see this absurd slippery slope absolutism, yet it's completely intransigent on this issue because there's a profit in it for the gun makers and the NRA.

Terrible analogies. Nobody wants to ban cars or food.

The leadership of major anti-gun groups have openly stated that their goal is complete disarmament. Feinstein said in a televised interview that should would order the confiscation of weapons if she had the votes. Eric Holder is on tape talking about how children should be "brainwashed" to hate guns. After the failure of Manchin-Toomey, Obama banned the import of historic M1 Garands from Korea and ordered the ATF to change NFA trust rules as a personal "fuck you" to firearm owners.

Not a single gun control proposal has been a "specific fix to a specific problem (mentally ill people getting guns and killing people with them) that basically everyone agrees should be in place." You must not have read any of the bills if you seriously believe that.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Or, he could have driven to the next state and bought it.

It is perfectly legal to buy a long arm in anther state. You are just not supposed to buy a handgun in another state.

Except that he didn't. It looks like he bought them legally from a licensed gun dealer in Los Angeles.

Authorities believe the rifle used in the shooting was purchased in Los Angeles. Ciancia also had two additional handguns that he purchased in Los Angeles, but which weren't at the crime scene, a law enforcement official said. The official, who has been briefed on the investigation, was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

The purchases themselves appeared legal, although authorities were still tracing them, and it's unclear if the shooter used his own identification or someone else's, the official said.

"He didn't buy them on the street. He didn't buy them on the Internet," the official said. "He bought them from a licensed gun dealer; the rifle and the two handguns."

 

[Texashiker]

But my personal view has nothing to do with my post you're responding to. It's about why action or inaction by the Congress doesn't necessarily correlate to the will of "the people".

What is best for the nation is not always best for the people.

Lets say that congress banned the manufacturer of AR-15 style weapons. All but one of two companies would be forced to close.

Who is supposed to make our rifles in times of war? A couple of strikes could disable our ability to produce weapons. China recently released a map showing what just one of their subs could do to the west coast. But yet we are supposed to go down to a couple of factories along the est coast?

The way it is now we have dozens of factories spread out all over the nation producing arms. If we lost a couple of factories to a strike, so what, we have other factories making weapons.

Then there are the jobs those factories support. Good paying jobs with benefits that allow people to buy stuff.

Do you want those skilled workers out of work and on welfare? Or do you want them on the assembly line?

 

[Tom]

Terrible analogies. Nobody wants to ban cars or food.

The leadership of major anti-gun groups have openly stated that their goal is complete disarmament. Feinstein said in a televised interview that should would order the confiscation of weapons if she had the votes. Eric Holder is on tape talking about how children should be "brainwashed" to hate guns. After the failure of Manchin-Toomey, Obama banned the import of historic M1 Garands from Korea and ordered the ATF to change NFA trust rules as a personal "fuck you" to firearm owners.

Not a single gun control proposal has been a "specific fix to a specific problem (mentally ill people getting guns and killing people with them) that basically everyone agrees should be in place." You must not have read any of the bills if you seriously believe that.

The Republicans could propose a substitute that would "fix" that particular problem.

That would put the onus on the Democrats. Why doesn't it happen ?

It's my opinion it doesn't happen because the Republicans believe its better for them politically to do nothing.

 

[Tom]

What is best for the nation is not always best for the people.

Lets say that congress banned the manufacturer of AR-15 style weapons. All but one of two companies would be forced to close.

Who is supposed to make our rifles in times of war? A couple of strikes could disable our ability to produce weapons. China recently released a map showing what just one of their subs could do to the west coast. But yet we are supposed to go down to a couple of factories along the est coast?

The way it is now we have dozens of factories spread out all over the nation producing arms. If we lost a couple of factories to a strike, so what, we have other factories making weapons.

Then there are the jobs those factories support. Good paying jobs with benefits that allow people to buy stuff.

Do you want those skilled workers out of work and on welfare? Or do you want them on the assembly line?

I agree. Which is why I believe in our form of government. I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What is best for the nation is not always best for the people.

Lets say that congress banned the manufacturer of AR-15 style weapons. All but one of two companies would be forced to close.

Who is supposed to make our rifles in times of war? A couple of strikes could disable our ability to produce weapons. China recently released a map showing what just one of their subs could do to the west coast. But yet we are supposed to go down to a couple of factories along the est coast?

The way it is now we have dozens of factories spread out all over the nation producing arms. If we lost a couple of factories to a strike, so what, we have other factories making weapons.

Then there are the jobs those factories support. Good paying jobs with benefits that allow people to buy stuff.

Do you want those skilled workers out of work and on welfare? Or do you want them on the assembly line?

Why not? We've done it with every other type of manufacturing job in this country. We've been doing it for decades.

 

[Agent11]

Gun laws aren't that strict here. There are states with far more draconian laws than CA has.

You cannot say that with a straight face, they require a fucking tool to reload.

 

[Texashiker]

Why not? We've done it with every other type of manufacturing job in this country. We've been doing it for decades.

Jobs, factories, and skilled workers that are essential to national security are usually protected.

Take GM for example. The government will never let GM go belly up. Simply because GM supplies so many parts to the military.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not that anyone expects you to, but we have a problem with people using guns to kills lots of other, innocent people.

Fine, but I have yet to see any measures that actually address the real problem. They are trying to address the criminal use of weapons by restricting legal ownership of weapons by law abiding citizens. We should never give an inch on any such stupidity.

The NRA is basically the Society for the Slippery Slope Fallacy

Every time someone starts talking about a slippery slope fallacy, it's very easy to show them all the direct assaults on gun ownership in places like NY, CA, Chicago/IL and so forth -- pretty much proof that it's not a slippery slope fallacy, it shows that if you give the anti-gun cooks an inch, they will use it to push their agenda even further. When they've admitted that their end goal is total disarmament, you should not give them any room.

 

[irishScott]

Not that anyone expects you to, but we have a problem with people using guns to kills lots of other, innocent people.

We should be helping those who are mentally ill with their illness, but that would require, at a minimum, paying for health care for people who often have no jobs or means of paying for it, and more likely re-establishing some sort of (expensive) mental health facilities (shut down in California when Reagan was governor because it *gasp* costs money to take care of mentally ill people, rather than dumping them on their families and then the streets once the families are broke). Neither is politically likely, because any attempt to give health care to the poor is evil socialism!!!!

We should be keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but any attempt to do so is slippery slope towards Nazi socialism!!!!

The NRA is basically the Society for the Slippery Slope Fallacy, ginning up outrage at any rational reforms to actually help things by pretending it's 'fasco-communists out to get yer guns!!!!!!!' instead of a specific fix to a specific problem (mentally ill people getting guns and killing people with them) that basically everyone agrees should be in place. It's intensely frustrating to discuss, because gun people will never accept that you're not actually trying to take away their guns - literally any suggestion, no matter how small or reasonable, gets blown up as the next coming of StalinHitler.

Meanwhile, we somehow have laws in all kinds of things that don't spiral into totalitarianism! Blind people can't drive, yet most people can, once licensed to show they have the appropriate skills! Companies can't sell spoiled meat or faulty equipment, yet capitalism somehow lives on! Basically only on guns do you see this absurd slippery slope absolutism, yet it's completely intransigent on this issue because there's a profit in it for the gun makers and the NRA.

Oh please.

You want an example of the Slippery Slope? Governor Cuomo of New York just delivered it with the New York SAFE Act. He shoved it through politically with a scant 2 hours of debate, and imposed limits such as "you can own 10 round magazines, but you can only have 7 rounds loaded at any time." He also banned internet ammunition sales (which does nothing but artificially increase the cost of ammunition), and guess what? The law was written so well that they forgot to exempt police officers, and had to make emergency amendments to fix that.

Oh, and he also said "confiscation could be an option" on a radio show when talking about an assault weapons ban. That went over like a lead balloon. All of this happened this year BTW.


The vast majority of NRA members aren't afraid of communism or nazis, they're afraid of ignoramuses making feel-good laws to regulate something that they have repeatably demonstrated to not understand. The gun control lobby has completely alienated your average gun owner with their sheer idiocy. It's hard to accept "reasonable" gun control like background checks when you know the person suggesting it is going to demand registration the next time some lunatic goes ape-shit.

The gun control lobby had a chance to appear rational and cut the NRA's legs out from under it, that died with the Clinton AWB and their subsequent attempts. They have no one to blame but themselves for their failure, they thought their quixotic mission of "eliminate guns from society by legislation" would catch on. Once it was proven not to work, they doubled down on it in spite of its failure. Shockingly, people stopped listening to them.

As for improved mental health, the NRA has publicly come out in support of such measures, and last I checked they weren't losing members over doing so.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You cannot say that with a straight face, they require a fucking tool to reload.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Oh please.

You want an example of the Slippery Slope? Governor Cuomo of New York just delivered it with the New York SAFE Act. He shoved it through politically with a scant 2 hours of debate, and imposed limits such as "you can own 10 round magazines, but you can only have 7 rounds loaded at any time." He also banned internet ammunition sales (which does nothing but artificially increase the cost of ammunition), and guess what? The law was written so well that they forgot to exempt police officers, and had to make emergency amendments to fix that.

Oh, and he also said "confiscation could be an option" on a radio show when talking about an assault weapons ban. That went over like a lead balloon. All of this happened this year BTW.


The vast majority of NRA members aren't afraid of communism or nazis, they're afraid of ignoramuses making feel-good laws to regulate something that they have repeatably demonstrated to not understand. The gun control lobby has completely alienated your average gun owner with their sheer idiocy. It's hard to accept "reasonable" gun control like background checks when you know the person suggesting it is going to demand registration the next time some lunatic goes ape-shit.

The gun control lobby had a chance to appear rational and cut the NRA's legs out from under it, that died with the Clinton AWB and their subsequent attempts. They have no one to blame but themselves for their failure, they thought their quixotic mission of "eliminate guns from society by legislation" would catch on. Once it was proven not to work, they doubled down on it in spite of its failure. Shockingly, people stopped listening to them.

As for improved mental health, the NRA has publicly come out in support of such measures, and last I checked they weren't losing members over doing so.

I don't care if they ban assault guns.

 

[Matt1970]

Not that anyone expects you to, but we have a problem with people using guns to kills lots of other, innocent people.

We should be helping those who are mentally ill with their illness, but that would require, at a minimum, paying for health care for people who often have no jobs or means of paying for it, and more likely re-establishing some sort of (expensive) mental health facilities (shut down in California when Reagan was governor because it *gasp* costs money to take care of mentally ill people, rather than dumping them on their families and then the streets once the families are broke). Neither is politically likely, because any attempt to give health care to the poor is evil socialism!!!!

We should be keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but any attempt to do so is slippery slope towards Nazi socialism!!!!

The NRA is basically the Society for the Slippery Slope Fallacy, ginning up outrage at any rational reforms to actually help things by pretending it's 'fasco-communists out to get yer guns!!!!!!!' instead of a specific fix to a specific problem (mentally ill people getting guns and killing people with them) that basically everyone agrees should be in place. It's intensely frustrating to discuss, because gun people will never accept that you're not actually trying to take away their guns - literally any suggestion, no matter how small or reasonable, gets blown up as the next coming of StalinHitler.

Meanwhile, we somehow have laws in all kinds of things that don't spiral into totalitarianism! Blind people can't drive, yet most people can, once licensed to show they have the appropriate skills! Companies can't sell spoiled meat or faulty equipment, yet capitalism somehow lives on! Basically only on guns do you see this absurd slippery slope absolutism, yet it's completely intransigent on this issue because there's a profit in it for the gun makers and the NRA.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is not going to fix the problem. Too many mass shooters wouldn't even be classified as mentally ill.

 

[Texashiker]

I don't care if they ban assault weapons.

Assault weapons are already restricted.

 

[irishScott]

I don't care if they ban assault weapons.

And that's fine. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks the Clinton AWB was a smart or effective law needs summer school. Bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, adjustable stocks, and shotguns that hold more than 5 shells: the terrors of society.

 

[Texashiker]

And that's fine. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks the Clinton AWB was a smart or effective law needs summer school. Bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, adjustable stocks, and shotguns that hold more than 5 shells: the terrors of society.

The AWB was like throwing gun hating liberals a bone. It was just something to shut them up for a little while.

If the government "really" wanted to do something about gun violence, lets start with the drugs. As long as gang members are killing each other in the inner cities nobody cares.

Its only when the violence spills out to the suburbs does anyone give a crap.

Should it be more difficult for people to get guns? Has that same same ideology fixed the drug problem? As long as crack and meth are a problem in society, how is restricting guns supposed to fix anything?

My personal opinion, society should be pro-active in preventing gun violence. Rather than waiting for some loon to go on a shooting spree, get them the help they need.

 

[Doppel]

Oh please.

You want an example of the Slippery Slope? Governor Cuomo of New York just delivered it with the New York SAFE Act. He shoved it through politically with a scant 2 hours of debate, and imposed limits such as "you can own 10 round magazines, but you can only have 7 rounds loaded at any time." He also banned internet ammunition sales (which does nothing but artificially increase the cost of ammunition), and guess what? The law was written so well that they forgot to exempt police officers, and had to make emergency amendments to fix that.

Oh, and he also said "confiscation could be an option" on a radio show when talking about an assault weapons ban. That went over like a lead balloon. All of this happened this year BTW.


The vast majority of NRA members aren't afraid of communism or nazis, they're afraid of ignoramuses making feel-good laws to regulate something that they have repeatably demonstrated to not understand. The gun control lobby has completely alienated your average gun owner with their sheer idiocy. It's hard to accept "reasonable" gun control like background checks when you know the person suggesting it is going to demand registration the next time some lunatic goes ape-shit.

The gun control lobby had a chance to appear rational and cut the NRA's legs out from under it, that died with the Clinton AWB and their subsequent attempts. They have no one to blame but themselves for their failure, they thought their quixotic mission of "eliminate guns from society by legislation" would catch on. Once it was proven not to work, they doubled down on it in spite of its failure. Shockingly, people stopped listening to them.

As for improved mental health, the NRA has publicly come out in support of such measures, and last I checked they weren't losing members over doing so.

This post kicked ass on every single point.

 

[TerryMathews]

WTF are you talking about?

Google bullet button

 

[rudeguy]

if they are so worried about people getting killed, why don't they just make murder illegal?

 

[JulesMaximus]

The AWB was like throwing gun hating liberals a bone. It was just something to shut them up for a little while.

If the government "really" wanted to do something about gun violence, lets start with the drugs. As long as gang members are killing each other in the inner cities nobody cares.

Its only when the violence spills out to the suburbs does anyone give a crap.

Should it be more difficult for people to get guns? Has that same same ideology fixed the drug problem? As long as crack and meth are a problem in society, how is restricting guns supposed to fix anything?

My personal opinion, society should be pro-active in preventing gun violence. Rather than waiting for some loon to go on a shooting spree, get them the help they need.

How very socialist of you. :thumbsup:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Google bullet button

Assault gun... who cares?

 

[dmens]

How restrictive do gun laws have to be before the anti-gun people are happy?

They won't be happy until firearms are the sole domain of the State. I for one am sick of giving up our property and natural rights for government power grabs masquerading as security theater. Compromises imply getting something in return, we get an overtly hostile regime who uses schemes like F&F to further demonize the gun community.

This sums it up:

 

[werepossum]

Oh please.

You want an example of the Slippery Slope? Governor Cuomo of New York just delivered it with the New York SAFE Act. He shoved it through politically with a scant 2 hours of debate, and imposed limits such as "you can own 10 round magazines, but you can only have 7 rounds loaded at any time." He also banned internet ammunition sales (which does nothing but artificially increase the cost of ammunition), and guess what? The law was written so well that they forgot to exempt police officers, and had to make emergency amendments to fix that.

Oh, and he also said "confiscation could be an option" on a radio show when talking about an assault weapons ban. That went over like a lead balloon. All of this happened this year BTW.

The vast majority of NRA members aren't afraid of communism or nazis, they're afraid of ignoramuses making feel-good laws to regulate something that they have repeatably demonstrated to not understand. The gun control lobby has completely alienated your average gun owner with their sheer idiocy. It's hard to accept "reasonable" gun control like background checks when you know the person suggesting it is going to demand registration the next time some lunatic goes ape-shit.

The gun control lobby had a chance to appear rational and cut the NRA's legs out from under it, that died with the Clinton AWB and their subsequent attempts. They have no one to blame but themselves for their failure, they thought their quixotic mission of "eliminate guns from society by legislation" would catch on. Once it was proven not to work, they doubled down on it in spite of its failure. Shockingly, people stopped listening to them.

As for improved mental health, the NRA has publicly come out in support of such measures, and last I checked they weren't losing members over doing so.

Damned well said, sir.

And that's fine. I'm just saying that anyone who thinks the Clinton AWB was a smart or effective law needs summer school. Bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, adjustable stocks, and shotguns that hold more than 5 shells: the terrors of society.

What, doesn't every drive-by witness start with "The first thing I noticed was the bayonet sticking out of the window"?