Feinstein admits gun control unlikely to get passed

[Kadarin]

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:

Very true.

 

[TerryMathews]

Assault rifles... who cares?

Evidently you did, or you wouldn't have commented. Amirite?

 

[JulesMaximus]

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:

You'd have to be high to believe this. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is half the cake? Really? Half the cake? It only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on any transfers of such weapons.

 

[Agent11]

Assault rifles... who cares?

The problem is your idea of what an assault rifle is, and California's, are not based upon reality.

Full automatic battle rifles were legal in California. . . And technically still are(iirc), but require a state issued license. . . Good luck with the state DOJ. Persons that already owned full auto when that requirement was put into law were allowed to keep their guns.

However, that isn't even what you are talking about, you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, not Assault Rifles. Which is absurd, California requires their absurd little bullet buttons on semi automatic rifles.

 

[dmens]

You'd have to be fucking high to believe this. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is half the cake? Really? Half the fucking cake? It only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on any transfers of such weapons.

NFA 34 asserted federal control over firearms using an absurd reading of the commerce clause and set in motion all future infringements. It required registration and approval of numerous types of firearms and accessories, as in, firearms are no longer a right, but a privilege to be granted by the State. The $200 tax is irrelevant compared to the consequences of this massive power grab.

It is the foot in the door and deserves to be recognized as such.

 

[Fenixgoon]

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

so if he went through a background check and passed (which he must have otherwise he could not have legally purchased them), then what could have possibly been done to stop this from happening?

literally, any person who is legally eligible to purchase a firearm could go and do the same thing tomorrow at any place where people gather in large groups and there is nothing on the face of this planet short of knowing the future that could stop it.

 

[Agent11]

You could walk into a daycare and strangle all the babies likewise. If you are a wretched evil bastard you will do wretched evil things.

 

[JulesMaximus]

so if he went through a background check and passed (which he must have otherwise he could not have legally purchased them), then what could have possibly been done to stop this from happening?

literally, any person who is legally eligible to purchase a firearm could go and do the same thing tomorrow at any place where people gather in large groups and there is nothing on the face of this planet short of knowing the future that could stop it.

Therein lies the problem...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Therein lies the problem...

yep, we're our own worst enemy.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The problem is your idea of what an assault rifle is, and California's, are not based upon reality.

Full automatic battle rifles were legal in California. . . And technically still are(iirc), but require a state issued license. . . Good luck with the state DOJ. Persons that already owned full auto when that requirement was put into law were allowed to keep their guns.

However, that isn't even what you are talking about, you are talking about semi-automatic rifles, not Assault Rifles. Which is absurd, California requires their absurd little bullet buttons on semi automatic rifles.

Semantics. It doesn't matter what you call an assault gun, what the law calls an assault gun is what matters. I own one of these fucking things. I can't sell it, I never shoot it, I don't even know why the hell I own it except that I legally bought it in 1994 for $250. I do legally own it and it accepts 30 round detachable maga... er clips (of which I own a bunch of) and it is semi-auto only. It is a MAK90 made by Norinco and sporting thumbhole stock. Basically it is a semi-auto only AK47 knockoff chambered in 7.62x39mm.

 

[JulesMaximus]

yep, we're our own worst enemy.

Pretty much. :thumbsup:

 

[dmens]

Semantics. It doesn't matter what you call an assault rifle, what the law calls an assault rifle is what matters. I own one of these fucking things. I can't sell it, I never shoot it, I don't even know why the hell I own it except that I legally bought it in 1994 for $250. I do legally own it and it accepts 30 round detachable maga... er clips (of which I own a bunch of) and it is semi-auto only. It is a MAK90 made by Norinco and sporting thumbhole stock. Basically it is a semi-auto only AK47 knockoff chambered in 7.62x39mm.

You paid $250 for a MAK 90 in 1994? You got ripped off big time.

Changing language and creating scary new words is a classic government ploy to gain power, by the way. Assault rifles meant selective fire firearms firing intermediate cartridges for decades until someone decided to change the meaning.

 

[JulesMaximus]

You paid $250 for a MAK 90 in 1994? You got ripped off big time.

Changing language and creating scary new words is a classic government ploy to gain power, by the way. Assault rifles meant selective fire firearms firing intermediate cartridges for decades until someone decided to change the meaning.

I think it was $250 OTD. And this was in California too so that's including tax and background check. That's what they were going for... I know, it probably cost 15 cents to manufacture and it is cheap but it is very reliable. I have shot it a number of times but probably not within the past 10 years.

 

[destey]

WTF are you talking about?

He's right. I suggest you heed the advice of a metaphor- "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Doppel]

You'd have to be fucking high to believe this. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is half the cake? Really? Half the fucking cake? It only covered two specific types of guns: machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. It did not attempt to ban either weapon, but merely to impose a tax on any transfers of such weapons.

I think the point whooshed over your head. Obviously you're not supposed to see all those half, half, half as quantitatively accurate. It's the notion of it; the gist that is the take-home here.

 

[destey]

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.

Agreed. Gun control is completely flawed from all angles. Mass murders like the LAX shooter routinely go around strict gun control measures.

If someone is going to do something terrible, a law is not going to stop them.

1. Guns are available, legally and illegally on the black market. Bans don't always remove availability. Billions have been spent on the war on drugs and supply has not been dramatically reduced. I saw an article that says the purity and inflated cost are lower than ever. Blanket bans lead to black markets.

2. If the person has a weapon, a law only acts as a deterrence. A law won't stop anyone if they don't care if they live through the assault.

3. IMO better measures would be more security. Look at sandy hook, the kid went through the increased measure without much problem. Interestingly now that they are demolishing the school, there is 24/7 security (more than when it was operating). The money spent on security now, should be spent on securing other schools.

4. Citizens carrying concealed is the best line of defense. Police have a response time and can't be everywhere. When they do arrive at an active shooter situation, they set up a perimeter, while people die inside. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[TerryMathews]

Agreed. Gun control is completely flawed from all angles. Mass murders like the LAX shooter routinely go around strict gun control measures.

If someone is going to do something terrible, a law is not going to stop them.

1. Guns are available, legally and illegally on the black market. Bans don't always remove availability. Billions have been spent on the war on drugs and supply has not been dramatically reduced. I saw an article that says the purity and inflated cost are lower than ever. Blanket bans lead to black markets.

2. If the person has a weapon, a law only acts as a deterrence. A law won't stop anyone if they don't care if they live through the assault.

3. IMO better measures would be more security. Look at sandy hook, the kid went through the increased measure without much problem. Interestingly now that they are demolishing the school, there is 24/7 security (more than when it was operating). The money spent on security now, should be spent on securing other schools.

4. Citizens carrying concealed is the best line of defense. Police have a response time and can't be everywhere. When they do arrive at an active shooter situation, they set up a perimeter, while people die inside. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

To your number 4, the gun control nuts normally say that more people would die if there were armed people at an active shooter situation ready to defend themselves, like Aurora.

I guess the shooter would get tired after a while? :dunno:

 

[destey]

To your number 4, the gun control nuts normally say that more people would die if there were armed people at an active shooter situation ready to defend themselves, like Aurora.

I guess the shooter would get tired after a while? :dunno:

Yeah they do say that. It is also very condescending, as I doubt they say the same thing about police. Police come in and start spraying bullets all over a community. If I had more time I'd post crime scene photos of evidence flags after a shooting where they are all over the neighborhood, in people's front doors, going through windows etc- most of them fired from police weapons.

To gun control folks, why is that ok, but a citizen doing the same thing isn't? Given that police recently gunned down a teen holding a fake ak-47... I'm starting to trust the avg person more than itchy trigger cops, who rarely face any repercussions for their actions.

 

[Texashiker]

You paid $250 for a MAK 90 in 1994? You got ripped off big time.

$250 for an AK in 1994 would have been about right.

This was during the clinton years. Gun prices will usually go up when a democrat is president.

I bought a maadi around 1996 for $450.

The days of cheap AKs died in the 1980s. I wish I would have bought a dozen Russian made AK47s in 1986 when they were $75.

 

[Tom]

You could walk into a daycare and strangle all the babies likewise. If you are a wretched evil bastard you will do wretched evil things.

This is kind of an absurdest argument. That because we can't control hands and knives and ladders and swimming pools that we shouldn't try to control access to firearms.

That child that was killed while playing with his babysitter's gun, might not have been strangled, drowned in a pool, fell off a ladder.

So something that would have prevented his death by gun might have been worthwhile.

 

[Texashiker]

This is kind of an absurdest argument. That because we can't control hands and knives and ladders and swimming pools that we shouldn't try to control access to firearms.

That child that was killed while playing with his babysitter's gun, might not have been strangled, drowned in a pool, fell off a ladder.

So something that would have prevented his death by gun might have been worthwhile.

Yes, society should do its best to prevent deaths and injuries from firearms.

Just as a parent puts a child in a car seat, so should the parent keep firearms locked up and away from children.

However, firearms are being demonized. How can society say firearms cause too many deaths when there are other things that kill more children?

The anti-gun people use the deaths of children to add emotion to their argument. We all want to protect our children, but firearms should not be singled out.

It is terrible that a child drown, it is terrible that a child was ran over by a car, it is a terrible thing that a child got ahold of a loaded gun, it is terrible that HIV was passed from mother to child, it is terrible a child was born to a crack whore mother,,,,.

Bad things happen in life. We can not use emotion as a basis for passing laws.

Crack and crystal meth are illegal. But babies are born everyday to mothers who are strung out. Babies who are born with birth defects and who will never have a normal life.

But for some reason gun haters want to pass more restrict gun laws? How are those laws outlawing meth and crack doing?

 

[Tom]

Yes, society should do its best to prevent deaths and injuries from firearms.

Just as a parent puts a child in a car seat, so should the parent keep firearms locked up and away from children.

However, firearms are being demonized. How can society say firearms cause too many deaths when there are other things that kill more children?

The anti-gun people use the deaths of children to add emotion to their argument. We all want to protect our children, but firearms should not be singled out.

It is terrible that a child drown, it is terrible that a child was ran over by a car, it is a terrible thing that a child got ahold of a loaded gun, it is terrible that HIV was passed from mother to child, it is terrible a child was born to a crack whore mother,,,,.

Bad things happen in life. We can not use emotion as a basis for passing laws.

It's not a matter of demonizing firearms. People who do that should be on the fringe of the argument, like vegans when discussing healthy food.

What I see is people who support firearms let their fringe groups control their side of the argument. The ones who want nothing to change, except maybe making it easier to own a machine gun.

Maybe both sides let that happen. Anyway, it seems like we can't get reasonable things done, like improving background checks. Which I would guess is a matter of improving the ability to access databases or creating databases of people with mental health problems.

And making guns safer.

 

[Texashiker]

like improving background checks. Which I would guess is a matter of improving the ability to access databases or creating databases of people with mental health problems.

I fully agree that there are mentally unstable people should should never have access to firearms.

But how do we (society) go about filtering out the bad people without harming the good people?

Someone goes to the doctor for depression. A few hours later the police arrive at his house to seize his guns. What about due process of law?

We have a right to be secure in our person and our property, nor can our property be taken without due process. So because some is having problems they are a lower class of citizen?

 

[Fenixgoon]

I fully agree that there are mentally unstable people should should never have access to firearms.

But how do we (society) go about filtering out the bad people without harming the good people?

Someone goes to the doctor for depression. A few hours later the police arrive at his house to seize his guns. What about due process of law?

We have a right to be secure in our person and our property, nor can our property be taken without due process. So because some is having problems they are a lower class of citizen?

bingo, and that is where the who mental health debate will go. at what point do you classify someone as with "mental health issues" as a sufficient risk as to confiscate their property and strip them of their rights? it's very very difficult to get right, and very very easy to get wrong.

if it such a mental health restriction were passed, i imagine it will go like this:

1. (more) mental health restrictions are placed on firearms ownership.
2. someone who was just short of "being a risk" performs a shooting
3. everyone says "how can we stop this from EVER happening again?"
4. mental health restrictions become tighter than previously.
5. lather, rinse, and repeat.

and soon you will arrive at anyone who takes a common medication that might affect your mood, or hits a rough spot in life and goes for counseling, might have their rights stripped from them, possibly permanently.

if i had one suggestion for all of that, it's to err on the side of individual liberty.

 

[Agent11]

This is kind of an absurdest argument. That because we can't control hands and knives and ladders and swimming pools that we shouldn't try to control access to firearms.

That child that was killed while playing with his babysitter's gun, might not have been strangled, drowned in a pool, fell off a ladder.

So something that would have prevented his death by gun might have been worthwhile.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that firearms are not regulated.