• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Senate Committee approves Assault Weapons Ban

meh. That's about as far as it is going to get. House Republicans will be lining up around the block to snuff this.


eta: I missed that it was only approved by a Senate Committee and not the entire Senate. Allow me to amend my statement to include Senate Republicans as well.
 
Last edited:
Seems the Democrats are just as capable of voting according to party line as the GOP. But go ahead, morons, keep pretending you're actually fixing a problem!

It bugs the hell out of me that I have to be on the GOP's side on anything.
 
Upchurch said:
meh. That's about as far as it is going to get. House Republicans will be lining up around the block to snuff this.
Click to expand...
If this ever gets a vote by the full Senate I predict that more Democrats will vote against the bill than the number of Republicans who vote for it.

The bill is doomed to fail and even if it passes will do little or nothing to prevent crime.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
If this ever gets a vote by the full Senate I predict that more Democrats will vote against the bill than the number of Republicans who vote for it.

The bill is doomed to fail and even if it passes will do little or nothing to prevent crime.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Preventing crime isn't the intention behind the bill.
 
Polaris said:
Preventing crime isn't the intention behind the bill.
Click to expand...
No kidding. :) But this doesn’t stop the AWB supporters from making the claim. If they said the AWB was introduced to demonstrate how much they dislike guns/gun owners, then it would not get much attention. But timing the intoduction after a senseless tragedy like Sandy Hook allows them to do the dance on camera and get the free attention they so desparately crave. Ironic that gaining attention seems to be the motive for Feinstein and Lanza.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
No kidding. :) But this doesn’t stop the AWB supporters from making the claim. If they said the AWB was introduced to demonstrate how much they dislike guns/gun owners, then it would not get much attention. But timing the intoduction after a senseless tragedy like Sandy Hook allows them to do the dance on camera and get the free attention they so desparately crave. Ironic that gaining attention seems to be the motive for Feinstein and Lanza.

Ranb
Click to expand...

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the ban has been sitting on a shelf gathering dust in anticipation of just such a lucky event as a nut shooting up a class of first graders.

It's just as you describe it - a dance. It's theater. I don't know whether Feinstein is lying or just delusional (I'm leaning toward the latter based on her PTSD statements lately) when she says the previous AWB abortion put a dent in crime, even when the DOJ says, "um, if it did we never noticed." She's so hardened in her position that you couldn't get a contrary notion into her head with a battle axe and a running start.

Most politicians are soulless cash whores, and Sandy Hook is like hitting the jackpot for such creatures. It means they can pretend they are doing something for their non-critical constituents while continuing to line their own pockets.
 
During the debate in committee Sen Feinstein made the following statement:

Feinstein replied. “Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons.”

She is, I assume, referring to the Harvey Milk shooting. The weapon used was a revolver issued by the San Francisco Police Department. The bill reported out of committee does not deal with revolvers, nor with police issue weapons. Had it been in place at the time it would have had no effect on those events.
 
I see nothing wrong in banning assault weapons. Nobody needs an assault weapon unless you're in the military, and then you'll be issued one and get ample training in its safe use.
 
I see nothing wrong in banning assault weapons. Nobody needs an assault weapon unless you're in the military, and then you'll be issued one and get ample training in its safe use.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what, in your mind, is an "assault" weapon.

Is this an "assualt" weapon?
hello-kitty-ar-15-rifle1.jpg


The state of California doesn't think so. It doesn't have a pistol grip, the magazine has been pinned to be non-removable, and the capacity has been limited. It's a semi-automatic, chambered for .223 ammo.

Is this an "assualt" weapon?
135226.jpg


The state of California doesn't think so. Mechanically it's based on a military rifle, the M14, but chambered in .223 instead of .308 Winchester.

How about this one?
10372256_1.jpg


It's chambered in .308, a high-powered military caliber. It's a lever action, but does have a removable box magazine.




The term "assault rifle" is loaded language, not technical language. Using the term suggests an emotional argument, and not a rational argument. What is it you don't want me to own? Scary black rifle aesthetics? Rapid fire functionality? High capacity magazines? High power calibers?
 
Last edited:
What's an assault weapon? In New Jersey, at least for a while, a slingshot was an assault weapon. Yes, really. Yes, silly, too.
 
uke2se said:
I see nothing wrong in banning assault weapons. Nobody needs an assault weapon unless you're in the military, and then you'll be issued one and get ample training in its safe use.
Click to expand...

I really dislike the "need" logic. I mean, that's how Republicans got draconian restrictions on Abortion in the US. By that logic, the state should micromanage your everyday life so you only get what you need, nothing more, nothing less.
 
simple no civillian actually needs a semi automatic gun, a compromise if they feel their desire to own such a weapon is so overpowering, is keep them locked up at registered gun clubs, heavily insured, the ownership registered with the local police, that strikes me as a responsible compromise.

The uinsurance to cover the possiblity of them getting stolen and subsequently used in a crime.
 
Last edited:
Dcdrac said:
simple no civillian actually needs a semi automatic gun, a compromise if they feel their desire to own such a weapon is so overpowering, is keep them locked up at registered gun clubs, heavily insured, the ownership registered with the local police, that strikes me as a responsible compromise.

The uinsurance to cover the possiblity of them getting stolen and subsequently used in a crime.
Click to expand...

Ok, by your logic, women seeking abortion should go through the sort of hoops that various states in the South impose to make it nigh impossible to have a legal abortion.

ETA: I don't get the hypocrisy with many gun control advocates. They advocate de facto bans for gun ownership, yet if similar measures were imposed on abortion clinics, they'd (rightly) get angry and point out that this is a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
Gun ownership and legal abortion are nothing at all like each other and are in no way comparable.
Click to expand...

I was comparing how both the gun control and anti-abortion lobbies use similar tactics.

- "you don't need guns/abortion"
- "we won't ban abortion/guns, but we'll put up so many hoops for them to jump through that makes legal access to it virtually impossible"
- "we need to ban scary "partial-birth abortions"/"assault weapons", they are scary!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom