Sen. Feinstein On Assault Weapons Ban: "I Wouldn't Bring It Up Now"
By Heather Monday Apr 13, 2009 2:00pm
From 60 Minutes April 12, 2009 Sen. Dianne Feinstein on support for the renewal of the assault weapons ban.
"You have lots and lots of Democrats who got support from the NRA this time, and so they agree with the NRA. They'll vote with the NRA," Stahl told Feinstein.
"I'm not going to disagree with that at all," the senator replied.
She admits she's facing daunting opposition. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."
Asked if anybody from the Democratic Senate leadership or from the administration has asked her to back off, Feinstein said, "No. Nobody said a word to me."
And what about President Obama, who NRA supporters like to call the great "gun grabber"?
His Web site says he wants to make "the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent," but the White House doesn't seem to be interested in bringing it up - any time soon.
"There's some sense that the president has so many crisis issues on his plate right now that the idea of bringing up guns - which is considered part of the Culture Wars - would be such a diversion," Stahl told Feinstein.
"I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied.
Feinstein said she's going to hold off, for now, but vowed she would eventually push the issue. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about that," she told Stahl.
You can watch the rest of the segment here: Gun Sales: Will The "Loophole" Close? From the article:
Just in the last four weeks, there have been at least eight separate deadly shooting sprees all across the country. Some of this can be linked to the recession since several of the gunmen had lost their jobs.
The recession is having an effect in another surprising way: in past downturns, people stocked up on things like canned soups. But this time, it's guns.
Even as the stock market has plummeted, shares in Smith & Wesson have nearly quadrupled since November, and sales of guns are going through the roof.
Login or Register to post comments.
because DiFi is a DINO tool.
... it is like the 90s all over again. The GOP really do not have any ideas left. Wait until they find out some two bit real estate deal involving the Obamas. We won't heard the end of it...
I mean, it is not like there are no other more pressing subjects at hand...
so why not support the ban right now? It's so ridiculous to cower to the displeasure of these lunatics.
because the DINOs and repugs feed from the same trough.
on guns.
Anecdote: My brother and his wife live in a small Arizona hamlet 60 miles from any policeman.
Everyone there owns a gun.
As my brother says: There is no crime there. Everyone is polite.
And dead?
Especially if she keeps pushing this issue. There's plenty of Dems who own guns and don't want more gun laws, and there's plenty more who would vote Dem if not for this issue.
This is really a Repub issue, if the Dems drop it the Pugs would pick it up as their own in 4 years. If DiFi puts any gun issue up for a vote before 2010 kiss the congress and senate goodbye.
Leave guns alone.
She knows that gun control is DOA. It's a fact that the NRA is as strong as ever.
The right wing is drooling at the mouth for this subject to be brought up right now. I'm guessing they pray for it. They have already set the tone that President Obama would take away guns and I'm sure they would love to have this to point to as proof.
Having said that, I sure as hell wish that all assault weapons were banned and done away with.
(comment below) - great minds? Well, one outta two ain't bad!
We just proved that other minds besides great ones think alike. ;)
Kept at gun clubs/firing-ranges, so the gun lovers still can own and fire them, but they don't leave the gun club.
This would keep most people happy, and be a good workable compromise between freedoms and protection of the public.
Frankly, I don't believe it's worth messing with, full stop.
The recent shooters weren't using assault weapons, but legally purchased handguns and rifles.
Unless you're going to go for it and ban guns, what does it matter what type of guns are sold? It will only serve to become the next "pro-life" or "anti-gay" issue.
Those right wing, sons of [a] guns are at again.
It is too bad right wingers do not engage in some of their own full-blown, live shoot-outs. Perhaps, these right wingers could engage in a real life version of the Wild, Wild West, and practice live bullet shooting at each other to see if they can shoot straight. And, if one of these right wingers does not get up, in this reality show, then he/she would know their assault weapon actually worked.
I just had to say this one out loud in written form, once, and understand if the Site Monitor takes it down. Thanks.
timing is everything. this is such a touchy subject. if you mention the ban on assault weapons and/or changing the laws(loopholes) regarding gun shows, it automatically escalates to "they want to take your guns and/or your rights". i don't want to take their guns and/or rights away. i would just like to see some better regulation regarding the selling of guns/gun shows. maybe that can't be done. i don't blame sen. feinstein, timing is everything. healthCare must get done this summer. if the gun issue is raised the nuts will come out in force. for some, it's the least favorite thing about law/politics COMpromise.
and the repugs would LOVE for dems to bring up and try and push through a gun control law right now. It's about the only issue where they feel safe and secure (regardless of gun death statistics).
Are you saying that I do not have the right to sell my gun to some other person without getting permission first? Or that the person does not have the right to buy a gun from me without getting permission? I just want to get that straight. Buying and selling things to each other without permission is not a right.
Bartenders and party hosts are charged for allowing people to go out dangerously drunk.
You don't have to tell me that people don't have rights in this country.
Alcohol kills 350,000 people a year. Legally prescribed drugs kill over 100k. Let the Repugs restrict our freedoms, the Dems shouldn't be in that business.
sell and automobile than a gun in this country. I think there can be a balance between your rights and the right to protect the public from gun related violence. Unfortunately, the right wingers have never been fond of regulations or for that matter anything resembling a reasonable compromise.
Because they collect more taxes everytime you sell or buy a car.
Imagine having to repeatedly pay taxes everytime you sold an old refrigerator. And yeah, I know, fridges kill the children, they should be registered.
in the 60 minute piece they had a guy who was able to buy at a gun show several weapons within a short period of time. some were bought without a i.d. is that asking to much an i.d. maybe proof of citizenship. i said maybe it can't be done i don't know but some states it's easier than others to buy a weapon. maybe selling to parole/ a recent federal offense person wouldn't be a great idea.
And everytime they do stories on gun shows to ramp up the hysteria over guns (just like they did over drugs and marijuana) more and more people flock to the shows.
Gun shows used to be more word of mouth, I cringe everytime I see one of these stories now.
* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Argument over
People will still try to argue that.
The point is you don't have to be a 'gun nut' to be a responsible gun owner, and you don't have to be 'pro-gun' to be against any more gun legislation. You don't even have to be right-wing.
I know plenty of liberals and conservatives who are responsible gun owners and don't want any more restrictions; they don't want to be left defenseless to criminals in the street, and they don't want to be spread-eagled on the hood of their car during a minor traffic violation because they have a gun registered in their name.
'well regulated' that's all i ask. i like/respect guns. regulated/registered. not sold to illegal/undocumented people to sell drugs/take across the border. crime cost money/lives.
I live in Cle, none of the dweebs in the streets around here have registered guns. I'm against it for the reason I stated above. As far as shipping them across the border there's already laws for that. And if you've ever been to a gun show, if somebody doesn't look or sound like a citizen you can be sure someone will check their ID. In fact, dealers will look at your ID to make sure you're not a minor. It's not totally anonymous, you gotta pass the smell test.
Security via accent profiling, that will show them criminals and nutcases!
Because lord knows only furrigners would come to this country with the express intent of going on a shooting rampage. Esp. after suffering the latest pandemic of shooting sprees perpetrated by underage illegal immigrants disguising themselves as middle aged, conservative, all american nut jobs.
I feel so much safer, now that the gun show crowd is targeting the underage and immigrant crowds. LOL.
Missed the point dude.
The implication was of people coming in with heavy accents wanting to buy a bunch of guns to take across the border.
They'd get their ID checked.
commit crimes in the US of A using guns, right?
I feel so much safer now with retarded profiling being used in lieu of actual regulation.
I thought that would make you feel better.
then that would be even more peachy!
"The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."
So do insurance companies. So do defense contractors. So does Wall Street. So does big pharma.
Sen Feinstein, is there any way, perhaps, the American people can get a little love?
but forgot Big Petrochemical and Agribusiness.
fixed now...
you also forgot AIPAC...re-fixed now.
euroclyde, there is a huge anti-gun lobby, so i don't know what you're talking about
of all sorts. When they get that greedy money out of Congress, they might be able to make decisions in the public interest. They need to strike down the Supreme Court decision from the late 1800s that gave corporations personhood and the ability to have their voices heard as citizens.
And I think they ought to start paying public workers of all types a LOT more money. Particularly teachers. Starting salary for teachers in Australia is three times what it is in the U.S.
How many highly skilled private sector workers could be lured to the public sector if they could simply make a DECENT sum. I'd gladly leave the rat race if I could make HALF my salary, but for a 10th???
I would like to see more gun cantrol as much as anyone, but S. Feinstien is correct, now is not the time.
The opposition would wrap this up with health care, card-check, immigration reform and every other thing neglected the last 30 years.
Stay patient, we will get there, but it will require big support from the villagers.
Unfortunately Obama needs the GOP, plus he doesn't want to lose control of the Congress at mid-term. Gun Control is necessary, but it just isn't going to be addressed right now.
Your own state has the worst fucking gang problems in the entire country because of assault weapons, and you're still willing to kiss NRA ass! I sure as fuck won't vote for you in 2010! Just change parties like Lieberman, you goddamn back-stabber, because other than the environment, I don't see shit from you which merits you being called a Democrat.
that's strong stuff tequila. i haven't seen you fired up like this. there's definitely good reason.
Well, yeah. The biggest reason that assault bill was even introduced in the first place was because of the gang problem, and now they're trying to pretend "Three Strikes" and drug raids is enough to make up for it being gone.
remember those two russian dudes that had armour on while taking on the L.A. police force
with heavy weapons in the ninties. i was thinking about that when i saw the bay area news about the 4 police officers killed.
I can't *wait* for more of those types of incidents in a crappy economy.
Feinstein, although not my favorite person, has a history on gun control that you may not be aware of.
In exchange for some NRA dough.
...kept full-auto (no I'm not going to call them "assault weapons", it's a loosely defined, stupid term used to describe scary looking guns), weapons out of the hands of criminals?
Like you said, the original ban came about because of a gang problem. Did it work? No. Why, cause gang members don't give two shits about the law to being with. What, you think they're going to forgo that AK-47, because it's illegal? The "assault weapons" ban was waste of money, and resources on a failed policy. And it's not like they legally got these weapons in the past (kind of hard when you have a criminal record).
I live in Ca, last I checked, no one here had to armor up their vehicles, like in other boarder regions. Last I checked the most dangerous city in the U.S. wasn't even in Ca.
It just doesn't work, it's a failed policy. Remember that Texas Sniper guy? Or the guy who shot Kennedy? Those weren't "assault weapons." Charlie Whittman killed 14 people and injured 32 with a bolt-action rifle, an M-1 Carbine (you can get one at Big 5), a shotgun and a revolver. All are legal today, all were legal during the ban.
Then there's Oswald who killed a fucking president with a Carcano bolt-action rifle (I saw the same type at a Big 5 once). You can buy a superior scoped Lee Enfield rifle for less than $700.
Not only that, there are some people who know hot to make their own arms. The ban didn't do jack to stop them.
Lets take a look at the Columbine dudes.
TEC-9, yeah that illegal in Ca. They'd have to get that black market.
Hi-Point 995 Carbine. Nope that was developed for the market when the ban was in effect.
Savage 65H. Nope not covered by the Ban.
Stevens 311D. Nope again no covered.
The "assault weapon" ban did not prevent Columbine.
The the North Hollywood guys with the AK-47s and body armor. 17 people injured and the only fatalities were the 2 guys, during the North Hollywood incident. Their gear, two ILLEGALLY modified Romanian AKs. This was in 1997, the Ban sure went a long way to prevent that one.
The "assault weapon" ban is dangerous because it makes people think something is being done about the problem when it really isn't. I look at the restrictions and I can immediately tell it was put together by people who know nothing about guns.
And no I'm not some "guns for everyone nut", I'd be damned if I let some people I know touch my WWII rifles. Here's how I'd deal with all classifications of firearms.
You want one then:
A) In depth background check on you on the same level as how the Ca State bar looks at you (they look at who you hung out with in high school)
B) Gun safety course, that's more than "can you see straight". Course for each class of firearm.
C) Registration of all firearms.
D) New laws where owners are vicariously liable for what ever someone who stole their gun did with it.
First off, we all know Oswald didn't kill JFK on his own. And those Romanian guys were a threat because of their body armor, which is why they changed the law to not just let anyone off the street have it. And the assault weapons ban didn't prevent Columbine because it allowed the kids to get guns legally at gun shows. It was imperfect, but it was still better than nothing at all. And if you think that it didn't stop gang violence, then why did violent crime drop during the Clinton years? As for those random loonies you mentioned, well, that's just proof that they could've done more damage with assault weapons.
" "There's some sense that the president has so many crisis issues on his plate right now that the idea of bringing up guns - which is considered part of the Culture Wars - would be such a diversion," Stahl told Feinstein.
"I agree with you. I wouldn't bring it up now," she replied. "
Despite this insult to our cultural sensibilities, I agree with this strategy at this time.
it was somewhat shocking to me to know that 90% of the weapons used/found among the five drug cartels in mexico are bought in the united states. it's been shown that these drug cartels are in every major city and some towns. over six thousand people in mexico were murdered last year. the last i heard the death toll this year so far is about two thousand. NOW the TAX burden is put on everyone to fight these drug cartels in the states and possibly in mexico. there's NO free lunch. this affects everyone.
Arms manufacturing is one of the few industries in the US that is thriving and won't need a bailout.
there is that.
hardcore drug cartels with sales of billions are not going to be interested in toy US assault rifles, they will want the real mil spec ones.
would you care to source those statistics? I would think the cartels would be using automatic weapons, bringing a semi-automatic rifle into the fracus would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. ????
...how to use one. Many modern military sniper rifles are still bolt-action. If the cartels have ex-military guys, a with a long range, semi-auto or bolt-action rifle is every bit as dangerous as a guy with an AK-47.
During the Falklands the British were armed with semi-auto battle rifles, while the Argentinians had the full auto-version of the British's rifle, and Britain completely handed Argentina's ass to them on a silver platter with a glass of campaign on the side.
U.S. weapons are used by militaries around the world, and I'm guessing in a few of the genocides as well. Is it any surprise that those weapons will be eventually used against us in conflicts around the globe?
Where do you think the Afghans got their weapons from? We armed Saddam. We trained Osama. We're probably the world's biggest arms supplier.
Where have you been the last thirty years? We're the major arms merchant in the WORLD. Our regulations are embarrassingly lax. Mexico is poor, crime-ridden and right next door. Where the hell did you think they got the guns, Saturn?
The damned ban should have never been allowed to expire in the first place. When the NRA said before bush was elected the first time that if he won, they would have an office in the white house, they must have known what they were talking about.
was it the Oval Office, the VP's Office, or both? I'm guessing both.
Probably both during the bush years. But only the veep went hunting and shot a lawyer.
But as others have mentioned, timing is everything.
Pick battles carefully; there is to much going on elsewhere.
Hell; at this point maybe I'd better clean and oil my guns -
all this talk about wingers running around teabagging everybody
sorta makes me nervous.
;)
All through the campaign President Obama picked and chose his battles. When everyone raised hell about the damned flag pin, he put the damn thing on and stopped that bs. Either he or someone advising him is all about choosing battles and timing.
Those who beat their swords int plowshares work for people who don't.
Since when did criminals start obeying gun laws? More gun laws, means fewer armed citizens who respect the law. When only cops and criminals have guns, we are not safe.
(oops. not a reply to your comment. Just some thoughts..)
Judging from how many comments of "no way am I giving up MY guns" that I see around, looks like "responsible gun owners" aren't interested in obeying the laws either, if they don't agree with them. So maybe that little observation isn't worth as much as you think.
...and they shouldn't. Our country needs responsible guns owners who don't register.
and you fools want these scumbags in the Government to protect you and be the only ones who can defend themselves? I for one will never give up my weapons, so move on fools, mone on.
You're the one trolling here. Looks like you're the one who ought to move on.
Or "mone on"
LOL There are some nit-picking losers on this site. If you don't want guns in your life don't buy one.
agreed
Believe that every man, woman, & child should have the right to a .50 caliber machine gun...
One of the worst things to happen to this nation was the Busheviks letting the AWB expire...
Ask any cop that hasn't been lobotomized by Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity...and they'll tell you the same thing...
Machine guns are already illegal, wake up.
I have a photo I took of a gun shop near Daytona beach a few years back and there is a sign in the window that says, We Buy Machine Guns.
They probably can buy machine guns. However the process is heavily controled, regulated, and taxed by the BATFE, with legal penalties for transgression being up to ten years in prison.
I didn't say they couldn't buy machine guns, I simply said they did.
Seeing as though my next door neighbor has enough H&K hardware to start a small war...
Seriously though...my statement about .50 cal weapons is a 'slight' exaggeration of the NRA's maniacal agenda and their blind eye to the reality that we are the worlds supplier of these weapons. To suggest they aren't pro death merchant (Big Gun Lobby), is to buy into their PR spin, hook-line-sinker....
machine guns of all calibers have been unlawful for public ownership for a very long time. I am guessing before you were born. So the AWB has nothing to do with machine guns at all and it is a well known fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed using weapons that are not covered under the ban. Just when they are used in a crime the get far more press. Kind of like pit bull attacks compared to other dogs.
Good. Frankly going for gun control would be the biggest waste of political capital since George Bush tried, and thankfully failed, at turning SSI over to the free market.
Ha ha. Forcing people to pay into personal gambling accounts is not "the free market."
Guardian UK: Americans stick to their guns as firearms sales surge
Over 50 killed in US shooting sprees in less than a month:
in Australia for the country to say, "Enough."
Unfortunately, there will be another civil war in the U.S. before guns are banned. And that probably won't convince people that guns are bad either. In fact, they'll say, "That's precisely why we need guns."
and they had better hope that no-one decides to go on a killing spree
in a big 4 wheel drive pickup truck and runs over 30 people...
(I seriously think) they would be in danger of losing the right to own vehicles that weigh over 500 pounds
Unlike you, I am quite certain most Australians are quite aware of the differences between the use and intended audiences for cars and guns.
Anyone who buys a gun should at the very least have to take a test to get the license to own it. We can't drive a car without passing a test and cars aren't made to kill people, even though they at times do.
I would love to see guns disappear off the face of the earth, but that's not gonna happen. So the least we could do is license them and require retesting ever so many years, just like having a driver's license.
Because the guns can be sold second-hand at gun shows or simply from person to person.
The NRA always claims that "criminals" get their weapons from the "black market." That's bullshit. They simply purchase LEGALLY purchased weapons through gun shows or simply from private owners, second-, third-, or fourth-hand.
that are used in bank robberies. ...and they have used them as weapons (many times in the past) when they try to run over cops who are chasing them!
(did you know?) ...background checks for motor vehicles are totally non- existant? (can you believe it?)
I register my car, take periodic license exams, and have to have proof of insurance. Is that called "car control"? Take the "control" description away, and let cars and guns be called "public safety." Call assault weapons "cop killers." When hand grenades are outlawed, only outlaws will have hand grenades.
Ummmmmm. desperate criminals (with legitimate drivers licences) run over cops all the time!
(with big SUV's)
what if I told you (I think) you should be mentally evaluated before you can buy a car?
What if I told you that the best way to kill a bunch of people is to get a 450 horsepower Cadillac Escalade, (with a 50 round gas tank) and go to the streets of Manhattan, or a college campus?
What if I told you that there is absolutely no practical need for a 450 horsepower Escalade (with a big gas tank) and that they should be outlawed?
What if I told you I wanted to limit the size of gas tanks because of the potential for someone to drive around (all day) running over people is just way too great?
what if I wanted to ban heavy cars that would be capable of crushing a police officer ...and wanted to make you ride your moped down the highway with the big 18 wheelers?
the only purpose for a cadillac is not to kill, is it?
...could re-phrase that for me...(I dont get it)
A car is a transportation device.
If you can figure out how to repurpose a gun to transport your groceries, or take you to work.... then your silly thought experiment would have some validity to it.
...my weapon is an exellent deterrant. It can perform perfectly well, even if it ain't loaded. (I got a scary lookin one)
as far as groceries go...I prefer organically grown venison. and its pretty good for that too.
purposes. Not as a device to help compensate certain issues. Alas, technically it is a repurposing of guns, so maybe....
That was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that is what you meant. Because...if you meant literally the two uses you described (the possibility of killing as a deterrent, and the killing of deer) still fail under the umbrella of the main purpose of a gun: to kill. And thus, rendering your original analogy between guns and car as invalid still...
...does a good job at transporting my organic venison strait to the ground...
saves me a lot of romping through the woods...very similar to your car. ...I use it to make my groceries easier to obtain.
....(blows puff of smoke off gun barrel)
severely handicapped by your lifelong struggle with analogies...
By the time debate over any 2nd amendment revision issues reaches its appropriate priority level in our long list of tasks for re-building America, May that woman be called ex senator Feinstein. Right now she is much to concerned about selling out net neutrality and comcast's comfort level than to worry about guns.
You don't have the votes, you can't pass the bill. What part of it is so hard for you guys on this blog to understand? Right now is time to focus on the economy, health care, our position in the world, education, etc. Unfortunally one of those undermining Obama are progressives and crying babies on the left.
Obama is undermining himself by not keeping his promises.
He can't keep all his promises in the first couple of months. That's an unrealistic expectation, and anybody holding it will be sorely disappointed.
Exactly!
Thank you, it's incredible how much progressives undermine themselves in just after weeks of a new president, after 8 years of dumbo in chief.
You have to get a license to marry
Is the fear that the affianced is loaded?
"The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."
So you JUST SAY NO. Pardon the pun, but what gun are those creeps holding to Congress' head, that Feinstein thinks there's no way to get past them? Just tel them straight out NO.
Honestly, I'm tickled more and more by the dems not wanting to move on the gun issue. My repugnican family is one that is deathly afraid that Obama is going to send thugs to kick in their doors and seize their .22s and air rifles. If NOTHING gets done on this issue, I will love smearing that in their faces over Thanksgiving.
While I would like to see assault weapons, etc. disappear overnight, I do not think that gun control legislation is really going to be effective in doing that. So, I'd rather just have it stay off the legislative agenda.
How many people said a hundred and fifty or so years ago, why ban handguns, hardly anyone owns one?
A 100 years ago damned near everyone owned at least one handgun in most places in the US.
I said 150 years ago approximately 1850. For the most part they were hunting rifles for home protection. And in urban areas even less.
The first mass produced six-shooter wasn't even patented until Samuel Colt did in 1836, and they were so inaccurate you couldn't shoot very far or very accurately.
There were Derringers who shot little more than a b-b, but that was considered a rich man's weapon.
There were even earlier ones that required wadding and tamping in the 18th century, like the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, and Hamilton died from it. But again the average person didn't own dueling pistols.
Once again Feinstein show's why she's a big part of what's wrong with Washington. She doesn't stand for anything other than what's politically expedient for her today.
When you get a driver's license they tell you that it is a privilege you can loose if you f@$k up. If you want to own a gun and you have not violated the public trust, go for it. If you have committed a crime or are in some other way unfit to own a gun than it is in the public's interest for you to loose that privilege until you prove otherwise.
pri•l•ege
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
as long as you agree that we all have a (god given inalienable) right to apply for a drivers licence...
for a driver's license.
The vast array of astonishing facts that rain down when you are near enlightens us all.
why don't you astonish me? and (everyone else) (one more time) and make another totally obvious observation like (I dunno maybe)....
..."technically everyone has the right to travel wherever and whenever they want to." or ..."breathing and eating are guaranteed by the constitution."
It seems to be the pinnacle of thought for the common gun nut though. At least, it veered you off those inane car-gun analogies.
So that is a positive thing, I guess.... LOL.
Lets make it a point system. Just like drivers licenses.
Too many points against you and that's it. No boom boom for you.
Lets start with being busted for drunk in public too many times.
If you have a drinking problum no boom boom for you.
Then why did they outlaw weed?
wee'd in my backyard...does this mean they will be coming for me soon?
at least I'm prepared...
live free and wee or die is my motto!
1st off, what was the population 100 years ago? Or 150 years ago?
This one is bullshit. Not to mention the advancement of weaponry.
2ndly, we're talking assault weapons here. You know? Military style weapons?
3rdly, Comparing assault weapons to cars is laughable.
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
cars, lol.
Good night folks. Argue all you want.
This is an issue that will live on long after we're all dead and gone. Why would anyone feel the need for an AK47 in a civilized society?
No one is saying take your guns away. What they(I)are saying if you want an assault type weapon. It shouldn't be like buying a fishing rod. Or a car, or a plane,or boat. Anything that can spit out that many rounds that fast needs to be regulated. Seriously regulated.
And if you have any history of violent behavior or any other type of history that shows that you have been mentally unstable in the past. ACCESS DENIED! And yes, there should be a screening. Too many nutcases have guns nowadays.
very well put. i agree i don't want to take away someone's gun, neither does obama. i would like regulation. you mention the ban on assault weapons and regulation of purchasing and all hell breaks out.i brought up the mexican drug cartel earlier. these people are in every city in the u.s. they use their weapons/sell drugs. that's a cost to TAX payers in the billions .there's case in arizona of a person knowingly selling weapons to a cartel member. with this economy,high mental depression rates and states releasing prisoners early what's so wrong with a compromise to have weapons regulated?
Well my point was that you attempt to solve a problem before it reaches a point that it becomes impractical to solve it. We're flooded with handguns, and that generally wasn't the case before the Civil War, and now we must get a handle on the more powerful weapons, before they become too numerous.
That would satisfy the argument that criminals use legal weapons more than machine-guns (unless you count the Tommy-Gun of the Prohibition era).
Even in the Old West, guns were carried openly, and they weren't claiming a right to concealable weapons.
Do you know what an "assault weapon" is? Do you think that the term refers to fully-automatic machine guns?
It's an important question that must be asked before discussing this subject. There's a lot of distortion out there on both sides of the issue.
I'm ex-Airforce, what are you?
the members of the 101st Keyboardist Division.
'Assault weapons' are semi-automatic.
No the assault weapons banned under the 1994 Act were semi-automatic, they limited it. Machine guns have been banned since the National Firearms act of 1934.
The problem is primarily the clips. A standard pistol only carried 6 to as high as 10 rounds, a semi can use clips containing as many as 30-50 rounds without reloading. So there's no pause to slip out one clip and install another. Other devices like bayonet mounts and flash supressors sound awfully odd for hunting wabbits.
The M-16 I was trained on in the Air Force was a semi-automatic.
this country is civilized?
nite...
Just proclaim that illegal immigrants are out buying uzis to shoot you in your bed. The right-wingers will pass a dozen tough gun laws for us.
claim that gay marriage ceremonies and other homo rituals involve semi automatic assault rifles. That should take care of the gun issue in two seconds flat.
You'll see the usual GOP mouth pieces going off on how Jesus cries every time an AK is sold in the US of A.
Now we have a Jumpin Homo Jeebuss on a pogo stick with an AK47 shootin the hell outta the place!
Don't Take the Car, You'll kill yourself!
halp, i've fallen and i can't get up.
Guys shouldn't admit they can't get it up.
Scare them into it. All those brown people with guns. boo
This is for steeve.
Railing against gang violence lets the wingers release their inner racist. Surely they want to crack down hard on gang members? We don't want them just walking into a gun show and refueling their wars.
It has never been about "protection" or "safety" or "constitutional purity" for the gun nut crowd. It has always been first and foremost about gun ownership, with whatever valiant and noble excuse d'jour thrown in as a shield.
If the NRA et al were concerned about "protection" for example, they would be exploring not just gun ownership... but things like better social safety nets, more equal distribution of wealth, education, urban renewal, etc, etc. Ironically, a lot of those issues are like invoking the antichrist for the common libertarian gun nut, even if those proposals have a track record of directly reducing crime when implemented.
Actually, the complaint from the Mexican government is that their drug cartels are getting weapons from America, very powerful weapons leading to wide-scale carnage there.
And there's some concern that it can spill over the border in to areas like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and probably Utah and California as well.
Harvey Milk's bullet riddled corpse in SF City Hall really made an impression on DiFi.
Sounds like it made an impression on the city hall too.
But let the gun control crap die. It's a dead issue. It achieves nothing, and distracts from real issues. And yes I'm also a gun owner.
The simple fact of the matter is, that "assault weapons" are BY DEFINITION "guns that look scary." Look up the 1994 AWB legislation and see for yourself. A semi-automatic "assault weapon" is NO MORE lethal than a semi-automatic "hunting rifle."
Guns defined as "assault weapons" by that ban are used in less than 2% of gun crimes.
Just tell me why you need one.
I had no idea it was the role of government to define for me what I need to own. I thought I was free to decide for myself.
My "assault weapon" (a Colt M4 rifle) is an inanimate machine made of steel and plastic. I enjoy owning it. I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation.
Because your inability to even make up a purpose for assault weapons makes your stupid hang out all over.
If you don't see it, stop by my house and check out my surface-to-air missile.
I enjoy owning it. I store it safely. I'm a responsible adult and I don't what a nanny government deciding for me what I "need" to own.
Does that make me "stupid"?
"I don't want a nanny government deciding for me what I 'need' to own" -- that argument has already lost for grenades, anthrax, and nuclear bombs.
You'll be happy to know that my surface-to-air missile is stored safely.
Nuclear weapons = the Godwin's Law of gun arguments. Congratulations.
You whiffed on my surface-to-air missile.
What a laughable empty shell you are. You can't even pretend to want the thing you're fighting for.
Wow, that's an amazing conclusion you've drawn based solely on the fact that I own a rifle and wish to keep owning it.
Sorry, I'm not your monkey.
Login or Register to post comments.