Feinstein - list of guns - national registry

[jimnyc]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will introduce a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips on Thursday.

Feinstein’s bill will expand the criteria for classifying military-style assault weapons from a 1994 law, which lapsed a decade later. Her new measure will ban the sale of about 150 types of firearms, including some rifles and handguns, as well as the sale of high-capacity magazines, according to USA Today.

The bill will exempt firearms used for hunting and will grandfather in guns and magazines owned before the law’s potential enactment. However, the grandfathered weapons will be logged in a national registry.

The measure is expected to face a tough fight in the Senate, with many GOP lawmakers and the nation’s gun lobby vowing to oppose any new restrictions on gun ownership.

But Feinstein, a longtime proponent of gun reform, said she is ready to push her measure in the face of opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA).

“I have worked on this for a long time,” said Feinstein in an interview with USA Today. “I’m not a newcomer or a novice to guns.

"The NRA sort of specialized in trying to denigrate me, but I don't think there's anyone around that's spent 20 years on this subject, plus some," she added.

Calls to renew the federal assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004, have grown after last month’s mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278993-report-feinstein-to-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-thursday

http://i.imgur.com/xdDbe6h.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

she is out of her freaking mind.

All this crap will do is keep law abiding citizens from having these weapons. It will NOT prevent criminals from having or using them.

[red states rule]

Jim, will you keep us advised if you notice criminals (and perhaps members of NY five families) lining up to register their guns or perhaps turn them in for proper disposal

[ConHog]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278993-report-feinstein-to-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-thursday

http://i.imgur.com/xdDbe6h.jpg

unconstitutional

[Nukeman]

What this idiot forgets or chooses to ignore (not sure which is worse) is that the 2nd amendment was put in place not to protect my ability to go deer hunting to keep my govt in check. Much as we have the 3 branches of govt to keep each other in check it is up to the free populace of the USA to be sure our govt doesnt get too big for their own good.......... That is what the 2nd is for and nothing else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Idiots one and all!!!! Sad that they don't understand that!!

[mundame]

What this idiot forgets or chooses to ignore (not sure which is worse) is that the 2nd amendment was put in place not to protect my ability to go deer hunting to keep my govt in check. Much as we have the 3 branches of govt to keep each other in check it is up to the free populace of the USA to be sure our govt doesnt get too big for their own good.......... That is what the 2nd is for and nothing else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Idiots one and all!!!! Sad that they don't understand that!!

Maybe, but it's not what most of us actually USE it for.

Here we use it for home defense and various animal issues on the farm. I would prefer to see those rights preserved --- I have no interest whatsoever in joining the Revolution, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want me......

Though actually, they could do worse. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

What this idiot forgets or chooses to ignore (not sure which is worse) is that the 2nd amendment was put in place not to protect my ability to go deer hunting to keep my govt in check. Much as we have the 3 branches of govt to keep each other in check it is up to the free populace of the USA to be sure our govt doesnt get too big for their own good.......... That is what the 2nd is for and nothing else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Idiots one and all!!!! Sad that they don't understand that!!

I still contend that that is a side argument that some let people sidetrack them with . It's the only one of the bill of rights, or indeed of any of the amendments , that those who support are asked to quantify their reason for wanting. I will NEVER need my Miranda rights for example , I just won't. But I still want them, and they are my rights.

Simple as that.

"Why do you fight for your 2nd Amendment rights?"

"because they are MY 2nd Amendment rights"

/discussion on that topic

[red states rule]

More words of wisdom from Uncle Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S9kU6djguf4 Does he know that many shotgun models are on the hit list?

[hjmick]

You know, I would be okay with a ban on assault weapons.

The problem is, the weapons they are talking about are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles (and handguns) that have been cosmetically enhanced to resemble military assault weapons. There is a big difference between the two.

That difference is too often overlooked in people's knee jerk reactions to tragedies like Sandy Hook. Emotion rules the day rather than rational thought. Ban scary looking guns and everything will be right with the world...

In who's reality?

Truth is folks, when staring down the barrel of any fire arm, they are all fucking scary...

That being said, let me state, for the record, I own no firearms...




As far as anyone knows...

[Marcus Aurelius]

More words of wisdom from Uncle Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S9kU6djguf4 Does he know that many shotgun models are on the hit list?

A double barrel shotgun will keep me safer than an AR-15?

I don't think so, Joe.

[jimnyc]

You know, I would be okay with a ban on assault weapons.

The problem is, the weapons they are talking about are not assault weapons. They are semi-automatic rifles (and handguns) that have been cosmetically enhanced to resemble military assault weapons. There is a big difference between the two.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

My thoughts exactly, been saying this for some time. I tried that test in quite a few places, and the majority of the time the answer is the same. Put a similar hunting rifle in a picture, which holds 10 rounds, side by side with an AR15, and they always point out the AR as the assault rifle and the one needing to be banned. I tried this with another rifle as well, which was more powerful than the AR, and the answers were the same.

It's mostly ignorance. If it looks anything at all like what a soldier would carry, it needs to be banned - even if it shoots like and has less power than what people hunt for rabbits with.

[Nukeman]

I still contend that that is a side argument that some let people sidetrack them with . It's the only one of the bill of rights, or indeed of any of the amendments , that those who support are asked to quantify their reason for wanting. I will NEVER need my Miranda rights for example , I just won't. But I still want them, and they are my rights.

Simple as that.

"Why do you fight for your 2nd Amendment rights?"

"because they are MY 2nd Amendment rights"

/discussion on that topicYou do realize that the 2nd Amendment is what keeps all the other freedoms free don't you???

[bingster]

You do realize that the 2nd Amendment is what keeps all the other freedoms free don't you???

Maybe back in your pilgrims days nightmare. If you threaten to overthrow the government and are seen as a credible threat, you won't be posting on this forum anymore. The first amendment keeps all of our freedoms free, not a gun.

[bingster]

http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

I think the poll was created to make a slightly dishonest point. Two of the questions ask about propositions that are not even being considered (confiscation) then follow up with the question regarding the national registry. According to the poll, the proposition that NRA members favor most is keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but the poll seems to purposely leave out the question of background checks.

[bingster]

By the way, I happen to think Feinsteins bill is too extreme also. I disagree that it's unconstitutional (I covered this enough when talking about Justice Scalia) though.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

I think the poll was created to make a slightly dishonest point. Two of the questions ask about propositions that are not even being considered (confiscation) then follow up with the question regarding the national registry. According to the poll, the proposition that NRA members favor most is keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but the poll seems to purposely leave out the question of background checks.

Then circulate your own poll, if you don't like theirs.

[bingster]

Then circulate your own poll, if you don't like theirs.

I was just making an observation that was in line with my former points that NRA doesn't really want to be part of the solution.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I find it sad that people (usually liberals) bring up the 'you just want to overthrow the government' argument every time there is a discussion of the 2nd amendment, like it never happened... could/should never happen.

Perhaps they are unfamiliar with this passage...


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence CLEARLY states it is the right of the people to alter or overthrow a government they feel oversteps its bounds in regards to the power it wields over its citizens.

The 2nd amendment gives the ability to do this.

Restricting the 2nd amendment negates this ability, and to an extent, negates the Declaration of Independence itself.

[ConHog]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/278993-report-feinstein-to-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-thursday

http://i.imgur.com/xdDbe6h.jpg

I'd rather have a national registry of morons.

Congress can kick start that by having each of their members register.

[mundame]

I was just making an observation that was in line with my former points that NRA doesn't really want to be part of the solution.


No, they just want to pretend there's no problem.


There is, though.

[jimnyc]

No, they just want to pretend there's no problem.


There is, though.

That's simply not true, and you know it. In almost every post I make I state that there needs to be something done to save lives, but just that these gun bans won't do anything. I think all would agree that there is a problem with people dying. Only the criminals would be happy about that outcome.

[hjmick]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

My thoughts exactly, been saying this for some time. I tried that test in quite a few places, and the majority of the time the answer is the same. Put a similar hunting rifle in a picture, which holds 10 rounds, side by side with an AR15, and they always point out the AR as the assault rifle and the one needing to be banned. I tried this with another rifle as well, which was more powerful than the AR, and the answers were the same.

It's mostly ignorance. If it looks anything at all like what a soldier would carry, it needs to be banned - even if it shoots like and has less power than what people hunt for rabbits with.

And of course the reactionaries always ignore facts like this:


President Obama (http://www.debatepolicy.com/topics/obama/) has called for stricter federal gun laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.

States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter gun laws — but their gun-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent gun-possession laws.

For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI (http://www.debatepolicy.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/).

Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/#ixzz2J1kSVSCP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/#ixzz2J1kSVSCP [/quote)

[red states rule]

Nest asked a great question to anti gun nut Piers Morgan "Why not hold gun control hearings in Chicago"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OsVjqyK6_Y&feature=player_embedded

[bingster]

That's simply not true, and you know it. In almost every post I make I state that there needs to be something done to save lives, but just that these gun bans won't do anything. I think all would agree that there is a problem with people dying. Only the criminals would be happy about that outcome.

But she was referring to the NRA, and I'm sorry, but they just want to sell guns. You take a poll that shows the vast majority of your members want to keep guns away from mental patients, but then you don't ask about or support background checks. They have an opportunity to take a leadership position that can be respected on both sides, but instead they promote fear that sells guns.

[Nukeman]

Maybe back in your pilgrims days nightmare. If you threaten to overthrow the government and are seen as a credible threat, you won't be posting on this forum anymore. The first amendment keeps all of our freedoms free, not a gun.No... NO it doesn't there sparky... The 2nd is what keeps this country free and for you to think it only applies to historical times, YOU are an idiot.. The 2nd was put in place a balance on the govt.

[ConHog]

No... NO it doesn't there sparky... The 2nd is what keeps this country free and for you to think it only applies to historical times, YOU are an idiot.. The 2nd was put in place a balance on the govt.

I don't believe that in this country we will ever need to do that in the United States, but the point stands.

The government would find it a lot easier to take your first amendment away from you without the second at least giving guns to the people.

The FACT that as logical human beings we know that that is unlikely to be needed in the US is not relevant.

[Nukeman]

I don't believe that in this country we will ever need to do that in the United States, but the point stands.

The government would find it a lot easier to take your first amendment away from you without the second at least giving guns to the people.

The FACT that as logical human beings we know that that is unlikely to be needed in the US is not relevant.If there is even a 1 in 1,000,000 chance than we should be afforded the opportunity to defend ourselves against a govt run amok... In times of national or even global crisis is when the REAL govt comes out and I for one would rather be prepared than hope and pray!!! That my friend is when you will be glad of the 2nd and its existence...

[bingster]

And of course the reactionaries always ignore facts like this:

I haven't been able to prove it yet, but I visited your link, Brady Campagne, and FBI website and I believe the ranking in the Washington newspaper chart is based on a number of actual murders, robberies, etc and is not actually a "rate". I couldn't find any rating scale on the FBI website only raw numbers and they coincided with that graph. You can't compare California's murder numbers with North Dakota unless you use some kind of rate system, and I can't confirm that's what they did, but it looks like they didn't. If you find more complete information I would like to see it.

[bingster]

If there is even a 1 in 1,000,000 chance than we should be afforded the opportunity to defend ourselves against a govt run amok... In times of national or even global crisis is when the REAL govt comes out and I for one would rather be prepared than hope and pray!!! That my friend is when you will be glad of the 2nd and its existence...

I'm more afraid of neo-con self-deluding conspiracy theory groups getting together to knock over their neighborhood state government because that governor won't turn over the proof that Obama was born in Kenya.

[jimnyc]

But she was referring to the NRA, and I'm sorry, but they just want to sell guns. You take a poll that shows the vast majority of your members want to keep guns away from mental patients, but then you don't ask about or support background checks. They have an opportunity to take a leadership position that can be respected on both sides, but instead they promote fear that sells guns.

Even if that was their sole goal, which I disagree with, but let's assume then... Even if they wanted to sell guns, how does that preclude them from any interest in preventing gun deaths? Considering they sponsor so many learning events, I doubt that too. You make it sound bad "promote fear" but what they do is provide support of the 2nd amendment and discuss FACTS. What is it that they are doing that would be a lie? Are they tricking people into purchasing guns? Specifically, which way?

As for background checks, you are aware the the EXTREME overwhelming majority of gun sales do have checks already? Really the only time it may not take places is an individual to individual sale, and even then sometimes. I wouldn't mind closing that very small gap - but the checks they already perform are sufficient to me. As to mental patients - well that term alone would apply to thousands of diseases and disorders - do you ban them all? Even those that pose no danger whatsoever to themselves or others? Some basic anxiety, almost like hyperventilating, is considered "mental". We are going to ban someone with anxiety from owning a gun?

[Nukeman]

I'm more afraid of neo-con self-deluding conspiracy theory groups getting together to knock over their neighborhood state government because that governor won't turn over the proof that Obama was born in Kenya.REALLY!!!??? Do you think that in a time of national crisis the govt can take care of 300 million people all at once?? You are deluding yourself, hell you only have to look at the last 2 hurricanes to make significant land fall to see how well the govt DOESN'T do anything right..... They are good for small scale stuff but when you are talking large scale you take your on life in your own hands.. Me personally I would rather have some "neo-con" conspiracy theorist group by me than depend on the govt for help.. You sit in your little apartment with maybe 3 days of food and water and no way to defend yourself (since you don't like weapons) and when you come knocking on our door you might not like the response!!!

[ConHog]

I'm more afraid of neo-con self-deluding conspiracy theory groups getting together to knock over their neighborhood state government because that governor won't turn over the proof that Obama was born in Kenya.

that's as irrational as those who believe that Obama will cancel elections and name himself dictator. Theoretically either could happen, realistically neither will happen.

[bingster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

This one reflect numbers I'm used to seeing in studies. I know it's 8 years old, but rates are going down. California is higher than I thought, but you'll see a lot of red states on top.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If there is even a 1 in 1,000,000 chance than we should be afforded the opportunity to defend ourselves against a govt run amok... In times of national or even global crisis is when the REAL govt comes out and I for one would rather be prepared than hope and pray!!! That my friend is when you will be glad of the 2nd and its existence...

Some of us are quite proud of the 2nd Amendment now even before the - "fit hits the shan "!--:salute:
Do not expect too much of those that straddle the fence and often cry from the pain of the splinters!;)
America has a whole damn lot of them, sad to have to say.. -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm more afraid of neo-con self-deluding conspiracy theory groups getting together to knock over their neighborhood state government because that governor won't turn over the proof that Obama was born in Kenya.

Then you're a bigger moron than I thought... and I thought you were a pretty big moron to begin with.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I was just making an observation that was in line with my former points that NRA doesn't really want to be part of the solution.

Sure they do. Just not a solution that weakens the 2nd amendment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm more afraid of neo-con self-deluding conspiracy theory groups getting together to knock over their neighborhood state government because that governor won't turn over the proof that Obama was born in Kenya.

You were formulating this theory with your mom at breakfast, right??--:laugh:-Tyr


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2Ao-59BBw18/UJCe7XDWm1I/AAAAAAAAAAM/qZULPDC9uO0/s1600/butt-face-kid.jpg

[bingster]

Then you're a bigger moron than I thought... and I thought you were a pretty big moron to begin with.

Alright, I'll agree it was a dumb post. People were really getting scarey during the 2010 elections, though. I was thinking specifically about Saran Engles "2nd Amendment remedies" speech.

My post was mostly tongue in cheek.

[bingster]

You were formulating this theory with your mom at breakfast, right??--:laugh:-Tyr


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2Ao-59BBw18/UJCe7XDWm1I/AAAAAAAAAAM/qZULPDC9uO0/s1600/butt-face-kid.jpg

Man, I hope he doesn't sneeze. I give up. It was stupid!

[red states rule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

This one reflect numbers I'm used to seeing in studies. I know it's 8 years old, but rates are going down. California is higher than I thought, but you'll see a lot of red states on top.

Bing why do libs think banning guns will solve the problem? I recall back in the 1920's Dems banned booze and all it did was make millionaires of gangsters who were happy to provide thirsty people with the booze they were willing to pay for. All that will happen is the guns will still make their way into the hands of criminals and put law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Man, I hope he doesn't sneeze. I give up. It was stupid!

Has enough moxy to admit being wrong..:salute:
Damn, I'm impressed..-Tyr

[red states rule]

So if assault weapons are banned, will elected officials in DC (including Ms Feinstein) no longer be protected with "assault weapons"? Probably not. Why would anyone be surprised that Dems would not want you to be protected by the same weapons they are protected with?

[ConHog]

So if assault weapons are banned, will elected officials in DC (including Ms Feinstein) no longer be protected with "assault weapons"? Probably not. Why would anyone be surprised that Dems would not want you to be protected by the same weapons they are protected with?

Elected officials in dc are protected by leos. Same as you. Noone proposed taking their weapons away.

[bingster]

Bing why do libs think banning guns will solve the problem? I recall back in the 1920's Dems banned booze and all it did was make millionaires of gangsters who were happy to provide thirsty people with the booze they were willing to pay for. All that will happen is the guns will still make their way into the hands of criminals and put law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals

It's not quite as easy to build a Bushmaster in your cellar. The ban did work for automatic weapons, the supply eventually dried up.

[jimnyc]

It's not quite as easy to build a Bushmaster in your cellar. The ban did work for automatic weapons, the supply eventually dried up.

300+ million weapons out there, and likely more. It doesn't work in the cities that do so now. It didn't work from 94-'04, and it's not gonna work this time.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2d7u2q.jpg

[hjmick]

Elected officials in dc are protected by leos. Same as you. Noone proposed taking their weapons away.

You believe it is the job of law enforcement to protect you? Huh... I can't remember the last time I heard about law enforcement preventing a crime or protecting citizens...

I hear about them investigating crimes and arresting perpetrators after the fact, but no actual prevention/protection comes to mind...

[jimnyc]

You believe it is the job of law enforcement to protect you? Huh... I can't remember the last time I heard about law enforcement preventing a crime or protecting citizens...

I hear about them investigating crimes and arresting perpetrators after the fact, but no actual prevention/protection comes to mind...

And even then.... I still prefer to have the opportunity of protecting myself. Those wanting to remove our 2nd amendment rights have these people camped around them providing security, we don't.

[hjmick]

And even then.... I still prefer to have the opportunity of protecting myself. Those wanting to remove our 2nd amendment rights have these people camped around them providing security, we don't.

Did you catch Mamet's latest essay?

In retrospect, I should have given the thread a more provocative title...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38925-David-Mamet-Damn-Brilliant&p=611355#post611355

[ConHog]

You believe it is the job of law enforcement to protect you? Huh... I can't remember the last time I heard about law enforcement preventing a crime or protecting citizens...

I hear about them investigating crimes and arresting perpetrators after the fact, but no actual prevention/protection comes to mind...

In point of fact I do not believe that, but in response to what Red wrote. He is bitching that the people who protect politicians (secret service) aren't having their weapons taken away. His thinking is off in that rant because Secret Service are leos and no one is advocating taking away the leos right to have guns anywhere. In other words leos that protect politicians are not getting an exemption.

PS I believe this proposed bill is unconstitutional. so I'm not defending the bill, I'm only arguing the statement RSR made.

[ConHog]

And even then.... I still prefer to have the opportunity of protecting myself. Those wanting to remove our 2nd amendment rights have these people camped around them providing security, we don't.

Jim, I believe a man ought to be able to do so as well. I've never argued otherwise. I have a concealed carry. I rarely do carry anymore, but I believe I should be able to do so if I want.

I was only debating ONE statement made , not that this bill is a good bill.

[hjmick]

In point of fact I do not believe that, but in response to what Red wrote. He is bitching that the people who protect politicians (secret service) aren't having their weapons taken away. His thinking is off in that rant because Secret Service are leos and no one is advocating taking away the leos right to have guns anywhere. In other words leos that protect politicians are not getting an exemption.

PS I believe this proposed bill is unconstitutional. so I'm not defending the bill, I'm only arguing the statement RSR made.

I'll give you the Secret Service. My post was more in regard to local LEOs, city, county, state... You know.

[ConHog]

I'll give you the Secret Service. My post was more in regard to local LEOs, city, county, state... You know.

and my only point was that fighting this bill with a tactic of "hey you are being protected by people with guns while saying that we can't have guns " is a stupid tactic. Because they can just respond with "hey you can be around law enforcement who have guns to"

same as with people who are screaming about "obama's kids are protected by people with guns at school" is stupid because in point of fact you can hire private armed security for your children and get an exemption for them to be at schools and a school can even hire their own armed security.

Fighting nonsense with nonsense is dumb.

FACT - this bill is unconstitutional. No other arguments need be made.

[red states rule]

The bottom line is Sen Feinstein wants to keep her "assault weapons" so she is protected - but does not to permit you the same luxury. This is not the first time - nor will it be the last time - Congress dictates what laws you will live under while exempting themselves