Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-USSR) to introduce assault weapons ban

[Bo's Pelini]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press that she will introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...ay-Of-Congress

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The issue doesn't have to be narrowed to that extent. The issue she's addressing is gun violence.

One way to reduce gun violence is through an assault weapons ban.

OF course, everyone died due to an inactive brain.

Perhaps she could attempt legislation to increase funding for brain research as well?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

How would that work? The use of the term 'assault weapons' is a purely rhetorical term that comes from gun policy discussion. The '94 ban didn't ban any guns, it just banned add-on features (such as foldable stocks, pistol grips, bayonnettes, etc).

Even if I asked you to tell me what an assault weapon even is, you would either have to give me that definition as set forth in the '94 legislation, or you would have to give me an opinion -- a subjective definition made based on your own perception of limits of reasonable force. And each person's subjective definition is going to be different.

So how is an 'assault weapons' ban going to help protect anyone?

Ideally it would be to ban guns that are deemed unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

And as I said, assault weapons had nothing to do with the violence in Newport. Therefore, she is standing on the bodies of dead children to forward an agenda unrelated.

I'm pretty sure if she pushed for assault weapons ban after an attack actually using an assault weapon, you'd still be condemning her for standing on dead bodies.

Your issue isn't the supposed hallowed nature of this time in history, it's somebody coming to get your guns.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

OF course, everyone died due to an inactive brain.

Perhaps she could attempt legislation to increase funding for brain research as well?

Why not? Let's throw it into the package, I'm always down for some brain research.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Ideally it would be to ban guns that are deemed unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose.

That doesn't really narrow the definition. Some people would say any pistol fits that description.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

That doesn't really narrow the definition. Some people would say any pistol fits that description.

I found out last night that anyone with enough money ($5000-$10,000) could legally buy a .50 cal rifle.

WTF would any normal person need a .50 cal rifle for? I trained on and have experience with one that is not a rifle a civilian needs to get his hands on.

[Dayze]

how much are AR lowers running t these days?
lol

[blaise]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I found out last night that anyone with enough money ($5000-$10,000) could legally buy a .50 cal rifle.

WTF would any normal person need a .50 cal rifle for? I trained on and have experience with one that is not a rifle a civilian needs to get his hands on.

I'm not saying you do. I'm saying if you want to limit access to "unnecessarily violent" weapons with, "no practical purpose," it doesn't mean anything.
That's like saying I want to outlaw, "bad things."

Look at a cop these days. They have a pistol with a full clip+1. And they usually have 2 or 3 more full clips on their belt. He could shoot all that in 3 minutes. So, anyone with access to a pistol could do the same thing, really. So even if you outlaw, 'assault rifles," you would still have people with the ability to shoot off dozens of rounds in less than 5 minutes. Do you then say pistols are unnecessarily violent and serve no practical purpose?

[durtyrute]

and so it begins...I thought it would've happened already. There will probably be more shootings to help their case

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Dayze

how much are AR lowers running t these days?
lol

AR15.com


Lots of discussions on that very topic

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

I'm not saying you do. I'm saying if you want to limit access to "unnecessarily violent" weapons with, "no practical purpose," it doesn't mean anything.
That's like saying I want to outlaw, "bad things."

Look at a cop these days. They have a pistol with a full clip+1. And they usually have 2 or 3 more full clips on their belt. He could shoot all that in 3 minutes. So, anyone with access to a pistol could do the same thing, really. So even if you outlaw, 'assault rifles," you would still have people with the ability to shoot off dozens of rounds in less than 5 minutes. Do you then say pistols are unnecessarily violent and serve no practical purpose?

Ok I agree. It needs to be more specific.

[HonestChieffan]

Clips went out in the 50s

Terminology is Magazine

Clips load from the top

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Ideally it would be to ban guns that are deemed unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose.

...which of course means whatever one the govt feels is practical...not something where the people can maintain their liberty from tyranny.
Don't expect the state to care about anyone but its own power.

[Dayze]

Semi Auto huninting rifles that don't look scary on the list of guns to ban?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Ideally it would be to ban guns that are deemed unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose.

You will not significantly reduce gun violence, AT ALL, without at least a ban on handguns.

That won't happen. This "assault weapons" ban is an idiotic feel-good fig leaf designed to allow politicians to say they did something. The only rational reason for it is if your true motive is to incrementally get to the point where you argue "well we tried everything, now we have to ban handguns".