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

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

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.

Even then, the AWB would be retarded. We're talking about useless features here.

It would be like if we defined an "assault knife" as a knife with a glittery silver handle, and then someone stabbed a few people to death with one of those shiney glittery knives and you come out with an "assault knife ban" that does nothing about knives with normal handles.

Its not the glittery silver handle, its the blade.

Its not the barrel shroud or the bayonet, its the .45 rounds fired semi-automatically.

[Fish]

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.

You start treading on slippery ground when you ask "WTF does someone need _____ for?"

WTF would any normal person need a 500hp Ferrari? Or a 1000hp motorcycle? They're dangerous in the hands of most normal people, and have the potential to cause considerable harm to others.

When you start determining the "Needs" of others, you're going to get lots of passionate responses from every end of the spectrum.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Fish

You start treading on slippery ground when you ask "WTF does someone need _____ for?"

WTF would any normal person need a 500hp Ferrari? Or a 1000hp motorcycle? They're dangerous in the hands of most normal people, and have the potential to cause considerable harm to others.

When you start determining the "Needs" of others, you're going to get lots of passionate responses from every end of the spectrum.

Maybe, people use .50 cal's for competition shooting and a few use it for hunting though I am not sure much would be left of the animal. .50 cals can disable a vehicle and decaptitate a human at 1000 yards..

[frazod]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Maybe, people use .50 cal's for competition shooting and a few use it for hunting though I am not sure much would be left of the animal. .50 cals can disable a vehicle and decaptitate a human at 1000 yards..

For about $700 I can purchase an Alexander Beowulf upper for my existing AR lower that will fire a .50 caliber round. These shells don't pack quite the same punch as a traditional .50 caliber round (the casings are smaller since they're limited by the size of the magazine port), but they will disable a vehicle at 200 yards.

And no, I don't have one.

Yet.

[alnorth]

I am going to make a bold prediction.

Feinstein wont even secure the vote of her majority leader. Reid cant win in NV if he's seen as favoring gun control.

If the bill never goes to the floor, I'll count that as a successful prediction. If it is filibustered without Reid ever having to go on record, I'll count that as "no action" either way. (so, I'm wrong only if Reid votes in favor of passage of the AWB)

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by frazod

For about $700 I can purchase an Alexander Beowulf upper for my existing AR lower that will fire a .50 caliber round. These shells don't pack quite the same punch as a traditional .50 caliber round (the casings are smaller since they're limited by the size of the magazine port), but they will disable a vehicle at 200 yards.

And no, I don't have one.

Yet.

I like having a rifle that can reach out and touch a target at >500 yards so I’d love to have a .50 cal. Currently that job is taken by a .30-06 so I’m not in a hurry to drop the coin necessary to take home a Barrett any time soon.

[petegz28]

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.

Let's examine that question just a bit more.

What is the real reason for the 2nd amendment? To give the people the ability to defend themselves from a tyranical government.

Now, given the fact that the government has assests that no person is ever going to be able to possess, I think a .50 cal rifle is not that big of a deal considering it is about the only thing you could legally own that would give you half a fighting chance.

[mlyonsd]

How many of these killings have been committed with .50 cal guns?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by frazod

For about $700 I can purchase an Alexander Beowulf upper for my existing AR lower that will fire a .50 caliber round. These shells don't pack quite the same punch as a traditional .50 caliber round (the casings are smaller since they're limited by the size of the magazine port), but they will disable a vehicle at 200 yards.

And no, I don't have one.

Yet.

Does it come with a muzzle brake because you are going to need one unless you don't value your face.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Let's examine that question just a bit more.

What is the real reason for the 2nd amendment? To give the people the ability to defend themselves from a tyranical government.

Now, given the fact that the government has assests that no person is ever going to be able to possess, I think a .50 cal rifle is not that big of a deal considering it is about the only thing you could legally own that would give you half a fighting chance.

I suppose.

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

How many of these killings have been committed with .50 cal guns?

None but I was just using that as an example of a type of weapon that might be considered unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose that you can legally buy.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

None but I was just using that as an example of a type of weapon that might be considered unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose that you can legally buy.

In this case, the practical purpose need not be anything more than "its fun to shoot". We don't start from a base of needing to justify our freedoms, we need to justify restricting freedoms.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Does it come with a muzzle brake because you are going to need one unless you don't value your face.

Actually it's a pretty simple thing. I've never fired one, but from watching videos it doesn't even look like they kick all that much.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I suppose.



None but I was just using that as an example of a type of weapon that might be considered unnecessarily dangerous with no practical purpose that you can legally buy.

Which is a pretty silly over reaction way of looking at it. Don't worry, you're not alone. All the talking pundits in the media are doing it.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by alnorth

In this case, the practical purpose need not be anything more than "its fun to shoot".

Alot of guns are fun to shoot if that was the criteria then they all would be legal

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by frazod

Actually it's a pretty simple thing. I've never fired one, but from watching videos it doesn't even look like they kick all that much.

This is kind of funny