***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[Sand]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

Exactly. Put in everything you need, want, and wish for and see what happens.

The problem is that the opposition on this particular issue refuses to negotiate. They have behaved unreasonably all along. There's not going to be any give and take here, I predict.

Seriously, why negotiate? It has almost no chance of going forward politically. The provisions have historically had zero effect on public safety, so in that sense there is no payoff. The best suggestion to come out of this tragedy were the ones to arm either hired security in each school or arm principals/other officials. That had some logic behind it. But logic and what works really has no bearing in these things.This isn't much more than a publicity stunt.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

Exactly. Put in everything you need, want, and wish for and see what happens.

The problem is that the opposition on this particular issue refuses to negotiate. They have behaved unreasonably all along. There's not going to be any give and take here, I predict.

If that's true, then why not ask for everything you want?

Because I believe we could get the 2 issues I want passed, if Republicans are forced to vote on them by themselves. Here we're giving them an excuse. You watch: when Republicans give their reasons for voting against this, they will NEVER mention the private sales loophole.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You watch: when Republicans give their reasons for voting against this, they will NEVER mention the private sales loophole.

Why do you think there will ever be a vote on this or any other gun measure in the House? John Boehner decides what goes up for a vote. If he doesn't think it's politically advantageous to have a vote, he won't have one.

 

[timschochet]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

I'll admit that reasonable people differ on whether or not a ban on assault weapons would violate the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think it would, and there is the evidence of a federal AWB ban being in place for 10 years without challenge, as well as many similar state laws. But it is still a debatable point. I haven't focused on it since I regard an assault weapons ban as a stupid idea anyhow. But- I have yet to find a single reasonable voice make the argument that either bans on high capacity magazines, or a removal of the private sales loophole (which are the other 2 big items up for debate) would violate the 2nd Amendment. I have heard a lot of UNREASONABLE people state this. The NRA itself is very tricky, claiming that these measures violate the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, without being specific, whatever that means. One single poster here attempted to make an argument, a few pages earlier, that a ban on the magazines MIGHT violate the 2nd Amendment, but the only example he could provide is if the law limited magazines to 1 bullet. And that was the ONLY time in this thread anyone has even attempted to make a specific argument.

There was no challenge as the NRA and other 2nd amendment groups decided SCOTUS was too liberal at the time. If this Feinstein measure passes (and let's face it, it has a snowball's chance) it would very likely get challenged as the court is now more balanced (you know, toward proper Constitutional interpretation, freedom, light, and all that is good and holy).

I don't think the AWB was unconstitutional. Doubt this one is either.

 

[timschochet]

You watch: when Republicans give their reasons for voting against this, they will NEVER mention the private sales loophole.

Why do you think there will ever be a vote on this or any other gun measure in the House? John Boehner decides what goes up for a vote. If he doesn't think it's politically advantageous to have a vote, he won't have one.

If a bill passes the Senate, one that is strongly supported by the public, there would be enormous political pressure to take it up in the House.

 

[Sand]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

I'll admit that reasonable people differ on whether or not a ban on assault weapons would violate the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think it would, and there is the evidence of a federal AWB ban being in place for 10 years without challenge, as well as many similar state laws. But it is still a debatable point. I haven't focused on it since I regard an assault weapons ban as a stupid idea anyhow. But- I have yet to find a single reasonable voice make the argument that either bans on high capacity magazines, or a removal of the private sales loophole (which are the other 2 big items up for debate) would violate the 2nd Amendment. I have heard a lot of UNREASONABLE people state this. The NRA itself is very tricky, claiming that these measures violate the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, without being specific, whatever that means. One single poster here attempted to make an argument, a few pages earlier, that a ban on the magazines MIGHT violate the 2nd Amendment, but the only example he could provide is if the law limited magazines to 1 bullet. And that was the ONLY time in this thread anyone has even attempted to make a specific argument.

There was no challenge as the NRA and other 2nd amendment groups decided SCOTUS was too liberal at the time. If this Feinstein measure passes (and let's face it, it has a snowball's chance) it would very likely get challenged as the court is now more balanced (you know, toward proper Constitutional interpretation, freedom, light, and all that is good and holy).

I don't think the AWB was unconstitutional. Doubt this one is either.

I was just clarifying your point as to the motive behind the AWB not being challenged earlier. Some things have happened in the interim - namely DC v Heller that may have some bearing. I don't know what the outcome would be, but it is a moot point as this bill has zero chance federally. I don't think it passes the House or Senate.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You watch: when Republicans give their reasons for voting against this, they will NEVER mention the private sales loophole.

Why do you think there will ever be a vote on this or any other gun measure in the House? John Boehner decides what goes up for a vote. If he doesn't think it's politically advantageous to have a vote, he won't have one.

If a bill passes the Senate, one that is strongly supported by the public, there would be enormous political pressure to take it up in the House.

Political pressure on Boehner? I think he's in a safe gerrymandered seat. He ran unopposed this year.

 

[tom22406]

Harry Reid is the one in the tough spot here and it will be really interesting to see how this shakes out on his part in the coming months.

The success of President Obama’s starkly liberal second-term agenda will rest largely on the shoulders of Senate Majority leader Harry M. Reid, who has been a rock-solid political ally and a valued legislative tactician for Obama during his first term.

But for the first time since Obama became president four years ago, his political interests and Reid’s may be diverging. Not so much because there is huge disagreement on the president’s agenda, but because helping Obama may hurt vulnerable Democrats in the Senate.

Reelected and unconcerned about ever having to face voters again, Obama seems determined to push a far-reaching agenda — on guns, climate change and gay rights, among other topics — that looks toward his presidential legacy. Reid (D-Nev.), significantly more encumbered, must worry about how to protect 20 Democratic-held Senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2014, while Republicans are defending only 14 spots.

For some Democrats up for reelection next year, supporting the president will be politically treacherous terrain, and no issue may capture that disconnect better than gun control.

Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) face reelection battles in states where gun control is politically unpopular, making their potential votes on the Obama proposals problematic.

Even if those Democrats vote against some or all of the proposals, they are likely to find themselves tied to the president’s effort to rein in gun rights — just as dozens of House Democrats voted against Obama’s health-care legislation but were still attacked over the issue in their campaigns in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-proposals-could-split-president-obama-harry-reid/2013/01/23/68700e34-6262-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

 

[Sand]

Harry Reid is the one in the tough spot here and it will be really interesting to see how this shakes out on his part in the coming months.

The success of President Obama’s starkly liberal second-term agenda will rest largely on the shoulders of Senate Majority leader Harry M. Reid, who has been a rock-solid political ally and a valued legislative tactician for Obama during his first term.

But for the first time since Obama became president four years ago, his political interests and Reid’s may be diverging. Not so much because there is huge disagreement on the president’s agenda, but because helping Obama may hurt vulnerable Democrats in the Senate.

Reelected and unconcerned about ever having to face voters again, Obama seems determined to push a far-reaching agenda — on guns, climate change and gay rights, among other topics — that looks toward his presidential legacy. Reid (D-Nev.), significantly more encumbered, must worry about how to protect 20 Democratic-held Senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2014, while Republicans are defending only 14 spots.

For some Democrats up for reelection next year, supporting the president will be politically treacherous terrain, and no issue may capture that disconnect better than gun control.

Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Mark Begich (Alaska) face reelection battles in states where gun control is politically unpopular, making their potential votes on the Obama proposals problematic.

Even if those Democrats vote against some or all of the proposals, they are likely to find themselves tied to the president’s effort to rein in gun rights — just as dozens of House Democrats voted against Obama’s health-care legislation but were still attacked over the issue in their campaigns in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-proposals-could-split-president-obama-harry-reid/2013/01/23/68700e34-6262-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

Oh, I'm sure those folks will vote their consciouses without looking at election ramifications.Mary Landrieu, in particular, is quite the upstanding senator. She's never doing anything untoward (like, you know, take a bribe).

 

[tom22406]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

Exactly. Put in everything you need, want, and wish for and see what happens.

The problem is that the opposition on this particular issue refuses to negotiate. They have behaved unreasonably all along. There's not going to be any give and take here, I predict.

If that's true, then why not ask for everything you want?

Because I believe we could get the 2 issues I want passed, if Republicans are forced to vote on them by themselves. Here we're giving them an excuse. You watch: when Republicans give their reasons for voting against this, they will NEVER mention the private sales loophole.

Do you honestly think some of the Democrats want to vote on this either?I would love to see who puts his/her own wants ahead of what the public does.The Dems found out the hard way after the 1994 AWB and I'm sure they are scared this time as well(because they want to keep the power they have).

 

[Henry Ford]

Thought I would add the whole quote.

The .222 Remington aka the Triple Deuce/Triple Two/Treble Two is a centerfire rifle cartridge introduced in 1950, and was the first commercial rimless .22 (5.56 mm) cartridge made in the United States. The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge.[2]

Sorry, you lost your credibility already.

This is funnier than your last misunderstanding. You don't understand it, but you strengthened my point, and I'm not explaining it to you because you have comprehension issues.

You said the 223 didn't come from a 22.. there is now a 5th link showing you it does..

I don't think that sentence means what you think it means.

 

[JHuber77]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians Democrats constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once.

Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

Fixed. Your just as misguided as she is.

 

[ichris]

I didn't realize how many FBGs were hoplophobes.

 

[tom22406]

I didn't realize how many FBGs were hoplophobes.

I was kinda shocked as well at all the fear going around in this thread.The name calling though is always entertaining.

 

[smotherhook]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

 

[ichris]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

OK, you continue to believe in your videos, and I'll continue to believe in the testimony of nearly every police and law enforcement agency in the country. There is nothing laughable about trying to save lives. The only aspect of this that might be laughable, if it wasn't so sad, pathetic, and scary, is the resistance of people like you to evidence and police recommendations.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

 

[JHuber77]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

OK, you continue to believe in your videos, and I'll continue to believe in the testimony of nearly every police and law enforcement agency in the country. There is nothing laughable about trying to save lives. The only aspect of this that might be laughable, if it wasn't so sad, pathetic, and scary, is the resistance of people like you to evidence and police recommendations.

How about you read this letter from a Sheriff in Colorado. The Aurora shooting took place in his county. In his letter he mentions the need to take a tougher stance on penalties for gun offenses and a greater need to help the mentally ill. No where in his letter does he mention the need to get rid of assault rifles or banning high cap magazines because they don't matter. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0122/20130122_044227_SheriffRobinsonGunViolencePerspective.pdf

 

[boots11234]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Your last line pretty much sums up the difference between the grabbers and the gun folks. You are going to rely on the govt to protect you where as I am going to rely on myself as the last backstop between a bad guy and my family. When the police do finally respond to our calls for help, they will be taping off the area with your body (unless you were lucky enough to tackle the bad guy while reloading LOL), whereas when they respond to my call for help, it is unknown whose body they will be taping off(though rest assured I won't be making a run for the guy when he is reloading, I'll be slinging lead his way). Good luck with your way but I prefer mine much better as I rarely have seen anything the government does turning out well.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

OK, you continue to believe in your videos, and I'll continue to believe in the testimony of nearly every police and law enforcement agency in the country. There is nothing laughable about trying to save lives. The only aspect of this that might be laughable, if it wasn't so sad, pathetic, and scary, is the resistance of people like you to evidence and police recommendations.

How about you read this letter from a Sheriff in Colorado. The Aurora shooting took place in his county. In his letter he mentions the need to take a tougher stance on penalties for gun offenses and a greater need to help the mentally ill. No where in his letter does he mention the need to get rid of assault rifles or banning high cap magazines because they don't matter. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0122/20130122_044227_SheriffRobinsonGunViolencePerspective.pdf

He doesn't mention them one way or the other. He does mention background checks, for which I'm glad, but he also spends a whole page discussing the wholly irrelevant subject of the Second Amendment, which leads me to sadly conclude that he, like so many of the rest of you, have succumbed to the paranoia.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Your last line pretty much sums up the difference between the grabbers and the gun folks. You are going to rely on the govt to protect you where as I am going to rely on myself as the last backstop between a bad guy and my family. When the police do finally respond to our calls for help, they will be taping off the area with your body (unless you were lucky enough to tackle the bad guy while reloading LOL), whereas when they respond to my call for help, it is unknown whose body they will be taping off(though rest assured I won't be making a run for the guy when he is reloading, I'll be slinging lead his way). Good luck with your way but I prefer mine much better as I rarely have seen anything the government does turning out well.

I have no problem with you defending yourself. But you don't need a 30 round magazine to do so. And your ability to legally purchase one infringes on my safety.

 

[tom22406]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

 

[ichris]

If I don't need a 30 round magazine to defend myself then neither do law enforcement officers. How can you argue LE magazines don't infringe on your safety but mine somehow do?

 

[Dvorak]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

If we are not at war, then tell me why do our police need these (quoting President Obama), "Weapons designed for the theater of war"???Their only purpose is (quoting the President again) "to pump out as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible, to do as much damage as possible". Doesn't sound like they are for keeping anyone safe on the streets of America!Or could it just be, all this is baloney and AR15s with 30 round magazines are actually quite effective tools against criminals, in common use, and protected by the US Constitution per the Heller decision?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once.

Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features.

Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Your last line pretty much sums up the difference between the grabbers and the gun folks. You are going to rely on the govt to protect you where as I am going to rely on myself as the last backstop between a bad guy and my family. When the police do finally respond to our calls for help, they will be taping off the area with your body (unless you were lucky enough to tackle the bad guy while reloading LOL), whereas when they respond to my call for help, it is unknown whose body they will be taping off(though rest assured I won't be making a run for the guy when he is reloading, I'll be slinging lead his way). Good luck with your way but I prefer mine much better as I rarely have seen anything the government does turning out well.

I have no problem with you defending yourself. But you don't need a 30 round magazine to do so. And your ability to legally purchase one infringes on my safety.

Yes we do need an 11+ round magazine to defend ourselves. You need to stop saying 30 round and start adopting 11+ since that is what are you are fighting for. You refuse to acknowledge that 10 is an arbitrary number. I have already given you examples where three 12 round clips was not enough to stop 1 person. You are not going to hit for every bullet, you are not getting a head shot with every bullet that hits, you are not always going to be faced by only 1 intruder, everyone is not going to start storing multiple 10 round magazines with their gun to legally comply with new legislation nor will they be equipped to carry multiple on themselves when they are in their pajamas, the police rarely if ever will come to your rescue in a timely manner when faced in a life or death situation against an armed intruder, not every household has a "safe room" nor can they afford one, not every household can flee from a break-in, particularly multiple story homes.It's really not that difficult to accept this.

 

[ichris]

Weapons "designed for war" have selective fire, meaning they can be fully automatic. AR15s don't do that. We only get semi-automatic capabilities.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

So you are saying it is possible that citizens can and that they have faced criminals armed with the same weapons that have the same tolerance for taking bullets?

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once.

Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features.

Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Your last line pretty much sums up the difference between the grabbers and the gun folks. You are going to rely on the govt to protect you where as I am going to rely on myself as the last backstop between a bad guy and my family. When the police do finally respond to our calls for help, they will be taping off the area with your body (unless you were lucky enough to tackle the bad guy while reloading LOL), whereas when they respond to my call for help, it is unknown whose body they will be taping off(though rest assured I won't be making a run for the guy when he is reloading, I'll be slinging lead his way). Good luck with your way but I prefer mine much better as I rarely have seen anything the government does turning out well.

I have no problem with you defending yourself. But you don't need a 30 round magazine to do so. And your ability to legally purchase one infringes on my safety.

Yes we do need an 11+ round magazines to defend ourselves. You need to stop saying 30 round and start adopting 11+ since that is what are you are fighting for. You refuse to acknowledge that 10 is an arbitrary number. I have already given you examples where three 12 round clips was not enough to stop 1 person. You are not going to hit for every bullet, you are not getting a head shot with every bullet that hits, you are not always going to be faced by only 1 intruder, everyone is not going to start storing multiple 10 round magazines with their gun to legally comply with new legislation nor will they be equipped to carry multiple on themselves when they are in their pajamas, the police rarely if ever will come to your rescue in a timely manner when faced in a life or death situation against an armed intruder, not every household has a "safe room" nor can they afford one, not every household can flee from a break-in, particularly multiple story homes.It's really not that difficult to accept this.

I admit the number 10 is arbitrary. I'm willing to use it because I think any number smaller than that is too low. But I think 30 is too high. If someone offered 15 as a compromise is take it. I think 20 is too high. Again, I'm relying on the professional opinion of law enforcement here.

 

[tom22406]

Decent read that makes some very valid points.

Why this liberal no longer believes in gun control… (and why the “Assault weapon ban” is an ideologically-driven distraction)

As someone who has done a complete 180 from liberal firearm skeptic and supporter of gun control to now being an ardent supporter of second amendment rights (and a responsible gun owner), I feel like I am uniquely qualified to speak to those individuals whose views I used to share. I’d like to believe I’m a reasonable and objective-minded person, and I want them to read a different perspective on gun control — one that arises from personal experience and research and is not filled with the hyperbole and mis-information we see all over television.

I feel like many people, including most liberal politicians, treat gun control like most conservatives treat sex education or climate change. Their views and thus the policies they support are based entirely on ideology, with only the most cursory attempts at studying the facts. They are blinded by confirmation bias, cherry picking factual evidence to support their foregone conclusion. This is why gun owners can find it hard to even come to the table to have the “gun control” conversation; they are convinced the other side made up their collective minds long ago and are NOT interested in an honest discussion. Many times, it seems their sole focus seems to be on restricting gun rights as much as possible, regardless of whether or not it will help to prevent tragedy. Unfortunately, after the spectacle in the media I’ve seen in the past few weeks, I’d have to agree.

But let’s back up for a moment.

I was raised in Idaho (and now reside there), but I didn’t hunt and I wasn’t much of an outdoorsman when I was young. After graduating from high school, I decided to head out east to go to college in urban Pittsburgh — not exactly a bastion of second amendment rights supporters. I didn’t own firearms and didn’t know anyone that did except for family back in Idaho. The only day to day interaction I had with them was reading about another drug or gang related shooting near campus. In that environment, lacking any practical experience with or knowledge about firearms — in essence, seeing them solely as accomplices in crime — it is easy to understand why so many in urban areas tend to favor strict gun control.

And that was the boat I started in. Up until a few years ago, I genuinely didn’t understand America’s fascination with guns, seeing them mainly as a tool of law enforcement. I didn’t mind hunting rifles, but felt that semi-automatic pistols and “assault rifles” didn’t have much of a legitimate purpose for civilians and thus reasonable they be restricted. Similarly, I didn’t understand the antagonism against gun control measures like national registration, mandatory permits, etc. Not understanding the modern context under which they exist, I thought of the NRA as gun-nut extremists who seemed to want abolition of all gun control. I was indifferent to the second amendment, perceiving it as an anachronism written for a different time. Overall, I accepted the argument that we needed more restrictive policies to reduce gun violence in our society, and that the more guns in the hands of citizens, the more problems would come from them.

Those days are long behind me, and in hind-sight I am surprised how off-base I was with what I considered reasonable views. For the record, this change didn’t happen overnight. My opinions slowly changed as I took the time to learn about firearms and how to responsibly handle them. This phenomenon only increased the more I learned and the more experience I accumulated. I believe actual experience owning and shooting firearms is the singular element that will always separate those on opposing sides of this debate. It is only with this experience that you can understand the perspective of the gun owner.

I started taking courses at a local gun shop for firearm safety and proper shooting technique, and then defensive shooting, concealed carry, etc. The excellent instructors (retired law enforcement) really opened my eyes as to how many home invasions, muggings, assaults, attempted murders, etc were stopped short by armed citizens, and how to protect yourself. I came to realize how short-sighted I was being with regards to keeping myself and my family safe, both at home and out in public. And although law enforcement is certainly important, you are ultimately the last line of defense between an attacker and your family and It is your responsibility to be able to defend yourself. I’ve had arguments with people who claim that they don’t need to have firearms in their house; that they don’t choose to live in fear and are counting on the statistical improbability that they will be victims. I view that decision the same way I view not wearing a seatbelt or buying a car without airbags. Although it is unlikely that I’ll end up in a severe car accident, why would I take the chance? Why would I purposefully put my family at risk — however small — when I could spend a small amount of time and money to buy the tools and learn the skills I need to defend them. Although unlikely in my lifetime, I certainly hope that someday firearms won’t be necessary and that everyone can feel safe and keep their doors unlocked at night. But that is not the reality in my neighborhood, and I doubt it is in yours.

The more informed I became about gun control (and the associated politics) — and this really only happened in the last few months — the more I realized how absurd and counter-productive a lot of it can be. After reading about the experiences of cities like Washington DC and Chicago (whose violent crime spiked after enacting new handgun bans), states like Vermont and others (whose violent crime rate actually dropped after passing laws legalizing concealed carry) and countries like Australia and the United Kingdom (click here for a video on the Australian experience) I have to believe that anyone who takes an honest, unbiased look at the sacred cow of Gun Control will have no choice but to agree with me on many points. That is not to say ANY form of gun control is bad or won’t work. I think most gun owners are open to new ideas for combating gun violence, including mass shootings, but its hard not to get discouraged when the only suggestions being put forward are not based on sound reasoning or statistical evidence.

Recently, it seems that gun control has become a goal in and of itself, regardless of any measurable effects on gun crime, and just another football for politicians. This perception has been crystallized by the knee-jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook school shooting, with all manner of interest groups and politicians prescribing gun control “solutions” that don’t address the underlying root cause of gun violence and won’t do anything to stop it.

This is what scares gun owners:

Gawker publishes NYC gun permit holders

Lawmaker calls for confiscations of semi-automatic guns

Columnist calls for repeal of second amendment and death of gun owners

Map of gun permit holders

Let’s talk about the most popular rallying cry, the so-called Assault Weapons Ban

Piers Morgan of CNN has been screaming about “assault weapon killing machines” for a few weeks now:

MORGAN: What I haven’t heard is one coherent reason why any civilian in America needs an an AR-15, military style, assault weapon. Tell me why you need one.

What the uninformed like Mr. Morgan don’t understand is that the focus on so-called “assault rifles” is a complete red herring. Although used in recent high-profile shootings, the AR15 (and similar “scary looking” rifles) are no more or less dangerous than common wood-stocked hunting rifles which also can accept detachable magazines.

The proposed legislation bans these rifles based SOLELY on aesthetic features that have zero effect on their lethality. How many instances of gun violence are perpetrated with a rifle-mounted WWII-style knife bayonet? Similarly, How does a telescoping stock or pistol grip make the gun more dangerous? How does a flash suppressor – which is designed to keep the bright flash from temporarily blinding the shooter — contribute to gun violence?

Elements that made a particular gun banned by the 1990′s Assault Weapons Ban. Includes: Bayonet mounts, Barrel flash suppressors, Pistol grips, Folding stocks, and other irrelevant features.

Despite their appearance, these are not fully-automatic military weapons and are otherwise functionally identical to many classical-looking semi-automatic hunting guns. They are not owned exclusively by psychopaths looking to commit mass murder, they are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans and available at your local Wal-Mart. They are akin to the Honda Accord of rifles, a modular design whose parts can be swapped out and customized, hence their popularity with gun owners.

Yet despite their popularity, the AR15 (and all other so-called “assault rifles”) only account for a tiny fraction (2-3%) of incidents of gun violence.

If handguns can be just as deadly as an AR15 in a mass shooting and are used in 95% of gun crime, why aren’t gun control advocates trying to ban handguns instead?

Virginia Tech Shooter. He had a .22 caliber pistol and a 9MM pistol and managed to kill more people than any single mass shooter in history. So much for banning the AR15.

Seung-Hui Cho, the man who committed the single most deadly mass shooting in US history at Virginia Tech University did not use an AR15 or other “assault rifle”, he murdered 32 people with a 9MM pistol and a back-pack full of 10-round magazines.

As an aside, while I personally don’t think it would have much effect on mass shootings (it only takes a second to reload a magazine — see Virginia Tech Massacre), I can at least understand why people would support the idea of simply banning large capacity magazines. But instead, politicians create sweeping new restrictions on particular guns they don’t like and don’t want us to own. Similarly, they insist no one needs these “high-powered rifles”, despite the fact that the 5.56mm round it fires is much weaker in power than most calibers used in larger hunting rifles.

Worse than that, despite all of the media focus, the politicians know full well that a new Assault Weapons Ban will have essentially zero effect on gun violence and mass shootings. This isn’t speculation, this is based on extensive research conducted on the last Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2003. This is well-known to the author of the bill, Senator Feinstein:

Despite being studied by various academics, there was no conclusive evidence found to support the idea that the Assault Weapons Ban did anything to prevent violent crime:

* A 2004 review by a National Research Council panel noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”

* In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States DOJ and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes and that is just the beginning. If you would like to read more, see:

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

So why is the focus on a new, just as ineffective “Assault Weapons Ban” instead of trying to prevent deranged individuals from getting access to ANY firearms? And more importantly to preventing violence — actually protecting the vulnerable like school children when evil individuals inevitably get access to some type of weapon, whether a gun, knife, crossbow, bomb, etc. Without a reasonable explanation, I have to assume that the legislation is purely political in nature, and driven by an ideological gun-control lobby who is far more interested in their anti-gun agenda then in effective solutions to reduce violence.

Unfortunately, this is par for the course. There are a whole host of other gun control laws that while perhaps well-intended, are just as ineffective as the “assault weapons ban”.

Although this post is already too long, it wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the ever-popular “Gun Free Zone

I honestly don’t understand the conceptual foundation of a “gun free zone”. Ignoring for a moment that every mass shooting in the last fifty years has occurred in one (including the “Batman shooter” in Colorado who actually drove out of his way to a specific theater which banned concealed weapons from their premises), the idea that the mere presence of concealed weapon holders is more dangerous than allowing criminals or homicidal lunatics to be the only ones with a firearm in a particular area is just flat-out lunacy. For this policy to work, you’d have to live in a world where police are all-knowing, and could immediately spot those individuals not following the law. It requires a canyon-sized logical leap that the individuals that commit gun violence are the same individuals who will abide by the “no guns” rule, which is just preposterous.

And on the contrary, there are many cases where concealed weapons holders have interrupted gun violence just by their mere presence, many times not even firing a shot. And then there is the case of Suzanna Hupp, a concealed weapons holder who normally carried a revolver in her purse, but was forced to hide under a table while a madman murdered dozens in a small restaurant in Texas (including her parents) because of gun restrictions at the time.

I understand the human desire to do SOMETHING about these vexing mass shootings (and general gun violence) so that those poor children in Sandy Hook did not die in vein. But the best way to serve their memory is to have a rational discussion about effective strategies and means to preventing future violence. It is NOT by using this tragic event as a political springboard to advocate policies that have been proven not to work. Everyone needs to come to the table without any preconceived notions of firearms and gun control, and certainly without the irrational ideology and paranoia that is rampant on both sides. The extreme elements of both sides need to marginalized. only Only then can sane adults come together and determine what will actually be effective.

Gun control advocates need not see gun owners as the enemy, most of them that I know are intelligent, reasonable, sane individuals who enjoy hunting or target shooting, as well as just want to be able to defend their family and themselves. They are not paranoid anti-government extremists living on a compound. And that cuts both ways. Everyone that wants to see revised gun control is not an evil representative of the UN one world government, wanting to take all your firearms to establish a tyrannical dictatorship. There are millions of reasonable people who will listen to facts and evidence, and just want something to be done to keep crazy people from obtaining firearms. Unfortunately, the extreme elements on both sides get all the media coverage, and certainly there are far more pro-gun control voices than gun-rights advocates in the mainstream media.

This post is not meant to discuss reasonable solutions, that is for another day. but I wanted to quickly say that a good place to start looking is the national background check system. It is currently missing a lot of data, mainly as a consequence of the federal government not providing the funding it promises. There is a lot of state data on mentally ill and felons that is not making it into the system. Why not start by fixing and extending it?

http://liberaltaria.com/?p=7He made a few mistakes but his message was pretty clear.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

So you are saying it is possible that citizens can and that they have faced criminals armed with the same weapons that have the same tolerance for taking bullets?

I don't believe any private citizen needs a 30 round magazine to defend himself. Sorry guys gotta run! I will reply later of you want.

 

[Apple Jack]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

So you are saying it is possible that citizens can and that they have faced criminals armed with the same weapons that have the same tolerance for taking bullets?

This dog is not going to hunt. You're better off with the "but we like to play with them" argument.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I will reply later of you want.

Don't everyone speak up at once.

 

[boots11234]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

So you are saying it is possible that citizens can and that they have faced criminals armed with the same weapons that have the same tolerance for taking bullets?

This dog is not going to hunt. You're better off with the "but we like to play with them" argument.

And if you use a dog for hunting, it may only have less then 7 teeth.

 

[boots11234]

I will reply later of you want.

Don't everyone speak up at once.

Lol. Tim's a good guy and probably considered fringe right wing in California.

 

[tom22406]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

Are you saying that citizens are looking for this sort of thing by wanting a larger magazine?

 

[ichris]

I was at SHOT show recently and none of the LEOs I met suggested magazine limits would do anything to keep anyone safer. To be fair I didn't knowingly talk to anyone employed in an urban police department's politicized role. But the experienced guys on the ground, SWAT members, and sheriffs I spoke with weren't making the absurd claims that private citizens shouldn't own standard capacity 30-round magazines because they enable violence that couldn't otherwise be achieved.

 

[tom22406]

Tim and I will disagree on this point as well it seems.This sums up my feelings and why I view them as facing similar threats.If we wish to find a good example of what is appropriate for self defense, then we must look to a profession which faces the same everyday threats that a citizen could face. Law enforcement is a good example as patrol officers operate in the same environment as citizens and thus, face the same threats that a citizen could face. The equipment issued to a police officer for the specific task of self defense (NOT apprehension) is generally accepted to be appropriate for this task. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer cannot be held responsible for your personal safety, since police officers are issued equipment appropriate for self defense, and since police officers and citizens live and work in the same environment, the self defense tools used by citizenry should be subject to the same restrictions as the self defense tools issued to police officers. This was my main reason for buying the gun that I did for home protection.My cop buddy gave me some tips and took me to the range to fire his personal handguns to help me make up my own mind.

 

[JHuber77]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once.

Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features.

Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Your last line pretty much sums up the difference between the grabbers and the gun folks. You are going to rely on the govt to protect you where as I am going to rely on myself as the last backstop between a bad guy and my family. When the police do finally respond to our calls for help, they will be taping off the area with your body (unless you were lucky enough to tackle the bad guy while reloading LOL), whereas when they respond to my call for help, it is unknown whose body they will be taping off(though rest assured I won't be making a run for the guy when he is reloading, I'll be slinging lead his way). Good luck with your way but I prefer mine much better as I rarely have seen anything the government does turning out well.

I have no problem with you defending yourself. But you don't need a 30 round magazine to do so. And your ability to legally purchase one infringes on my safety.

Yes we do need an 11+ round magazines to defend ourselves. You need to stop saying 30 round and start adopting 11+ since that is what are you are fighting for. You refuse to acknowledge that 10 is an arbitrary number. I have already given you examples where three 12 round clips was not enough to stop 1 person. You are not going to hit for every bullet, you are not getting a head shot with every bullet that hits, you are not always going to be faced by only 1 intruder, everyone is not going to start storing multiple 10 round magazines with their gun to legally comply with new legislation nor will they be equipped to carry multiple on themselves when they are in their pajamas, the police rarely if ever will come to your rescue in a timely manner when faced in a life or death situation against an armed intruder, not every household has a "safe room" nor can they afford one, not every household can flee from a break-in, particularly multiple story homes.It's really not that difficult to accept this.

I admit the number 10 is arbitrary. I'm willing to use it because I think any number smaller than that is too low. But I think 30 is too high. If someone offered 15 as a compromise is take it. I think 20 is too high. Again, I'm relying on the professional opinion of law enforcement here.

 

[zDragon]

Thought I would add the whole quote.

The .222 Remington aka the Triple Deuce/Triple Two/Treble Two is a centerfire rifle cartridge introduced in 1950, and was the first commercial rimless .22 (5.56 mm) cartridge made in the United States. The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge.[2]

Sorry, you lost your credibility already.

This is funnier than your last misunderstanding. You don't understand it, but you strengthened my point, and I'm not explaining it to you because you have comprehension issues.

Your words mean nothing anymore. Once that credibility goes who cares what comes out. Of course you could explain it and try to regain credibility but I doubt you could. Have a good day.

 

[zDragon]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

Grenade and rocket launchers have always been illegal for civilians. She puts them in there as scare tactics to make this legislation look more urgent than it is. There are some juicy new twists but I'm waiting for the full text.

Interesting Link

 

[Sand]

I have no problem with you defending yourself. But you don't need a 30 round magazine to do so. And your ability to legally purchase one infringes on my safety.

When the zombie apocalypse hits you are going to be damn glad that 30 round magazines are still around.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

So you are saying it is possible that citizens can and that they have faced criminals armed with the same weapons that have the same tolerance for taking bullets?

This dog is not going to hunt. You're better off with the "but we like to play with them" argument.

and yet you nor Tim do nothing to refute the claim. The fact remains, police do not face super villains while they are on the job with special powers that makes them immune to bullets. SWAT on the other hand have specialized weapons not reserved for the common LEO and are called in for specific engagements. Your standard beat cop will face the same type of criminals that any citizen could in their home or in public (ccw). This is a gaping black hole in the gun grabber's defense of allowing beat cops to have access to HIGH CAPACITY magazines as small as 12 rounds since anyone arguing for limiting magazines to 10 is considering 11+ high capacity.I after NY State passed a 7 round limit and then realized they forgot to give police the exclusion pass making officers empty 3-5 rounds from their weapons to comply with the law.

 

[cobalt_27]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

Grenade and rocket launchers have always been illegal for civilians. She puts them in there as scare tactics to make this legislation look more urgent than it is. There are some juicy new twists but I'm waiting for the full text.

Interesting Link

Yeah, I'm guessing a Street Sweeper is exactly the kind of massacre firearm you hillbillies are just hoping to stays on the streets. Maybe get in the hands of someone who can pick off a few elementary school kids.Nice work, guys.

 

[ichris]

Yeah, I'm guessing a Street Sweeper is exactly the kind of massacre firearm you hillbillies are just hoping to stays on the streets. Maybe get in the hands of someone who can pick off a few elementary school kids.Nice work, guys.

Street sweepers are obviously too dangerous, they have the folding stock that goes up.

 

[timschochet]

and yet you nor Tim do nothing to refute the claim. The fact remains, police do not face super villains while they are on the job with special powers that makes them immune to bullets. SWAT on the other hand have specialized weapons not reserved for the common LEO and are called in for specific engagements. Your standard beat cop will face the same type of criminals that any citizen could in their home or in public (ccw). This is a gaping black hole in the gun grabber's defense of allowing beat cops to have access to HIGH CAPACITY magazines as small as 12 rounds since anyone arguing for limiting magazines to 10 is considering 11+ high capacity.I after NY State passed a 7 round limit and then realized they forgot to give police the exclusion pass making officers empty 3-5 rounds from their weapons to comply with the law.

I don't understand why the argument of a different standard for police or a private citizen is so hard to understand. If there is a bank robbery, or a school shooting, or a gang shooting, it is the responsibility of the police to go to the scene and deal with the situation. Therefore, they're going to need weapons that a private citizen does not. A private citizen needs to be able to defend himself against home invasion. If you want to argue that 30 round magazines are a necessity for home defense, make that argument, but it hasn't been convincing to me so far.

 

[ichris]

and yet you nor Tim do nothing to refute the claim. The fact remains, police do not face super villains while they are on the job with special powers that makes them immune to bullets. SWAT on the other hand have specialized weapons not reserved for the common LEO and are called in for specific engagements.

Your standard beat cop will face the same type of criminals that any citizen could in their home or in public (ccw). This is a gaping black hole in the gun grabber's defense of allowing beat cops to have access to HIGH CAPACITY magazines as small as 12 rounds since anyone arguing for limiting magazines to 10 is considering 11+ high capacity.

I after NY State passed a 7 round limit and then realized they forgot to give police the exclusion pass making officers empty 3-5 rounds from their weapons to comply with the law.

I don't understand why the argument of a different standard for police or a private citizen is so hard to understand. If there is a bank robbery, or a school shooting, or a gang shooting, it is the responsibility of the police to go to the scene and deal with the situation. Therefore, they're going to need weapons that a private citizen does not. A private citizen needs to be able to defend himself against home invasion. If you want to argue that 30 round magazines are a necessity for home defense, make that argument, but it hasn't been convincing to me so far.

Because it undermines the intent and purpose of the second amendment. Why people want to talk about hunting in reference to gun ownership rights is beyond me. Second amendment has never been about hunting.

 

[timschochet]

My honest opinion is that this whole issue of the police having better weaponry than private citizens is not a question of home defense; instead it goes back to the basic fear, among some gun people, of the "tyrannical government". That is why somebody earlier used the term "civilians" to describe private citizens. There is an implicit idea here that private gun owners are in a struggle with the federal government over gun rights, and that giving the police greater firepower would aid the police in seizing guns. It's a paranoid argument which builds upon itself.

 

[timschochet]

and yet you nor Tim do nothing to refute the claim. The fact remains, police do not face super villains while they are on the job with special powers that makes them immune to bullets. SWAT on the other hand have specialized weapons not reserved for the common LEO and are called in for specific engagements.

Your standard beat cop will face the same type of criminals that any citizen could in their home or in public (ccw). This is a gaping black hole in the gun grabber's defense of allowing beat cops to have access to HIGH CAPACITY magazines as small as 12 rounds since anyone arguing for limiting magazines to 10 is considering 11+ high capacity.

I after NY State passed a 7 round limit and then realized they forgot to give police the exclusion pass making officers empty 3-5 rounds from their weapons to comply with the law.

I don't understand why the argument of a different standard for police or a private citizen is so hard to understand. If there is a bank robbery, or a school shooting, or a gang shooting, it is the responsibility of the police to go to the scene and deal with the situation. Therefore, they're going to need weapons that a private citizen does not. A private citizen needs to be able to defend himself against home invasion. If you want to argue that 30 round magazines are a necessity for home defense, make that argument, but it hasn't been convincing to me so far.

Because it undermines the intent and purpose of the second amendment.

Does it? I'm glad you wrote that, because now we're getting to the key here. Please explain exactly how it undermines the 2nd Amendment.