This is a discussion on Feinsteins proposed 2013 AWB within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Beeatch!!! Oh sorry couldnt contain myself....
Beeatch!!! Oh sorry couldnt contain myself.
The lies are coming fast from Feinstein. From the summary page:
Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders
Since "assault weapons" are not used in 6.7% of gun murders, how can banning them possibly be responsible for a 6.7% decrease in gun murders?
reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
It's probably true that more people have such magazines now that they're legal. What on earth does that have to do with gun murders?
I'd bet that "suppressor mount" is one of the military characteristics. That makes this a back-door suppressor ban too. You can still buy the suppressor, but what's the point if manufacturing a gun you can mount it on is illegal?
Wait until she tries to attach it to the fiscal cliff bill
Our only hope is that NRA, and aligned (thinking) politicians will continue to throw their weight behind regulating the real cause of these shootings, which is the creation of a group of young sociopaths (look it up, esp. narcissism) who have been created by violent gaming and violent films (Jack Reacher features just such a mass shooting by a seeming sociopath, who turns out to be a psychopath). Personally I can't watch these sorts of films (I read the book, well before Childs [not his real name] came to notoriety), and indeed have had to walk out of many; e.g., Starship Troopers and Boogie Nights, because of the explicit violence.
By the way, Childs writes about a fictional America; this from Wikipedia: "Jim Grant (born 1954), better known by his pen name Lee Child, is a British thriller writer." In that way, he's reaching across the Pond and wreaking havoc in our country, from the relative safety of his own country. That's a problem, in my view.
Red (Richard) Nichols
Chief Holster Scientist
floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee . . .
ONE military characteristic? Like a barrel, sights, trigger, slide lock, extractor, magazine well or any other part? Yeah, OKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
NRA Life Member
Like the power of Congress to make war? Yawn...
Of all the absurd things I have ever written I like this one the most.
There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
We have deep thinkers and stinkers in this group that could come up with a solution...
Remember "ONE" thing too, which Feinstien and the others haven't considered....... the only thing on an AR that requires a NICS check is the lower. A lot of folks own lowers, and nothing else. So, if someone sent in a picture or register it, it would only need to be the lower. There is no restriction or NICS check required on any other part of an AR .... nor illegal to own... nor that has a serial number nor requires a NICS check.
I'm not advocating anything ..... other than fighting thru our representatives a total rejection of any bill to ban, confiscate, or create a registration of any of them...... e.g. Feinstien and Schumer type bills should be rejected.
But, I can imagine there would be a lot of garage machinist and composite folks out there, that would soon be able to market one in no time within their state. Why would that be relevant..... some states DO have laws .... protecting anyone within that state of producing / manufacturing guns within the state that are made, sold and used within the boundaries of their states..... and consequently rejecting that they are subject to any federal control ..... as they do not fit the commerce clause. And in those laws include , that parts used in the guns do not all have to be made within the state itself and would not be subject to the Federal regulations. So, I think there would be a real challenge in the courts if someone used a lower, manufactured within such a state, that it was NOT subject to the Federal regulations.
I believe Utah and Montana, both have those laws..... not sure what other states do. In our state, they have been considering such a bill .... and with the results of the November elections in our State, it would have an even higher chance of passing now.
So, besides the 2nd Amendment challenge, and the basis of Heller "they cannot prohibit guns commonly used by the public", there are those states who say they will exercise the 10th Amendment as well .... when guns are manufactured, assembled, sold and used within the borders of their states.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Here's one for you -
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (#46): "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
EDC - Glock 21C, M&P Shield .40 AND
Ruger LCP in Desantis Pocket Holster (backup)
Member - SAF, OFF,
NRA Life Member
I wonder if the bill contains a provision that will require gun owners to wear a yellow star with the words "gun owner" or will it just require a number be tattooed on our arms? </ sarcasm>
Last edited by Samwolf; December 29th, 2012 at 02:07 PM.
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
I hope Texas does not stand for this, if it passes.