Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapon legislation summary

[Machdup1]

So what is it for, the 2nd amendment? To protect you from each other or from the government?

Clearly both. Failure to recognize that simple fact means that you are not interested in the intent of the Constitution and permanently brands you as an idiot.

I suggest that you spend some time studying the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the context under which the Constitution was written. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Edit: I just noticed that you are not an American. We are not interested in your position. GTFO of our internal discussion. You just made the ignore list.

 

[03 red vert]

US citizens going to war against the Govt will be the 1st shot not only heard, but could be impacting around the world.

In the homeland, gas / food shortages, electrical outages, impacted water treatment / sewage plants and safety of nuke plans (from melt downs). The amount of civil unrest could become be uncontrollable. The amount of looting, raping and death of children. Disease would become widely spread. Lack of medical care. Not to mention, the door to door fighting between the military and the citizens.

Now, how would this impact the world economy? Everything from financial, lack of sales of goods/services, disease/famine, who knows the impact. There could be societies breaking down in other nations.

This may all seem far fetched, but there could be world impact from one level to another. However, here in the US, it would be a SOB to survive and the Govt firepower would only be a piece to deal with.

 

[03 red vert]

Keys in your house, is different from keys in your car... Leave your keys IN your car, and if it gets stolen, your are certainly going to be held accountable.... Twist my words any way you want.... No problem..

The car keys analogy is rather foolish and unsuccessful. Also, the breaking into people's residency and their guns being in glass cases or some other easy means to steal.

You have posted a gun owner should be held accountable by law if a criminal (who has stolen the gun) commits a crime. That is your opinion, but it is not law, nor have we seen anything referencing this thought would be even considered as part of a law.

Using your line a thought, the same can be said if a steak knife, baseball bat, any article or item that was stolen and used in a crime could reflect back on to the owner being held accountable. Ridiculous.

You are absolutely reaching with your analogy and line of thought.

 

[slidai]

I notice how it's all foreigners running their mouths when it comes to gun control. You Canadians and people from the UK like Piers Morgan sure do have a lot to say about topics that have zero effect on your lives.

How about ya'll stay in Canada, and deal with your own problems, and the USA will continue to be the greatest country in the world. You guys can still ride our coat tails in Canada, and be America's hat.

See, unlike all you other fully Socialist, soft, panzy countries, we still have a chance that we won't go full retard, which is full on Socialism like the EU. We need our right to bear arms and that includes "assault weapons" as you sheeple Canucks and anti 2A sheeple like to call them.

The 2nd amendment is there to protect from all evils, including tyranny. It is not up for debate, it is our God given right. Period end.

One problem with your statement. There is no god. I have some oceanfront property in West Virginia you might be interested in.

 

[x99blacksnakex]

One problem with your statement. There is no god. I have some oceanfront property in West Virginia you might be interested in.

You know what's great about this country: I can believe in God if I want to.

You can call them whatever you want; natural rights, God given rights, I don't care but the fact is that every US citizen is entitled to those rights including the Second Amendment.

I really don't care if you're scared of firearms because you're uneducated about them. Taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens as a knee jerk reaction to a psychopath going on a killing spree is not going to solve a damn thing.

2A supporters stand united on this, and we aren't backing down. I think we've all had enough of Progressives and their scare tactics. There's a line drawn in the sand - "shall not be infringed" - and we are all standing at that line when it comes to this heinous bill.

 

[slidai]

You know what's great about this country: I can believe in God if I want to.

You can call them whatever you want; natural rights, God given rights, I don't care but the fact is that every US citizen is entitled to those rights including the Second Amendment.

I really don't care if you're scared of firearms because you're uneducated about them. Taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens as a knee jerk reaction to a psychopath going on a killing spree is not going to solve a damn thing.

2A supporters stand united on this, and we aren't backing down. I think we've all had enough of Progressives and their scare tactics. There's a line drawn in the sand - "shall not be infringed" - and we are all standing at that line when it comes to this heinous bill.

So that's a no on the property?

 

[x99blacksnakex]

So that's a no on the property?

Thats a big GFY from all of us who stand for freedom, to all of you Socialists who want to take it away. :dancenana:

 

[slidai]

Thats a big GFY from all of us who stand for freedom, to all of you Socialists who want to take it away. :dancenana:

It's a good view. You're passing up a great opportunity.

 

[x99blacksnakex]

It's a good view. You're passing up a great opportunity.

I think a better view for you would be North Korea or China. They seem to have similar interests to people like you.

 

[blubyu87gt]

You know what's great about this country: I can believe in God if I want to.

You can call them whatever you want; natural rights, God given rights, I don't care but the fact is that every US citizen is entitled to those rights including the Second Amendment.

I really don't care if you're scared of firearms because you're uneducated about them. Taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens as a knee jerk reaction to a psychopath going on a killing spree is not going to solve a damn thing.

2A supporters stand united on this, and we aren't backing down. I think we've all had enough of Progressives and their scare tactics. There's a line drawn in the sand - "shall not be infringed" - and we are all standing at that line when it comes to this heinous bill.

The only part of this post I disagree with is that it is not a right of US citizens. It is a right of all mankind. US citizens seem to be the only ones with the backbone to stand of for it. The constitution isn't the building of those rights. It is the protection of them.

I do ask this of everyone who reads this. What will YOU do if this bill passes. How far are you / we willing to go to protect our rights as free men.

 

[x99blacksnakex]

The only part of this post I disagree with is that it is not a right of US citizens. It is a right of all mankind. US citizens seem to be the only ones with the backbone to stand of for it. The constitution isn't the building of those rights. It is the protection of them.

I do ask this of everyone who reads this. What will YOU do if this bill passes. How far are you / we willing to go to protect our rights as free men.

You are correct, it is everyone's right, however we are the only ones to stand for it (and thank God the founding fathers did).

Right now, I'm just looking to be proactive and hopefully get support against the bill. If the bill does get passed then we are all going to have to make a very tough decision about our freedom.

 

[97desertCobra]

I think a better view for you would be North Korea or China. They seem to have similar interests to people like you.

First thing a communist governments wants to do is disarm the populace. Second thing is to outlaw religion. The guy would fit in with the USSR from the 80's.

 

[UncleDan]

Yes, this statement makes me the idiot right? LOL

Well let's see, that's what everyone on this entire thread is calling you and your little buddy slidai.

Anybody with the slightest bit of knowledge and common sense wouldn't be able to read your posts without face palming themselves the entire time.

So yes, you're an idiot. Both of you.

 

[po-po 5.0]

Yes, to protect the citizens from the government... Sure, agree with you there.... But does carrying a concealed weapon to shoot a guy at a theater or library or where ever, fall under protecting citizens from the government?

Are you heard of reading? My statements mentioned more than just protection from a tyrannical government. The second amendment assures us the ability to protect ourselves from any tyranny which could happen in a library or theatre. Concealed carry is an attempt to re-arm citizens after the liberals unconstitutionally outlawed open carry, BUT open carry would be more effective.

 

[Steve@TF]

check out this lolable article from hq city for dianne frankenstein!

Tough gun control laws linked to lower death rates - latimes.com
Tough gun control laws linked to lower death rates

A San Francisco-based policy center on gun control laws has produced a report that says states with strict gun laws have the lowest gun-related death rates. In contrast, it reports, states with the highest per capita gun death rates have "weak" gun laws.

The study by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is touted by Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) as support for his own legislation tightening California's current assault weapon ban. The bill, SB47, would prohibit semiautomatic weapons from having devices that allow them to carry high-capacity magazines or easily be reloaded with multiple rounds of ammunition. A similar version of the bill failed to pass in 2012.

"It is a fact that strong gun laws work and weak laws result in the loss of innocent lives," Yee said.

Yee notes that the law center cited low per-capita gun death rates in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut -- states that the law center identified as having some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

He failed to mention the law center also included California on its list of states with the strongest gun control laws and lowest gun-releated deaths. The center declares California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation and gives the state an "A minus" on its report card, a designation shared only with New Jersey and Massachussetts.

The highest per-capita gun death rates were in Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi -- states that the law center said have weak gun control laws.

The center was formed by Bay area lawyers in 1993 following an assault weapon rampage at a San Francisco law office that ended with 10 people dead and six wounded.

:rollseyes

 

[Steve@TF]

check out this lolable article from hq city for dianne frankenstein!

Tough gun control laws linked to lower death rates - latimes.com
Tough gun control laws linked to lower death rates

A San Francisco-based policy center on gun control laws has produced a report that says states with strict gun laws have the lowest gun-related death rates. In contrast, it reports, states with the highest per capita gun death rates have "weak" gun laws.

The study by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is touted by Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) as support for his own legislation tightening California's current assault weapon ban. The bill, SB47, would prohibit semiautomatic weapons from having devices that allow them to carry high-capacity magazines or easily be reloaded with multiple rounds of ammunition. A similar version of the bill failed to pass in 2012.

"It is a fact that strong gun laws work and weak laws result in the loss of innocent lives," Yee said.

Yee notes that the law center cited low per-capita gun death rates in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut -- states that the law center identified as having some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

He failed to mention the law center also included California on its list of states with the strongest gun control laws and lowest gun-releated deaths. The center declares California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation and gives the state an "A minus" on its report card, a designation shared only with New Jersey and Massachussetts.

The highest per-capita gun death rates were in Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi -- states that the law center said have weak gun control laws.

The center was formed by Bay area lawyers in 1993 following an assault weapon rampage at a San Francisco law office that ended with 10 people dead and six wounded.

:rollseyes

 

[66PonyGT]

The Bill of Rights protects each and every citizen; the Second Amendment is its teeth. If this right is infringed apon then what else can be limited/taken away? Freedom of speech? Protection against unlawful search and seizure? If guns aren't your cup of tea then don't buy one. Same as religion, gay marriage, abortions ect. Do I totally agree with the three previous subjects? Not completely. But I am tolerant.

 

[Mach1USMC]

I think a better view for you would be North Korea or China. They seem to have similar interests to people like you.

Or Mexico where there is a complete ban on guns.... I think all these anti gun wackos should go there. Because its working SO well right?:lol:

 

[Klay]

Since you are obviously unincumbured by the thought process, let me explain this to you. Yes, he could have done what you said. He could have also danced around the local mall with his pecker out singing christmas tunes but here's the kicker, HE DIDN'T. Apparently this is a hard concept to understand so read ever so carefully. He killed his mom, took her stash and headed to the school. Had she not had one, he wouldn't have. Why do you people keep making up crazy scenarios that never happened? Ohh that's right, because the facts don't support your position. The old FoxNews approach. Well played guys. Well played.

The bolded part is where your logic is failing you. You say for others to not use "what if" scenarios but isn't assuming he wouldn't have had access to an Assault Rifle if she didn't have one, an assumption?

How do you know he wouldn't have been able to get access to another one? Sure, it may have made it more it more challenging but still, his mom isn't the only one who owns those types of weapons in the US. But to claim he WOULDN'T have had one is flawed. He clearly had intent and clearly would do anything to obtain said weapons. He killed his own mother afterall.

I think it is more logical to assume he would have went to that school and killed those kids regardless of what weapon he happened to get a hold of. The guy was messed up in the head and WANTED to go to that school and kill. No weapons ban will prevent that. Period.

 

[cj428mach]

One problem with your statement. There is no god. I have some oceanfront property in West Virginia you might be interested in.

It doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, you need to believe that your rights are given to you just by being born. They're not given to you by your govt, there by taken away by your govt. I suggest reading the book Libery and Tyranny by Mark Levin.