Senate Committee Oks Assault Weapons Ban

[dairyfreelife]

swampland.time.com/2013/03/14/senate-committee-oks-democratic-assault-weapons-ban/

Feinstein’s bill would ban semi-automatic weapons — guns that fire one round and automatically reload — that can take a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature like a pistol grip.

It specifically bans 157 named weapons. But in an effort to avoid antagonizing those who use them for sports, the measure allows 2,258 rifles and shotguns that are frequently used by hunters.

It also exempts any weapons that are lawfully owned whenever the bill is enacted.

[RosyDaisy]

Well, that's a start.

[Minerva]

C'mon out, SWL, we all know you're dying to whine about this.

[So Says I]

C'mon out, SWL, we all know you're dying to whine about this.

Ha ha, yes! Raise your hand if you don't leave home without your handbag gun!

[the 4th survivor]

That Zionist's bill won't pass and you guys shouldn't be cheering this on. Do you not value your own personal liberty? Hardly anyone dies from so-called "assault" weapons each year so there's no reason for these "liberal" politicians to be going after them so hard except to take our freedoms away. Wake up people, it's all about disarming us so that we can never oppose them.

[Spider Burps]

Ha ha, yes! Raise your hand if you don't leave home without your handbag gun!

Looks like we found her!!! *ahems@4th survivor*

That Zionist's bill won't pass and you guys shouldn't be cheering this on. Do you not value your own personal liberty? Hardly anyone dies from so-called "assault" weapons each year so there's no reason for these "liberal" politicians to be going after them so hard except to take our freedoms away. Wake up people, it's all about disarming us so that we can never oppose them.

[meda]

"That Zionist"? Really, that's where you go, taking a swipe at her religion?

[VooDooChild]

That Zionist's bill won't pass and you guys shouldn't be cheering this on. Do you not value your own personal liberty? Hardly anyone dies from so-called "assault" weapons each year so there's no reason for these "liberal" politicians to be going after them so hard except to take our freedoms away. Wake up people, it's all about disarming us so that we can never oppose them.

Sarcasm? :?

[ILoveJellybeans]

Aaannnddd this is why I hate the term "wake up". Its always in the same sentence as the crazy.

Why does anyone have a reason to own an assault weapon anyway? It would be a bit overkill to go hunting with it or even use it to defend yourself if someone breaks into your house

[the 4th survivor]

Aaannnddd this is why I hate the term "wake up". Its always in the same sentence as the crazy.

Why does anyone have a reason to own an assault weapon anyway? It would be a bit overkill to go hunting with it or even use it to defend yourself if someone breaks into your house

I'm not crazy, I just get how important the 2nd Amendment is. You really should too. As far as the reason, well the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that I don't need a reason. :) I don't have to justify it to any liberal gun grabbers either, but I will. The people of this country need to fight to keep their right to own their guns for a very important reason, and that is so they can defend themselves against criminals and tyranny. A disarmed populace is defenseless and very easily controlled.

[DarkAnts]

I'm not crazy, I just get how important the 2nd Amendment is. You really should too. As far as the reason, well the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that I don't need a reason. :) I don't have to justify it to any liberal gun grabbers either, but I will. The people of this country need to fight to keep their right to own their guns for a very important reason, and that is so they can defend themselves against criminals and tyranny. A disarmed populace is defenseless and very easily controlled.

You dont need an assault weapon to defend your home or to go hunting. The ban is not taking away your freedom to own a gun. Its just keeping dangerous weapons that are designed to kill lots of people away from the general public. The general public has no need for such weapons.

[GeoBQn]

You're not crazy, 4th Survivor, you just equate all Jews with Zionists and use the word "Zionists" as a pejorative term. And I am now setting you on "ignore."

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm not crazy, I just get how important the 2nd Amendment is. You really should too. As far as the reason, well the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that I don't need a reason. :) I don't have to justify it to any liberal gun grabbers either, but I will. The people of this country need to fight to keep their right to own their guns for a very important reason, and that is so they can defend themselves against criminals and tyranny. A disarmed populace is defenseless and very easily controlled.

Yes. That is exactly how I feel in the UK :roll: You are a total fanny.

It's ok to go around killing folks with ze big guns cos it's your constitutional right, yet you feel the urge to tell women not to have the right to make decisions about their own body. Yup. You are a fanny.

[Spider Burps]

I'm not crazy, I just get how important the 2nd Amendment is. You really should too. As far as the reason, well the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that I don't need a reason. :) I don't have to justify it to any liberal gun grabbers either, but I will. The people of this country need to fight to keep their right to own their guns for a very important reason, and that is so they can defend themselves against criminals and tyranny. A disarmed populace is defenseless and very easily controlled.

Tyrants overthrown: zero.

Innocent people killed by someone thinking the gun wasn't loaded: too many.

P.S.

ETA I know that graph is not specific to gun deaths, but I have a strange feeling that guns maaaaay have something to do with it.

[Hane]

Oh, call me a whacky chick, but I think that it's a lot more important for babies to be able to safely go to first freaking grade than to let some paranoiac have free access to a lethal artificial penis.

Anyone notice that the vast majority of these mass assault-weapons slayings--not only in the US--are carried out by middle-class-or-higher white guys and with legally acquired weapons? People aren't getting nearly as excited about the one-offs committed by poor guys of color because, hey, they're "only" killing each other and it doesn't affect "us" and, hey, what do you expect from guys like that? :roll:

No, middle-class white guys carry a LOT of clout, and, with it, a sense of entitlement.

Ex-Mr.-Hane-#1 died at the age of 49, of the effects of untreated schizoaffective bipolar disorder. At one point, he went off the rails (not sure exactly what happened--I got some secondhand info on it) and the cops were called: he had been contemplating "suicide by cop." They seized from his apartment (in a large complex in the center of town) a veritable arsenal of firearms of all types, and all acquired legally. After he died, my daughter and I went to the apartment and found crates of ammo and never-used survival equipment, all of which could have come together to cause a firebomb that would have killed hundreds. And used hypodermic needles and drug paraphernalia.

the 4th survivor, you are a fucking twat, and I'm putting you on Ignore before my BP skyrockets even higher.

[formergothardite]

4th Survivor, you have the right to bear arms for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. That last part right there always gets left off by the OMG!!! THEY IS STEALING MY GUNS people. You can still own guns, just not every sort of gun.

[Hane]

4th Survivor, you have the right to bear arms for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. That last part right there always gets left off by the OMG!!! THEY IS STEALING MY GUNS people. You can't can still own guns, just not every sort of gun.

Fixed it for you!

[YPestis]

The ban would be a good start. I never understood the NRA's intepretation of the 2nd amendment. Isn't here mention of a well regulated miltia? Shouldn't that indicate some sort of regulatory system in place? I don't think the Founding Fathers thought it meant any nutjob can acquire a gun arsenal to blow little kids away. Someone once mentioned that since the 2nd amendment was written back when guns was usually a musket that requires reloading after every shot, that's what we should allow people to own! How's that for a literal interpretation?

My biggest pet peeve with gun control is the excuse that owning guns will prevent a tyrannical government from overtaking us....uhm, have anyone seen the arsenals the Feds have?! When's the last time a group successfully defended themselves against the US government? When's the last time a government standoff ended with the government up and leaving? And frankly, how is a single person or a small "militia" group going against trained Army Rangers? Navy SEALS? Tanks? Bombs? Regardless of how well armed you are, you will NEVER be as well armed as the US government. You know why? It's because there are still many weapons (not guns) that the US government allows themselves to have, and not YOU, the citizen. Therefore, the whole "I own guns so that I can fight the government in case it turns to the Dark Side" is a bogus excuse.

The excuse that tyrannical governments would take away guns as the first step is also bogus. Japan, UK and many Western European countries----all working democracies----have strict gun laws. If removing guns means taking away freedoms and allowing criminals to run amok, how do you account for gunless societies which are still free, democratic and have far lower crime rate? I know crime is a complicated issue, and not just caused by guns, but you can't tell me that guns lower crime when countries with few guns also have fewer crimes committed and turn around to say guns prevent crime---well, obviously not having guns ALSO correlates with lower crime!

The only thing I can accept for gun usage is enough to go hunting and to defend yourself at home. I think if you want to shoot for fun at ranges, the ranges should have their own guns so you don't have to bring your own. Guns are meant to kill people. It kills on an individual level. It's not a toy. It's not a weapon that's useful against the most advanced military in the world. It's a tool. And yes, your right to own guns ends at my right to not be shot accidentally or on purpose by yours'.

It's annoying to me that around here, it's easier to buy a gun than to buy my wine. I want to know what nutjob thought the same people who are too young to drink alcohol is mature enough to handle a gun. An alcohol tragedy requires you to imbibe it in certain quantity AND to do something stupid while drunk. A gun tragedy happens when you point it at someone and press the trigger. Which should require more regulation?

[VooDooChild]

I'm a gun owner and the "You can't take our guns" people drive me nuts!! I thoroughly enjoy firing my weapons. At the range. Under safe conditions. The level of concentration and focus needed when operating fire arms , especially at long ranges, satisfies the perfectionist in me. Obviously, I'm not against owning weapons. I do, however, think there should be stricter laws. It's necessary with the amount of crazies running around out there. I've heard the argument about the regulated militia to be that if the government takes over, there will be militias out there who will need their weapons to defend themselves. The ex-military gun nuts all think they have enough training to go up against the government. Maybe they have more skills than the average citizen, and maybe they can even make IED's, but these dummies don't seem to think of what they don't have that the military does: Satellites, tanks, manned and unmanned aircraft, rockets, etc. Anytime I point this out to the crazies I know, the default cry is, "At least, I'll die defending me and mine!" and that's pretty weak. I don't understand where all this paranoia comes from.

[ADoyle90815]

Aaannnddd this is why I hate the term "wake up". Its always in the same sentence as the crazy.

Why does anyone have a reason to own an assault weapon anyway? It would be a bit overkill to go hunting with it or even use it to defend yourself if someone breaks into your house

I agree, and I loved it when someone on MSNBC said that if you need an assault rifle to go hunting, you're not a very good hunter. They weren't designed to be hunting weapons, just to kill soldiers on the other side in warfare.

[Minerva]

Called it.

[JesusFightClub]

Aaannnddd this is why I hate the term "wake up". Its always in the same sentence as the crazy.

Why does anyone have a reason to own an assault weapon anyway? It would be a bit overkill to go hunting with it or even use it to defend yourself if someone breaks into your house

Fun to shoot?

I agree with YPestis that the "defend ourselves against the gubmint!" line is so much balls, though. I was informed by some twat (and have heard this line a few times) that when Obama becomes too tyrannical ("too tyrannical"? where's the cut off point?) the gun-owners of America will rise up en masse and put him in his place. Which is why they need all the guns they can get.

There are soooo many flaws in this argument it's unreal, but then I prefer to leave my enemies to their delusions. ;)

[the 4th survivor]

You dont need an assault weapon to defend your home or to go hunting. The ban is not taking away your freedom to own a gun. Its just keeping dangerous weapons that are designed to kill lots of people away from the general public. The general public has no need for such weapons.

Right, because we want to make sure the government are the only ones to have dangerous weapons. I totally trust them not to abuse their power. :lol:

This whole gun control debate is a classic example of why I don't like liberals. So quick to throw away your own liberties when something bad happens. Sure, tragedies like the Newtown shooting are awful and it upsets us too. You probably think conservatives don't give a shit about anything but that isn't true. Here's the thing, we understand that you don't give up your personal freedoms just because bad things happen. You can say "Oh they just wanna ban assault weapons, you don't need those". Yeah that's all they wanna ban for now but what happens if some lunatic decides to shoot up a school with a shotgun? Do we ban those too? What about handguns? Knives? More people die from unarmed attackers each year than they do from assault weapons. Do we cut off everyone's feet and hands so they can't kick or punch? Where do you draw the line?

Like I mentioned before, there are very few deaths from rifles each year. In the range of a few hundred. Now that's no small number considering we're talking about lives lost, but consider that over 70% of gun related deaths are from handguns. You are far more likely to be killed by someone with a pistol, a knife, or no weapon at all than by a rifle and that's a statistical fact. So why go after "assault" weapons so hard? Could it be that these liberal politicians just want to get their foot in the door? It's called incrementalism. They take away your rights little by little and before you know it they're all gone.

[OkToBeTakei]

Right, because we want to make sure the government are the only ones to have dangerous weapons. I totally trust them not to abuse their power. :lol:

This whole gun control debate is a classic example of why I don't like liberals. So quick to throw away your own liberties when something bad happens. Sure, tragedies like the Newtown shooting are awful and it upsets us too. You probably think conservatives don't give a shit about anything but that isn't true. Here's the thing, we understand that you don't give up your personal freedoms just because bad things happen. You can say "Oh they just wanna ban assault weapons, you don't need those". Yeah that's all they wanna ban for now but what happens if some lunatic decides to shoot up a school with a shotgun? Do we ban those too? What about handguns? Knives? More people die from unarmed attackers each year than they do from assault weapons. Do we cut off everyone's feet and hands so they can't kick or punch? Where do you draw the line?

Like I mentioned before, there are very few deaths from rifles each year. In the range of a few hundred. Now that's no small number considering we're talking about lives lost, but consider that over 70% of gun related deaths are from handguns. You are far more likely to be killed by someone with a pistol, a knife, or no weapon at all than by a rifle and that's a statistical fact. So why go after "assault" weapons so hard? Could it be that these liberal politicians just want to get their foot in the door? It's called incrementalism. They take away your rights little by little and before you know it they're all gone.

Yes. That is exactly what you do. working out just fine in the UK and the government has not taken over yet. Before you start spouting off ignorant views at least do some research and back it up with you know those strange things people read 'facts?' There is a big world out there, not just your tiny part of it.

Do you wear a tin-foil hat by the way?

[ILoveJellybeans]

Right, because we want to make sure the government are the only ones to have dangerous weapons. I totally trust them not to abuse their power. :lol:

This whole gun control debate is a classic example of why I don't like liberals. So quick to throw away your own liberties when something bad happens. Sure, tragedies like the Newtown shooting are awful and it upsets us too. You probably think conservatives don't give a shit about anything but that isn't true. Here's the thing, we understand that you don't give up your personal freedoms just because bad things happen. You can say "Oh they just wanna ban assault weapons, you don't need those". Yeah that's all they wanna ban for now but what happens if some lunatic decides to shoot up a school with a shotgun? Do we ban those too? What about handguns? Knives? More people die from unarmed attackers each year than they do from assault weapons. Do we cut off everyone's feet and hands so they can't kick or punch? Where do you draw the line?

Like I mentioned before, there are very few deaths from rifles each year. In the range of a few hundred. Now that's no small number considering we're talking about lives lost, but consider that over 70% of gun related deaths are from handguns. You are far more likely to be killed by someone with a pistol, a knife, or no weapon at all than by a rifle and that's a statistical fact. So why go after "assault" weapons so hard? Could it be that these liberal politicians just want to get their foot in the door? It's called incrementalism. They take away your rights little by little and before you know it they're all gone.

Yeah, sure-guns are pretty much illegal here and we havent been taken over by the government, in fact, we havent had another school shooting since the one that got guns banned and gun violence is fairly rare.

Knives are dangerous in the wrong hands-but they have an important use other than stabbing people with. Knives can be used to chop up food for cooking and it would be hard to do it without them or something equally dangerous. Also its hard to commit a mass murder with a knife than a gun. You can shoot 20 people in less than 10 minutes, but it would take way longer to do it with a knife as theyre only dangerous up close.

Our bodies can also be used for dangerous things too, nothing we can do about that, but youre way less likely to kill someone with your bare hands, and it would be hard to kill multiple people without a weapon.

Banning guns wont completely stop murder. Its just making it harder for people to kill large groups of people in a short amount of time.