Feinstein's proposed gun ban
 

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/p...lt-weapons

Among the highlights of Feinstein's :oldhag: proposed bill:

• ban rifles, handguns, shotguns with one 'military characteristic' :confused:
• ban >10 round magazines
• grandfathered pre-ban weapons must be registered as NFA items with the owners photographed and fingerprinted (*cough* un-Constitutional *cough*)
• banning thumbhole stocks :rolleyes: :pointless:

This post can and should be edited by users like you :)
 

Diane Feinstein's Net Worth = $70 million US Dollars

She doesn't live in your neighborhood. She probably travels with security wherever she goes as well.

One of Diane Feinstein's homes in Washington DC area: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/m...ins-house/ (notice, it's not in the ghetto that comprises most of Washington DC residential addresses.)

Diane Feinstein's $16.5 million, 9,500 square foot Pacific Coast home: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/mat...523619.php

If you want an easier way to contact all of your representatives, Ruger has setup a page: Go here, and let your representatives know how you feel. Your info is NOT retained, they do all the contacting for you on your behalf, as you. Ruger started as an American business in 1949.

Ruger - Protect Your Rights [ruger.com]
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy...TakeAction.jpg [ruger.com]




This post can be edited by most users to provide up-to-date information about developments of this thread based on user responses, and user findings. Feel free to add, change or remove information shown here as it becomes available. This includes new coupons, rebates, ideas, thread summary, and similar items.

Once a Thread Wiki is added to a thread, "Create Wiki" button will disappear. If you would like to learn more about Thread Wiki feature, click here.

Not sure what those are :whistlin:

Wow. I wonder if this was posted on Drudge Report yet?

A man who doesn't know a magazine from a PVC pipe is writing the bill???

Man, we're in trouble.

Feinstein is a woman. She just looks like a man.

I am more concerned that a woman who doesn't know how to safely handle a firearm is writing this bill.

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/u...a1-250x250.jpg

Note the finger on the trigger when not intending to shoot something. That is the universal sign for "I am an idiot who does not know how to safely handle a firearm. Stay away!"

Anybody know what a military characteristic is for a handgun or shotgun? AFAIK, military pistols and shotguns are identical to civilian pistols and shotguns, minus the visible trademarks.

"Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:" means a $200 fee plus registration charges for each firearm. There are also very strict transportation regulations for transporting NFA firearms. This will be used to entrap and seize.

It doesn't matter though, the bill will not pass. It will get hung up in the House and then Obama will pass a worse one that includes confiscation via executive order "because it is the right thing to do". If it looks like the effort is stalling, there WILL be another event.

If there are any patriots left, the only hope is that a state like TX secedes and that snowballs into other states following suit. Not a lot of chance for that since any serious attempt to do that would be met with behind the scenes coercion.

TIP: Sell everything you own and buy gold. Make sure it is secured!

They protect our rights by "allowing us" to submit our fingerprints, photo IDs, etc for guns we legally own already. No word on if we can keep our normal capacity mags, I guess.

This shit isn't gonna pass, at least as-is. I guarantee anyone voting for this bill would end their political career the moment they hit that "Yea" button.

Wow. So much irrationality in so few words.

This was likely the starting point of negotiations.

Precisely. Anybody who knows how to negotiate whatsoever knows you don't go in first with you best offer. You low ball, they high ball and you meet somewhere in the middle.

That's like having a member of the KKK write a civil rights bill.

She can ban all of it as long as I keep my energy swords and rocket launchers.

I think "military characteristic" means "anything with a trigger."

haha they can pry this halo game from my cold dead hands....

Can we get that quote from Fienstein on how she understands the desire to be armed to protect ones self?

Question for the gun nuts: If someone decides to go in a school, even one where all the teachers are armed, and shoot up school how will armed teachers stop him from achieving his aims?

You can't stop what you don't see coming.

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

– Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 1993





The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.

–Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat





If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I *could not* do that. The votes weren’t here.

–U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95

The same way that the AWB in CT stopped the shooter from obtaining weapons. At least with the possibility of armed teachers you have knowledge that there may be protection should someone evil obtain firearms.

Shhh...you're destroying the cowboy mythos surrounding a large gun collection. Don't mention the armed guard at Columbine either.

You mean the armed guard that arrived after the shootings had started and subsequently engaged Harris while protecting students that were escaping? Yeah, totally didn't do anything. :rolleyes:

http://www.nationalreview.com/cor...el-foster#
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/...S_TEXT.htm

BTW, the Columbine shooters had weapons that were illegal under the 1994 AWB.

Let's please keep off topic discussion of guarding schools in the other thread on that topic

Can we discuss whether Feinstein looks like a man, though?

You and your pesky facts. The lack of a response means your point hit home.

There is nothing to discuss. She does.

Can anyone explain to me how his would be even slightly effective if passed....given there are sooooooooo many guns that are legally (and illegally for that matter) owned in states that have never required registration?

I understand it is likely to change drastically, I'm just curious of how this would "work" at all.

You can't protect what is already dead. You having a gun isn't going to stop someone from blasting away unsuspecting victims, unless Gun owners have some sort of precognition.

Address Paperboys' response...

You might be able to stop more lives from being lost.
But you already know that...

True
Speculation. Certainly one can tell who may be an unsuspecting victim if the gunman is pointing a firearm at them. And certainly that gunman would be stopped if he was shot before he was able to pull the trigger. Now, you aren't going to be able to stop them before anyone gets shot, however, nothing proposed will do that as well. At least with the possibility another person is armed, the shooter may be stopped sooner.

actually I found some info on her stating she did own handgun(s) and a concealed weapons permit..

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-bri...it-anymore

I wonder how she felt about gun regulation when she felt her life was in danger vs.now (feeling very secure and what 100yrs old?)

also that is probably one of the dumbest statements I've heard.. "If someone's going to try and take me out I was going to take them with me"????? Probably the most purposeless notion one could imagine..

Not really. The Columbine armed guard was in the school parking lot. Lots of people still died that day. The pro gun folks want us to believe that the armed guard is still a hero, much like the concealed carrier at the recent mall shooting who allegedly pulled his gun -- but just couldn't get a clear shot at the shooter. My belief is that this partly shows that more guns and more armed guards don't mean more safety. But out of respect for Mr. Banana's request I didn't respond.

If what you're saying is true.. Police officers do not stop killings because they carry guns.. correct? Yet somehow increased police protection decreases homicide rate?? Is it the shiny badge and hat that does the trick?

Or if the gun owners have ears.

The "please stop" comment is so farking hilarious considering you had the name "gun nut" under your screen name for a long while until recently.

We prefer the term 'Americans', thanks.

A black metal-ly looking thing that's like super loud and scary. It even produces a huge FIREBALL if you watch it in the dark in super slow mo. Yeah, I said it - FIRE!

You can also identify these things if you go to any Federal building where members of the gubberment are hard at work stealing our stuff, destroying the Constitution and creating ponzi schemes with the psychopathic ruling elite. Go ahead and bring your own black metal bang bang to one of these buildings if you want to see them in action as you're liable to be shot dead with one. :wave:

The point is that extra gun laws/bans didn't prevent those killings at Columbine, but a law abiding citizen with a legal right to carry helped save innocent children.

That's the one fact you anti-gun guys can't seen to get through your head is that the gun laws didn't help! What on earth makes you think they'll help now? If a common criminal can get his hands on a pistol in Washington DC, where it's illegal to possess, how are extra laws going to stop a killer from getting his hands on a gun?

I guess my real question is: why are you targeting the citizens who don't commit crimes?

It's okay if people get things illegally in DC, because I'm sure they don't mean to do nefarious things with them. So laws don't matter. David Gregory said so. We need more laws that we won't enforce.

duh

it looks scary

this will be OK though

http://www.kittyhell.com/wp-content/...keltec-gun.jpg

I wonder if she intends it to mean one of the things on the naughty list for "assault weapons [ct.gov]"? (e.g. an AR15 is legal in CT if it has no more than 2 of the features in the rifle list)

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at lease two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock; (don't know why this matters - to make these legal in CT people usually just pin them, which is easily "undone")
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A bayonet mount; (what the hell does this have to do with anything?)
(iv) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) A grenade launcher; or (yeah because these are readily available - why not include nuclear weapons firing in the list of irrelevant features?)

(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
(iii) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned;
(iv) A manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; or

(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
(iv) An ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

Don't forget the 20-30 armed and trained law enforcement officers at Virginia Tech who, despite being armed with military-grade assault rifles, proved to be utterly impotent.

Impotent, or just can't be everywhere at once?

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/...cvus08.pdf

Look at Table 107.

Percent distribution of incidents where police came to the victim, by type of crime and police response time

roughly

"Crimes of violence" - police arrive within 5 minutes ~ 30% of the time, 6-11 mins 30% of the time, 11 -60 mins, 30% of the time and 10% of the time longer than 60 minutes

"Property Crimes" (theft, household burglary, etc), 13% <5 mins, 20% 6-11mins, 50% 11-60 mins, 13% WITHIN ONE DAY

So generally speaking the police will most likely be there around 10-12 minutes.

I hope the attackers are elderly because 12 minutes is an eternity.

link to info on this? I am genuinely interested and wikipedia makes no mention of police other than glancing.

Police officers are well-regulated.

Virginia Tech has a 59-officer strong police department. The officer who was killed was a member of the department's SWAT team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virg...Department

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/...Report.pdf

Which enforces the fact that citizens should be able to arm themselves rather than depend on the police for protection.

so a more regulated individual is somehow able to stop multiple killing while ordinary less regulated individuals are unable to do so at all?

Because a rank amateur civilian with a difficult to access concealed weapon would be better able to defend himself against an armed assailant than a police officer with an easily-accessed holstered firearm who is trained in the use of special weapons and tactics?

so by that logic what should someone with 25+ years of martial arts and combat weapons training be able to do and carry?

Should off duty or x military be allowed to carry weapons since their weapons training normally far outranks a police officer?

Lol at difficult to access concealed weapon.....

What makes it "difficult" to access?

You must have a pretty impressive police force to think they can do much of anything better than most people because around here I have been less than impressed with any I have come in contact with.

In fact that's a complaint I hear pretty regularly but I'm sure you've never heard of under qualified incompetent police right?

Diane Feinstein's Net Worth = $70 million US Dollars

She doesn't live in your neighborhood. She probably travels with security wherever she goes as well.

One of Diane Feinstein's homes in Washington DC area: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/m...ins-house/ (notice, it's not in the ghetto that comprises most of Washington DC residential addresses.)

Diane Feinstein's $16.5 million Pacific Coast home: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/mat...523619.php

Copied for record from wiki in case it's deleted (which is against slickdeal rules to delete others wiki entries)

I'll also note that in CT at least, being active military personnel allows one to bypass the 14 day wait to purchase a long gun.

sometimes the fact that a regular person has a weapon in itself is an advantage - if a gunner spots a police officer, they know that the officer should be armed, and will either try to take them out or take cover - if the shooter sees a mob of 20+ people, what are the chances that they will notice a person in that mob drawing a weapon from their purse/vest/whatever?

Almost every time, unless the cop is right there.

Correct.

A DC appellate court stated that "police have no duty to protect."

What's the point of this? Are you jealous of the wealthy?

When that officer is not in the vicinity and the civilian is, hell yeah! Especially if there's multiple armed civilians.

I believe he was pointing out the hypocrisy of elite types traveling with armed security proclaiming that the average citizen doesn't have the right to bear arms to protect themselves.

Except in the threads where they're incompetent, corrupt, bloodthirsty, murderous, racist, etc.

Correct!

If I had a $100 million USD in my bank, libs could go for all the guns in the world for all I care.

NOTE: I would care since I'd fight for liberty and classic liberalism. However, I'd certainly side for the free ownership of guns. At the end of the day though, gun control wouldn't pertain to me since I'd likely have a Gulfstream 650, and with that kind of money, laws don't pertain to me.

After thinking some more about Feinstein's proposal summary, I don't know how such laws could be enforced without making grandfathered weapons NFA items.

As far as the government is concerned, the lower receiver is the firearm. And the lower receiver has none of the "military characteristics" they are proposing banning. Thus, presumably, a pre-ban and post-ban AR or AK lower would be identical. How would Law Enforcement distinguish between the two?

A pre-ban lower can be attached to a telescoping stock but that same stock is illegal to attach to a post-ban lower?

The officer was the first one who went down. The person attacking has the initiative; by the time either the armed civilian or the armed officer realizes what's going on, he's dead.

The only solution is to make it difficult for shooters to engage multiple targets rapidly. You do that by banning military assault rifles and any clip holding more than 10 cartridges.

It would've been nice if the officer could've had some armed civilians for backup then.

Guess again. Assailants can still get such weaponry illegally. As it's been mentioned before, the only people such a ban would affect are those who obey the law and such people aren't the source of the problem, but those are the people you and others want to punish for some, illogical reason.

If your "only solution" is to take away more of my rights, then I'm glad you're not in charge.

Not even the right-wingers on the Supreme Court support the idea that civilians have the right to own to military weapons and extreme-capacity clips.

What is an "extreme capacity clip"?

Is that like when you're able to load 50 rounds in your Garand?

Your appeal to authority argument has been noted and dismissed.

Not that it matters because someone who is even half-assed proficient in bolt action or double action weapons are just as deadly as someone with an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. As it's been mentioned before, time and time again by others, banning assault rifles won't stop the killings.

I disagree. I think the only solution is to start chipping away at the 1st amendment instead of the 2nd. Stop the media from making a spectacle of such horrendous events. The media will no longer be able to publicize the name of the mass murderers, therefore, eliminating the "instantaneous celebrity status" they would obtain.

I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right? After all, it's only a little compromise to the Constitution, a freedom that millions of our forefathers fought and died for, a liberty that soldiers are fighting for everywhere to maintain. Surely we can give it up just a little for the sake of saving innocent children, right? It's not like the government would take it any further than just a little bit of censorship. You can trust the government, can't you? I mean, do we really need every aspect of the Freedom of Speech? Think of all the children you'd be saving!

I'm unconvinced about the idea of people killing for posthumous fame.

Is it your belief that the First Amendment forbids any and all government restrictions on speech?

The Founding Fathers had bayonet mounts on their rifles.
Thus, the Founding Fathers had "assault weapons."
Thus, Diane Feinstein would have banned them.
Thus, The United States would not have won its independence.
Thus, The United States would not exist.
Because Diane Feinstein hates America.

It is my belief that people such as yourself are irresponsible with the freedoms you have and are too eager to throw them away at the 1st sign of trouble rather than being responsible and fighting for them.

That's why the person should be open carrying instead of concealed carrying.
Plus, with open carry, they'll probably be carrying a bigger gun.
A bigger gun means children are protected better than with a small gun.

"Timmy, would you like me to protect you with this little-bitty gun? Or would you like me to protect you with this Great Big Gun?"
"The great big gun!"
"You're a smart young man, Timmy. I can tell you'll grow up to be a heroic defender of The Constitution."

You know, if this gun ban thing works, maybe they should consider making drugs like cocaine, marijuana, and heroin illegal too to stop the drug problem our nation is facing!

Then why else would somebody shoot up defenseless children other than the awfulness factor and body count?

AFAIK, these shooters aren't don't know what they are doing kind of crazy. They are know exactly what they are doing and don't care crazy. A narcissist would love to be famous and anyone else is expendable toward that end.

If I'm able to 3-d print a high capacity magazine, do you think you, the Supreme Court or Law Enforcement will be able to stop me?

The thing is, you can say that possession of such capacity would be illegal, but you don't seem interested in going after David Gregory with laws currently on the book (where as my question was just pure speculation).

And the mods deemed that sort of derogatory language non-beneficiary; so I changed my name so certain posters wouldn't feel it was okay to do continue to do so.

:rofl2: :rofl2:

Glad I wasn't drinking something when I read this!

How many were working that morning and how many were actually armed with some sort of rifle as opposed to a handgun?

BTW, the VT shooter barricaded the buildings for a reason.

The first battle of the American Revolution was fought when the British came to take the guns of Americans in Concord.

Frightening to think what side this woman might have been on.

A lot of Yankees were content with British rule. Many didn't particularly support the Revolution.

But yeah, Feinstein would have likely been high up in the British colonial government and would have much to lose if the Yanks won.

From your second link:
Perhaps the police weren't as ineffective as you make them out to be.

2 rocket launchers were turned in at the LAPD gun buy back thing.
You should see how worked up the sheep over at huffpost are getting!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/201...l#comments

wonder why they are leaving out the fact that these rocket launchers were on use tubes and essentially useless now that they have been fired....

Including that important bit of info, doesnt fit the agenda...

All of their special weapons, tactics, and training couldn't stop the shooter, and yet we're supposed to believe that a Kindergarten teacher with a 9mm in her purse is going to stop a gun-lunatic armed with a military-grade assault rifle with 30 rounds in the clip.

Because of how far away they were. When the police closed in on the shooter, how many more lives did he take?

1. What makes you think there would be a shooter if the possibility of an armed individual is there?

2. Why do the differences in guns matter when they are both in a small area and aren't covered?

3. Why do you think an armed teacher is worse then a shooter with a gun, a teacher without a gun, and police 20 minutes away?

Are you saying that he killed himself because the police were closing in? How do you even know that he was aware of the fact? How do you know what he was thinking--ie, that he hadn't simply reached the end of his plan and executed the end he intended as the police rolled up?

Because the attacker always has the initiative, and thus the advantage. The teacher can't spend her career hunkered behind her desk, weapon drawn, waiting for an attack. The attacker chooses the time, place, and manner, and the possibility of an armed teacher just means that he's going to take the adults out first as a matter of course.

Meanwhile, that armed teacher might just go postal at some point and become a school shooter herself. Or some kid might obtain the gun, play with it, and inflict dire consequences. Or some psycho kid might figure out that the teacher's gun is in her desk, grab it, and shoot up their classmates.

I'm saying it's a possibility.

They used a shotgun to gain entry to the building. Not definitive evidence, however, it points to the fact he would have heard something.

I don't know that. However, the fact remains, he killed himself 1 minute after police gained entry.

Now do you have any evidence the police played no part in him killing himself and that they were "incompetent" as you claim?


Of course not. Who does this aside from movies?

And besides, what will a unarmed teacher take away from the advantage? If anything the shooter has more of an advantage knowing there will be no resistance.

Possibly. And yet not all of the adults will be huddled in a single classroom. So either you have the possibility of a teacher being able to resist, or you remove that possibility and the shooter has free range to do whatever.

And the odds of that happening are what? That differs from a teacher going postal now and bringing in a gun, how?

How would a kid obtain a concealed firearm on the teacher? If teachers are that inept, do we want them caring for our kids 7 hours of the day anyway? :omg:

Again, why would the gun be in their desk if the are designated to be concealed carrying?

I don't know his motive, but I think there are more possibilities than just fame; IMO some in the media are really jumping the gun when making that assumption. I'm not suggesting it's out of the question, but I think by latching onto that explanation they are taking other valid possibilities off the table. After it's been repeated so many times that it starts to be believed as truth, another explanation borne of facts rather than speculation might be dismissed.

Lacking a credo, or even a note, I don't think we can say with any certainty that he was a narcissist.

I agree, this could easily be just an evil person who decided to do an evil act.

That could indeed have happened at this last incident. I read one teacher hid under her desk and could see the shooter's feet in the classroom, and then he left.

A teacher could get a gun and go postal ANYWAY.

Well, then we need to arm the students as well. Right?

Or we could just ban teachers.

I guess we should create a 40 mile gun free zone around every school so that when someone does go crazy they can kill as many kids as possible before the cops come and stop him. Your comments come across as if you want these kids to die.

Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that Feinstein's bill is passed as proposed.

Let's also assume that maniacs decide to comply with the new ban laws and bring the same amount of ammo but post-ban mags and post-ban firearms.

How does that effect the body count?

In the case of a Sandy Hook shooting, I doubt it changes anything. There was nobody to challenge the shooter so reloading would not have been an issue.

In an incident like Aurora, maybe the body count is slightly lower. Maybe it is higher because the shooter is using reliable mags not silly cartoonish 100 round drums.

Loughner in Phoenix might be lower or higher depending on his ability to reload quicker than he can unjam his silly 30 round pistol mag.

So, we give up 2nd Amendment rights in exchange for... no tangible benefit? A false sense of security?

As DX pointed out, a teacher can go postal regardless. Whether or not another teacher or staff member can effectively intervene would depend on carry laws.

Shhhhhhh.

Your logic isn't welcome here.

Well, if we are to accept one type of random act of violence, i wonder why the NRA says we need to arm the teachers in the first place? Is the likelihood of random nutcase coming into a school and shooting up the place materially greater than the likelihood of a random nutcase armed teacher shooting up the place? I think both are sufficiently remote to restrain ourselves from taking stupid reactionary remedial measures.



Look, i'm a fairly pro-gun liberal. Keep most of them legal, register them, background checks, etc. Banning guns doesn't work unless you completely disarm the entire populace. Arming teachers is just effing stupid. Feinstein's proposal goes WAY too far. But while she may believe this is a good law--the realist in her likely says this is just the first proposal to commence negotiations.

You think banning assault weapons is going to prevent this said lunatic from obtaining a weapon or magazine?

I believe the NRA suggested a police officer at every school. I think they have said nothing as far as arming teachers. Please provide a link if you wish to prove me incorrect.

I would lump cases of nutcase shooting up a school together, be it staff or outsider. As others have pointed out, there is nothing preventing a teacher from doing that regardless.

For comparison, I would look at the chances of a legally carried firearm causing injury or being taken away from the carrier. I think that would be the biggest risk - some 300 lb football player finds out a 120 lb teacher is carrying and decides to take it.


I disagree as far as Feinstein's motives. From her past statements, I think she would like to go a lot further if she thought she could. And this is a good opportunity to ride a wave of emotion to take away 2nd amendment rights.

Knowing the little shits some teachers have to teach, I wouldn't be surprised and you're probably right for the first time in any of these gun threads.

I ought to send you a $5 Amazon Gift Card for coming to this conclusion.

Is there anything preventing said teachers from going postal now though? Or is it just the convenience of having the gun on them at the time that they snap you avoid?

You said it: you used the term "snap." What is meant by the term "snap?" It doesn't mean someone plotted and planned for a certain course of events to come about. It means that a person--for whatever reason--acted suddenly after reaching a point at which they were unable to contain their impulses.

A cold, calculating, plotting assassin is not the same as a person whose mind "snaps" and reverts temporarily to a more primitive mental state in which they act and react based on impulses.

I think this wording covers something like a shell hopper (<-- I just made that up) in addition to a standard magazine. That way people don't get creative solutions to a magazine capacity limit. Not sure if this added a different point of view for you, but I'm assuming they want to prevent these types of creative workarounds.

She spelled "devices" as "devises". That's why I wasn't quite sure what the hell she was talking about :)

Perhaps we have different definitions of 'snap' & 'going postal'. I don't see why someone can't 'snap', go home, grab a gun, come back, and 'go postal'. Whereas, you seem to indicate that it can only happen if it's in the heat of that particular moment. Either way, it's certainly an exceptionally rare occurence.

Would you say the Newtown killer likely 'snapped' or was a cold killer?

Yes, it has to be in the heat of the moment (another word for it would be "temporary insanity"). The Newtown killer might have been insane (incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong), or he might have been sane, but a sociopath (capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, but he doesn't care). He was certainly not someone who "snapped," though, because he acted according to an established plan.

The idea is that the time interval gives a sane person the opportunity to control their irrational impulses. It's a well-established principle in criminal law (1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder, for instance). Even the most "normal" and "good" person can be pushed to commit the most extreme acts of savagery under the right mix of conditions.

Describe to me the conditions under which a normal person can be pushed to massacre kindergarteners.

any mass murders that u know of that r the result of someone snapping?

Really, there's not. I'd say most any teacher could sneak any number of weapons onto campus at any time.

Most people are not crazy.

Personally I think everyone is crazy in their own unique way, but that's another story.

Really, when I think back on all the snack my teachers gave me, it wouldn't need a real weapon to do damage....

The following sounds like something from Feinstein's lips. Kind of the 2nd Amendment in reverse.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao Tse Tung

I don't remember if it was in this thread but someone had pointed out a reason why the Feinstein bill as currently described is effectively unworkable. The problem is what is the gun? In the case of the AR-15 the receiver is very modular. The only think inherent in the receiver is the AR is semi-auto vs the fully auto version of the receiver used in the M-16 (AKA the select fire AR-15). So the same exact receiver that is not legal with one handle and stalk would be legal with another. So all you would have to do is change off the illegal parts and you would once again have a AWB compliant gun thus there would be nothing to register under her new rule. Will she make the possession of these parts illegal?

It's not clear what she want's to do with "high capacity" magazines given they are basically standard with most non-compact pistols these days. Certainly selling new mags would be out but what about used? The lack of a "military feature" list makes it hard to say what the impact will be. The push to have the old guns grandfathered does address a big flaw with the old law but it might be a legal no-no to reclassify many guns as NFA regulated.

This was an older video that attempted to illustrate the problem with an AWB.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB8gNCnLDZI
The video really does show the problem when the features are cosmetic, not functional. A magazine capacity limit is easy to enforce because there is no confusing the difference between 11 and 10 bullets. Things like thumb hole stocks are ergonomics and really, why does that mater? Olympic target rifles which were designed from day 1 for accuracy and not combat use such stocks because they are more ergonomic than traditional stocks which exist simply due to what was easy to manufacture when the first matchlock muskets were produced over 500 years ago.

As part of all the recent debates many stats are getting thrown out in a confusing cacophony of bits of information and facts. Some people seem to be concerned with mass shootings. They want to go after "assault weapons" because those are the guns used by some of the mass shooters. But that is kind of a silly focus. Changing from an AR-15 to a 9mm pistol wouldn't have saved the children in CT. The shooter could have done the same thing with 10 round mags. I saw one thing where a person was talking about the V Tech shooter using "high capacity" magazines in that shooting. The magazines in question were the standard 15 round mags that came with the gun. Yes, that means that shooting happened with "HC" mags but did it really change things?

I don't agree with this author's solution to the problem but really this is the only author I've seen who has proposed a law that would really affect mass shootings.
http://www.theatlantic.com/nation...rk/266342/
This guy understands that so long as you can reload quickly limiting the shots per magazine doesn't really mater much.

Many of the stats where they are talking about "high capacity" magazines aren't talking about 30+ round magazines but instead the 12-17 round magazines that are standard with many pistols sold since 2004. This would be like talking about how many speeders are driving "high powered cars" as a way to say we need to cut down car HP. In the early 80s having over 200hp in a car was rare so anything with 200+ HP could be considered high power. Now a 200 hp family sedan is quite common. You don't need 200hp to speed, 100 will do it in most cases thus demanding we limit HP to under 200 is not likely an effective solution to speeding.

This leads into my next point, why the focus on "assault weapons"? Often those who are pushing for the AW ban are talking about the overall gun violence rate in the US. This is illogical in terms of gun violence as rifles of any type are the minority weapons in terms of gun violence. The vast majority of gun violence occurs with handguns. Piers Morgan has constantly made this logical mistake when talking about "assault weapons". If the question is about an AW ban then we need to ask how big is the true problem. We need to distinguish between "AW" crime and crime carried out with "high capacity magazines". The two are often used interchangeable even though they are not at all related. When talking about high capacity magazine crime we need to ask if it was coincidental or really a significant factor in the crime.

If we really want to deal with GUN CRIME then we need to simply do a pareto analysis and ask what are the major drivers here? They aren't "Assault Weapons". The major tool is the hand gun. The major drivers are socioeconomic. Why don't we look there instead?

Incidentally, the most common guns used in crime in the US are:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/a...83,00.html
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic

The shotgun is a common model. It's like asking why Toyotas are in so many car crashes... there are so many of them. The pistols are almost all common because they are small thus easy to carry concealed, and cheap. The common crime guns are common and cheap and, excepting the shotgun easy to hide. Why focus on the uncommon guns?

We see the gun rights crowd use this argument all the time, and I want you to know, we don't buy it one bit. I know you guys like to repeat it, because you think others will believe it, but we don't believe this nonsense one bit.

Do you know what gun makers do with their designs? They PATENT them. They create legal definitions of gun features. And what you're trying to do is deconstruct language, by saying that a gun is a device which fires projectiles, so you can't ban some without banning others.

Assault weapons are assault weapons because that is their specific intended purpose. There are very good reasons why the police don't use them except in very dire circumstances. There are good reasons why they are poor choices for hunting and for home defense. Civilians don't need them and should not have them, and civilized human beings, including gun rights activists, should know this.

And let me tell you this: The political winds of America constantly shift over time. This is why Senators want to keep the filibuster: They know where they'll wind up in a moment's notice. To preserve America's gun rights for a long time to come, banning these unnecessary weapons is the best thing that gun rights advocates can do for themselves.

By the way, my brother- in-law was an Olympic shooter for England. He owned one rifle. There was no way he could stop a criminal with it; it had to be in a locked case which was bolted to a wall. The police could-- and did -- visit his home to verify this. Since it took over 20 minutes to assemble, it couldn't stop a criminal, even with his world-class accuracy. But it wouldn't make much difference if he had to keep it at his gun club, as long as it could get to his meets.

No one cares about common crime. Get with the program. This debate is about crazy people getting hold of guns because the issue is political, not practical, and because psychopaths produce spectacular incidents that get a bigger rise out of the media than murders perpetrated by petty criminals and members of organized crime units.

Which is primarily because you don't understand it one bit.

In response to onscreen's comments, I posted earlier in the thread that this is why firearms grandfathered under Feinstein's bill would have to be NFA items. So if law enforcement ever found you with an AR / AK with certain features they could demand your I'd and papers. If they are not in order -> 10 years in federal prison. There would be no way without NFA'ing pre-Feinstein ban firearms to I'd which may have certain attachments and which cannot.

As a holder of several patents I do have some idea what the system does and does not do. The gun makers can patent features but how would that define what is legal or not? For example, Ruger might patents a way to attach a sight to a new machine gun. They might use that exact same design to attach a sight to a new pistol. That doesn't make the pistol a machine gun.

Now you might create a drawing of an AR-15 receiver and say that anything that meets the specs of this drawing is an AR-15. That probably would get most of the current AR-15s. However, it would be easy to create a totally different gun that is functionally the same as the AR-15 (including the "military" features) but falls outside of the specs of that drawing.

Actually this isn't true since there hasn't been a good definition of what is an assault weapon. Guns used to assault forts such as the Springfield rifle musket from the Civil War haven't fallen onto any of the AW lists I've ever seen. On the other hand guns such as the earlier Marlin 60, a .22 rifle designed for plinking and recreational shooting did fall on NJ's AW ban list thanks to a 17 round tube magazine. This is why I have been asking you and others what IS an assault weapon? The definition, unlike that of a "high capacity" magazine is not at all clear or precise. As before I would love to heard your definition of an assault weapon.

You are correct, that is because the typical service pistol is lighter and easier to carry. Note that the typical service pistol does have a high capacity magazine.

Actually, as has been pointed out to you in other threads, AR-15's are considered good home defense guns. As for hunting, well that depends. The accuracy of an AR-15 is comparable to that of a typical bolt action rifle thus accuracy is not a reason to avoid an AR for hunting. The .223 or 5.56 round is not a good round for deer hunting but that would apply equally to a .223 bolt action rifle. In many states they aren't allowed because of prohibitions on hunting with center fire rifles of any kind.

This is an appeal to authority argument and isn't a valid justification. I know several people who own such guns (I'm not one of them) and I think you would have trouble convincing me that their ownership of that gun is somehow harmful to society. One of the owners is an ENT surgeon.

I do agree that we have seen a wind of change. That wind might die down, it might not. I actually think a ban on "high capacity" magazines (I would put the line of "high" at more than 10) will likely happen. It also will likely have no significant impact on crime and we will have some mass shooting in the future that won't have been stopped by this new law and we will then have to ban something else.

So with all of that I assume you can see how silly it would be to ban thumb hole stocks. How would the use of a thumb hole stock make his locked up Olympic rifle any more or less deadly?

Rebound,
I appreciate that you aren't going for the mud and false attacks that some of the other anti-gun people have gone for. I would be interested to hear why you think we should focus on AR-15 and AK type rifles (I hesitate to use the assault weapon term give the range of guns that MIGHT include such as the Marlin 60) given the list of the most common crime guns I included? Why focus on the guns that are rarely used in crimes vs the commonly used guns?

I also would like to hear how you would define an assault weapon. If a company designed a brand new gun tomorrow for the civilian market what features should they avoid in order to not be classified as an assault weapon by you?

Rebound,
BBM has a very good point here. Let's assume I own a currently CA legal AR-15 based gun. Odds are very good it would be legal under the new proposed Feinstein law. Let's also suppose I own a blank AR-15 receiver. That receiver could be made into a legal gun under the new ban or an illegal gun. Would I have to register it? Given the $200 tax and all the other issues associated with a NFA weapon it's not reasonable to assume people would err on the side of caution. At the same time an otherwise legal owner might get in big trouble because the receiver COULD be turned into an illegal gun even though in it's current form it's legal. This has the potential to land many law abiding citizens in hot water.

Do you think David Gregory should face the full force of the law for brandishing an illegal 30 round magazine in DC? Personally I don't see what he did as anything with criminal intent. I assume you feel the same and like me you probably feel that any prosecution would be silly. So would you feel the same in cases where a person with no criminal record was found to have an unregistered, old receiver that COULD be turned into a Feinstein ban illegal gun in his home? Would you say, no criminal intent so no charges or would you suggest he needs to face jail time and lose his right to vote? This is the sort of thing that DOES happen in cases where gun laws aren't clear.

Well, yeah.
First comes registration, then comes confiscation.
Why? Why is it stupid to let teachers have their constitutional rights in a school?
Seriously, who do you think you are kidding? You start off with "repeating it doesn't make it true," and then you go right into your usual "assault weapons are poor choices for home defense" when an "assault weapon" like an AR-15 is ONE OF THE BEST HOME DEFENSE GUNS ON THE PLANET.
Let's see, you want to ban "assault weapons" because they're not good for hunting or target shooting, and then to prove your point you talk about your brother-in-law who has a hunting/target rifle locked up in a case and say there is no way he could stop a criminal with it. :confused:

Next you'll say no one needs handguns either for self-defense because they are only good for hiding under a coat to then kill people with, but if they do have one, they should be locked up in a safe so they are kept safe even if that takes 20 minutes to get to them. :ermm:
That was the #1 guns for police officers years back. There's a ton of those things out there. Just further proof that police shouldn't have guns because those guns eventually wind up in the wrong hands.

It is also worth noting here that if weapons grandfathered under Feinstein's proposal are NFA'ed then the ATF has liberal search privileges. So one is not only losing 2nd Amendment rights but also 4th Amendment rights.

Edit: I think I may have been mistaken regarding the above. The ATF can demand you produce all paperwork related to the weapon, but not the weapon itself nor may they enter or search your home without your consent.

Really what I was thinking about in general is let's suppose you have an AR-15 receiver. The current Feinstein law doesn't make it clear that owning just the receiver is regulated more so than any other rifle. IE, the law doesn't make it clear that a new, unused receiver is anything other than a gun. After all, it doesn't have a pistol grip or a collapsing stock or... etc. But if in the future, and I think this was your point, if you didn't register this receiver someone might claim it's an assault weapon and should have been registered thus it's as if you were in possession of a stamped machine gun without all the correct paperwork. Again, I think your point is the gray areas of the law could really bite someone who is otherwise a totally law abiding citizen. We should NOT encourage laws that are likely to result in otherwise honest citizens facing felony charges.

Incidentally, I think it's odd that the M1 Garand, a weapon that was clearly designed for the military and was most definitely used in many assaults in the 1940s and 1950s has never made it to any of the assault weapon lists.

This is a good read on the subject written by someone who understands how to put this sort of thing in perspective (and tell both "sides" they are being stupid)
http://kontradictions.wordpress.c...-tell-you/

Rebound,
I would urge you to consider even the effectiveness of a "high capacity" magazine ban in light of this section of the link from my previous post.
The link continues with several news clips where AR-15s were used for home defense.

The text also includes a reason to be wary of some of the stats we read in the press (this would apply to stats both for and against)

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl..._30_06_640.jpg

Is that bang bang tube an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

In California, if you are suspected of being unstable, they can already search your location for guns and tear it apart .

You don't have to hold a patent or see any of his to understand his argument. Why in the world do you think specifically seeing onscreen's patent would help you understand anything else he said?

First off, more than one law-abiding individual may be armed. Such an individual is not guaranteed to stop the shooting, as you mentioned. However, this individual might:

1) disable the shooter
2) distract the shooter, acting as a diversion while potential victims escape to safety
3) cause the shooter to end his own life and the shooting, which is what typically happens when armed resistance shows up (typically police)

What is wrong with the possibility of someone potentially being able to do one of the above? It may help. It's not a cowboy fantasy. There are numerous published stories of armed people stopping crimes, but the only people who collect & broadcast these stories are the NRA. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead in the mainstream media.

However, if you continue to ban guns in schools, you do have a guaranteed outcome. A person with a gun will continue shooting defenseless victims unchecked until armed resistance (i.e. people with guns) shows up. Columbine & the DC sniper (among other mass shootings) happened during the federal AWB, and Newtown happened during the CT AWB. Since 1950, all mass shootings but one have occurred where guns are banned. We have 20,000 gun control laws on the books (more than any other country in the world), and we don't enforce them even a majority of the time according to some studies. All mass shootings violate existing gun control laws, yet the proposed solution is to pass more of them.

I think the poster mentioned the patents to claim he has some authority. Here is his claim again. If you disagree then we just have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

"As a holder of several patents I do have some idea what the system does and does not do."

AlfredoGarcia,
I think it's worth mentioning that the DC shooters are more like serial killers than mass shooters. While they did kill a number of people they did it over a period of days and only one shot at a time. I mention this not to undermine what you have said but because it's a great example of where the type of gun, beyond being a reasonably accurate rifle, had no impact on the outcome of the crime. Those shooters used an "assault weapon" but could have achieved the same result with a single shot .223 rifle.

Yes, I did say that. I was being told a patent like definition could be used. I was explaining why this isn't a fool proof method. One only needs to look at the large number of patent cases to understand that patents aren't always black and white. Using a similar idea wouldn't be a successful test of compliance.

There is a saying, it take a lawyer to understand a poorly written patent. It takes three to understand a well written patten.

What makes a weapon "military"?

What is an "extreme-capacity clip"?

What's proposed to be banned is standard capacity magazines. If a handgun's grip has the space for 15 rounds, then that's standard capacity. A 10-rd mag is reduced capacity. A 15-rd mag is not a "high capacity" magazine. Reloading takes less than a second for an individual with much practice.

We tried such a ban for 10 years, and yet Columbine & the DC sniper happened during the ban, as did other mass shootings. Why do you expect different results now? Even the CDC & DOJ said it didn't reduce violent crime rates.

True. It's not the "scary" or "military-looking" features that killed people.

What is a "military-grade" rifle?

First off, none of the recent mass shooters of which I'm aware used an "assault rifle," which is an automatic weapon by definition.

Since it takes less than 1 second to reload, he could have carried three 10 rd mags and spent 2 more seconds reloading with the same outcome.

?

Many avid shooters shoot more frequently than average LEOs who do minimum qualifications (non-SWAT). Many avid shooters are former military and/or former LEOs. There's nothing magical about the badge in terms of shooting skills, aside from SWAT training.

The militia is also "well-regulated," according to the 2A.

This reminded me of something I heard on TV. It was claimed that certain bullets are illegal for warfare use under international treaties but ironically they are legal to be bought by US citizens. The reasoning for the ban was that it ravaged the human body unnecessarily. Who here does not think those bullets should become illegal for private use?

This was based on the Hague convention of 1899. It's rather anachronistic in context of today. For example, while the military says you must use a fully jacketed bullet in combat, most states that allow hunting with centerfire rifle require shooters to use lead tipped bullets.

In short, this is not a simplistic discussion in either scope or history. Here is something I found that relates to your post and an excerpt from it:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/fi...t_loye.pdf

The conclusion is significant in light of any discussion regarding ammo type and what is OK for civilians vs the military. Like many other areas of firearms this is poorly understood by people who only hear news stories and haven't tried to do additional research on the topic.

I read every word that you wrote down and am still unclear if your answer to my question was a yes or a no. And I do not know which parts of the report you are disputing.

1. Certain bullets are banned for use in war.
2. Those type of bullets are legal in US.

I guess I need to connect the dots a bit more.

You said:
Now referring to your numbered questions from the second post:
1. So yes, you are correct that the 1899 Hague convention did state that exposed led tip bullets should not be used in combat. The specific bullets of concern, British rounds made in Dum-Dum, India are not in common use anywhere. The more general category of expanding tipped bullets is more complex.

2. Yes, expanding nosed bullets are legal and if you review the link you can see that when it comes to rifle rounds it's debatable if they are any less lethal or create wounds that are any more or less traumatic than those of fully jacketed rounds.

When you re-asked the question you changed a bit of phrasing. The second time you only asked if those bullets are legal in the US (presumably for civilian purchase). When you first asked the question you asked a leading and suggestive question, "The reasoning for the ban was that it ravaged the human body unnecessarily. Who here does not think those bullets should become illegal for private use?"

That leading question colored the discussion by suggesting these bullets are less, for lack of a better term, humane than other bullets. This first, does not understand the complex nature of the subject as well as the range of bullets and calibers etc. Second it suggests that somehow being shot with one type of bullet is better than another. If you are going to ask a question that suggests moral outrage or suggests one should be considered immoral for not agreeing then it's best to understand the subject material in question. Upon review of the material it's not at all clear that there should be a moral distinction between using a bullet which causes a very deep wound and one which causes a more shallow but wider wound. The tendency of these rounds, to expand upon impact provides some measure of protection. This is a safety benefit in the event the intended target is missed. It means the bullet is less likely to pass through say a wall and hit an someone else.

Finally, it is also arguable that, from the point of view of someone who is trying to protect their own life with a gun (police officer or civilian) and is likely doing this at close range, a bullet which physically disables an assailant is better than one which perhaps causes a less significant wound that might allow an attack to continue. As many gun related self defense classes will point out, the purpose of shooting is not to kill but to stop.

So I will raise my hand and say, yes, these bullets should be available to civilians because they do have a legitimate self defense purpose.

please correct me if My understanding is correct:

1. Certain type bullets are banned in war.
2. Same bullets are legal in US for private use.
3. You think they should remain legal.

See answers in red.

Incidentally, this is a long post which would be a good read for you. I'm sure you won't agree with the author but I think you would better understand the POV of the people you are arguing with if you did.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com...n-control/

I'll make this really easy for you so you can stop with your tactics.

The banned bullets are hollow-point bullets.
Hollow-point bullets are not only better at stopping the target than full-jacket bullets, but, since they lose energy when hitting the target, they are safer due to less chance of going through the target and hitting an unintended target.
Police carry hollow points as standard equipment.
Military Police now carry them on U.S. bases.
The U.S. military can use them in "unofficial wars" against "unofficial targets," such as "terrorists."

I have to remind everyone of this from time to time.

"I will not respond to, neither will I read any posts in which your comments are inside my quotes."

I wouldn't see why you would need to follow up since I answered each of your questions precisely. If you have other questions feel free to ask.

Muslims in the US military that commit acts of terror in the name of Islam or Allah on post or base get classified as "Acts of Workplace Violence" and ARE NOT considered acts of terror by the Obama administration.

Yes, President Obama does not consider the Fort Hood massacre to be related to Islam or terror, even though Major Hasan refused to shave his beard because it's against his religion of Islam, even though he yelled out phrases related to Allah during the attack and even though he has known connections to Muslim radicals within the United States.

And.... we elected four more years of this.

So are you also in favor of arming firefighters and mail carriers.

This question is a red herring. It is both clear that arming everyone would not stop all crime just as it is clear that taking away guns from everyone (who will turn them in) would not stop all crime.

So tell me just how many crimes would be prevented all together if many more people are armed?

I will once you tell me how much crime would drop if the 2nd A were over turned and the feds demanded all guns be turned in.

Both your request and mine are impossible and thus are unproductive.

Hmm....interesting. So if someone suggests to drop the 2nd A, you will not ask them how much crimes would drop. Good to know.

The question is a red herring because it's those people's constitutional and natural right to be armed if they choose.

The question isn't "are you in favor of arming firefighters and mail carriers?"
The question is "what gives you the right to disarm them?"
The main purpose of the Second Amendment isn't about crime.
Well, it is, just not the kind of crime you mean.

The posts from those who have zero understanding of firearms and ammunition, are very illustrative.

While one will wail that military ammunition used in "assault weapons" is designed to cause massive and horrible wounds, another will wail that ammunition banned for military use because it causes such massive and horrible wounds, is legal to purchase.


:shake::shake::shake::shake::shake:

No matter how many times the subject matter is explained to them, they just continue their ranting. They have their strong "opinions", and facts don't sway or interest them.

It would be comical to read, except these same people are demanding their political representatives write legislation affecting these things they don't understand.

For the crowd that believes Americans have no need for modern firearms for self defense, read this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Internation...d=10737629

I know if I were to take my boat and family on that lake, I would go prepared.

I did not claim it was and my point did not depend on that either. It seems a claim was offered that asking how much crime will drop if we did away with the 2nd A is "impossible and thus [is] unproductive."

Especially when registration only effects the law abiding and don't have any bearing on felon registration/ownership:
5th Amendment, Self-Incrimination, & Gun Registration [nraila.org]

Reaction to Feinstein's proposal:

I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one. [cnn.com]

:D

Slightly off topic (see wiki)
Wow! I cannot believe the house she and her husband own in SF.

Of course the other senators are also filthy rich and prob own similar "estates"

I say after they pass or modify or do nothing - re gun law(s) We the people, should give these overpaid goons a 50% paycut, they are wayyyy over paid.

:secret: DiFi's paycheck is a non-factor. She makes the big bucks sending your tax dollars to her husband's investment interests via lucrative federal contracts.

Hmm.....let's examine that logic/claim.....see...... requiring BGC for private sales would clearly affect felons' ability to get their hands on weapons. But the many of gun enthusiasts here oppose such requirement.

Go figure.

They are not rich because their pay is high. They are rich because they are corrupt. They use privilege info to amass profits from buying stocks while the average Joe loses their shirt in the market. We should stop influence of money in our politics.

No, so many are rich because the rich and successful have more time, money and connections to go into politics. We also tend to respect and appreciate candidates who are accomplished. Of course, this goes back to the founding.

Oh, that must be why the average senator beats the market by a double digit margin, because they are just more successful than everyone else.

Profiting at our expense should be viewed as treasonous, and should be dealt with as such.

Antoinette them all.

Your notion is laughable, if it weren't so sad to see people actually hold that belief.

Hint, criminals aren't going to be impacted by any gun law.

I don't care.. Living there is always the risk of death and I am not afraid of death nor do I feel sorry for anyone who dies.

Some are rich to begin with but many become rich while in the office and I am sure their pay is not high enough to make a person multimillionaire.

Marry them ?@?#$?

HarHarHar

Because no private seller will ever sell to a felon? (BTW, you cannot see but I am laughing hard.)

I haven't advocated for arming anyone who isn't already armed elsewhere in their lives outside of "gun-free zones". I have no issues with law-abiding mail carriers, firefighters, or citizens of any other legal occupation carrying a firearm if they so desire and know how to do so safely. I don't want to hand out guns to people who don't want them or know how to be safe with them. I want people who do know how to be safe with them and who do want them (i.e. CPL holders) to be allowed to carry anywhere. Crimes committed by CPL holders are in the hundredths to thousandths of one percent, last I read. That's less than police officers, and it's public record.

There is no reason to treat people as guilty until proven innocent. That's what we do now.

With proposed gun bans, we treat people as potential murderers. With the TSA, we treat people as potential terrorists. We do this in spite of the 2nd & 4th Amendments. What happened to the bill of rights and the presumption of innocence until proven guilt in this country?

We sell knives, hammers, and baseball bats freely, yet someone might kill someone with them. We sell cars freely, yet far more people are killed by cars than guns (and there's no mention of cars in the Bill of Rights). We sell swimming pools and household chemicals, but more children are killed by those than guns.

Banning guns to reduce violent crime (despite decades of evidence-based research showing that it doesn't actually accomplish that goal) is analogous to banning cars to prevent drunk driving.

Are you talking about jacketed hollow point bullets? This may be news to you, but police regularly use those. If it's OK for the police to use, it's certainly OK for law-abiding citizens to use for self-defense.

In fact, in many respects, it's safer for everyone else around for you to carry JHP bullets. They expand slightly in diameter, thereby increasing the surface area of impact. This creates lower pressure at the point of impact and more friction/resistance as it travels through tissue. Basically, it makes the bullet more likely to stay in the person at whom you're shooting than to continue traveling out the other side and potentially hitting a bystander.

The only "down side" of which anti-gun people speak is the larger diameter hole in the person at the muzzle end. If a person is drawing his/her firearm and shooting at someone in self defense, then it's a life & death scenario. In such a case, many people (including police) would much rather have a larger diameter hole and increased likelihood of being able to stop the aggression/violence in fewer shots.

Good analogy.

Would you care to provide some contemporary examples of representatives who have become mysteriously wealthy in office?

They do acquire a knowledge advantage by being immersed in current events and trends, but that is not corruption. If you plan to accuse broadly that corruption is the source of wealth among our representatives, it seems some evidence is in order.

I think you'll find relatively little. These people are heavily scrutinized. It's no mystery that people who were good at accumulating wealth in civilian life are still good, or even better, once they are in office and tapped into the pulse of current events.

I have very little knowledge about guns. This is all I know:

1. A certain bullet is banned internationally for use in war.
2. The same certain bullet is available for private purchase in the US.

I might do some research later. But I recall a recent news in which a senator bought several hundred thousands dollar worth of a stock and sold it several days later for several times of the purchase price. It was revealed that the company was giving a testimony in his (sub)committee. And of course I also recall recent news (within past several years) of senators getting extra low interest loan or unusual financial deals and another receiving sub-par pricing for remodeling etc etc etc.

Harry Reid is the first example [thedailybeast.com] that comes to mind.

But this is probably a topic for another thread.

Yes, I believe you're talking about hollow points. Per Wikipedia, they are also used for hunting in the U.K.

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

That's not an example of corruption.

And it has been explained to you why that is not a bad thing. Was it too complex for you to understand, or did you not bother reading it?

Did I say anything that gave you the idea that I did not understand or I did not read the explanation?

Here is a fact from WashingtonPost:

Members of the Senate are worth more than three times their counterparts on Capitol Hill and their wealth has grown as much as 70 percent since 2004, while members in the House saw a 15 percent increase. Median wealth in each chamber:

For full disclosure they also said this:

A Washington Post investigation finds that, contrary to many popular perceptions, lawmakers don’t get rich by merely being in Congress. Rich people who go to Congress, though, keep getting richer while they’re there.

Exactly. Rich people are positioned to jump into politics, and they continue to succeed financially while in office, often exploiting a knowledge advantage.

It should be an obvious expectation that senators have more money than members of the house. It's the more powerful and prestigious office. It also requires statewide connections and costly campaigning to win the office, as opposed to district campaigns. Not only will a Senate seat be more attractive to power players, the wealthy. have a greater advantage as the scale increases.

If you did understand, then why do you keep restating those talking points as if they actually mean something?

A better comparison would be if one could find data on a portion of the private sector that had the same wealth distribution as members of congress, and see how they have fared over the same period of time.

In post 174 I was asked a question and I answered it. You then responded to my answer with that somewhat offensive post.

What gives?

But here is a question for you. Without looking it up or further reading this thread and in your own words please tell me WHY those bullets are banned international even for war. Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_1...ory-coast/

regulate and/or outlaw celebration? Or should this be just more restrictive.. maybe outlaw post-celebration where 100 or more people are present?

Well, a pretty decent explanation was given, then you said all you know is those 2 things, with nothing about the reason, leading to the conclusion that either you didn't read it, or didn't understand it. The best way to explain it would depend on which that was, so I asked. I don't know why that would be offensive.

I guess I neglected the other option that you just wanted to ignore the reasoning. That didn't even occur to me at the time.
It is quite simple. When they hit the target they expand, leaving a larger, nastier wound. A soldier who is injured with such a bullet would have smaller chance of survival than one who is shot with a bullet that simple pokes a hole. Since soldiers generally stop advancing at you when they get shot, doing as much damage as possible is not necessary.

However, if I am protecting my home, the situation is much different. The attacker might be on drugs, the attacker is likely at close range, and I have to be concerned with a bullet going through walls and into other rooms or even other houses. Thus, having a bullet that expands and stops is far better. Not only is it less likely to penetrate walls, it is more likely to stop an attacker quickly. While it may be true that the attacker is more likely to die, that is far preferable to killing innocent bystanders or allowing him to continue to attack even after being shot.

Public servants are paid to serve the public. Using their positions to enrich themselves is corruption.

Excellent explanation.

It's also worth noting, that those military units that specialize in close range engagements, train to shoot their opponents multiple times, often in the face, to ensure their target is stopped. That's partially because the full metal jacket bullets they use, are unreliable at stopping a threat immediately with a torso hit.

But again, explaining factual information on guns or ammunition, is usually a waste of time here.

In post 174, I was asked this concise question:

"Are you talking about jacketed hollow point bullets?"

I gave an honest answer.

Finally, thanks for answering my question.

Waiting for obamas news conference so i can see him cry over the 60 dead children in that incident.

I'm not sure if there's even one police department of any size left in the US, that doesn't use hollow points. Even holdouts like New York and Detroit, got tired of the criminals they shot not being stopped by their politically correct bullets.

Let me FTFY

More than 3. Any more than 3 people in one area represent a target, or a gang.

That's how government has worked for thousands of years.

That doesn't mean I should accept if.

+1. This country was one of the first in modern times that put people in power to serve the citizens. Athenian democracy was the first known application, where every male could cast a vote on every issue. Virtually every other country on earth had its leaders and subjects.

One of the differences between being a citizen and a subject is the freedom to have the same weapons that were in use by the military of the time.

“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!”
~Thomas Jefferson

Here are some additional details on the proposed bill.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation...-bill.aspx

Notable is that the M1 would be banned and NFA items would be confiscated by the government upon the death of the owner.

Certainly not. But there has never been a government without corruption. It's inherently corrupt, exploits its monopoly on services, as well as its monopoly on the initiation of force. People accept it because they cannot think of existence outside of statism.

Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a nationally renowned surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish emigrants from Poland, while her maternal grandparents, who were of the Russian Orthodox faith, left St. Petersburg, Russia, after the 1917 Russian Revolution. Her mother's surname, "Rosenburg", originates from German ancestry. Feinstein has identified her own religion as Jewish

Richard C. Blum is a Jewish-American investment banker. He is the husband of United States Senator from California Dianne Feinstein. He is the Chairman and President of Blum Capital, an equity investment management firm that acts as general partner for various investment partnerships and provides investment advisory services. Blum also serves in various boards of directors of several companies, including CB Richard Ellis.

Both are dual citizens with Israel. I wonder how many other senators and reps we have in office that happen to be "dual citizens"!?

I never would have guessed that. She certainly didn't get her mother's good looks.