Weekly Ad: See Best Buy's new Digital Weekly Ad here! See Deals
Forum Thread

Feinstein's proposed gun ban

BigBananaMess 2,656 476 December 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM
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 Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) :pointless:

Community Wiki

Last Edited by onedeetentee January 26, 2013 at 09:16 AM
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]

[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.

559 Comments

9 10 11 12 13

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#151
Quote from onscreen View Post :
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.
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 headshake headshake headshake headshake head

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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
the GOP, which will lose the Presidency, the Senate, and maybe even the House of Representatives. And then, Hillary Clinton will appoint the most liberal, lesbian, man-hating bitch of a Supreme Court Justice that you've ever seen, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. And why? Because the American Voter is smart, and Donald Trump is stupid........

Signed,
Rebound
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2008
Non-partisan idealogue
2,656 Posts
476 Reputation
Original Poster
#152
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
38,739 Posts
#153
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
The main purpose of the Second Amendment isn't about crime.
Well, it is, just not the kind of crime you mean.
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."
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,127 Posts
466 Reputation
#154
Quote from Deusxmachina View Post :
First comes registration, then comes confiscation.
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]
Quote :
In Haynes, a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm.

Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination ("No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
Quote :
If mandatory gun registration can`t be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve? If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother? Because of the Haynes decision, if we want to punish ex-felons who are caught in possession of a gun, there are only two choices available: We must either skip registration, so that we can severely punish gun possession by those who aren`t allowed to own guns; or use the "sanitized" form of registration law -- where the criminal is guaranteed that gun registration can`t hurt him, while the rest of us can be punished for failure to comply.

It sounds paranoid to suggest that gun registration records might be used in the future to confiscate guns -- although the second director of Handgun Control, Inc. has stated explicitly that mandatory registration is one of the steps towards prohibition of handgun ownership [13] -- but when we examine how the courts have crippled gun registration laws so that felons are effectively exempt, and only law-abiding citizens need to fear such laws, what other explanation can there be for the continuing plea for mandatory gun registration?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2008
Non-partisan idealogue
2,656 Posts
476 Reputation
Original Poster
#155
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2009
L10: Grand Master
8,831 Posts
3,506 Reputation
#156
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2008
Non-partisan idealogue
2,656 Posts
476 Reputation
Original Poster
#157
Quote from kbenson View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
38,739 Posts
#158
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Especially when registration only effects the law abiding and don't have any bearing on felon registration/ownership:
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
38,739 Posts
#159
Quote from kbenson View Post :
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 way overpaid.
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jun 2005
All downhill from here...
9,587 Posts
394 Reputation
#160
Quote from TRNT View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
bulb TIP: To avoid the stigma of literacy, listen to audio books.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2007
Opulence, I has it.
1,107 Posts
42 Reputation
#161
Quote from skiman View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
  • "The lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." - Aldous Huxley
  • "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Temporarily Banned
13,391 Posts
180 Reputation
#162
Quote from BigBananaMess View Post :
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.
Profiting at our expense should be viewed as treasonous, and should be dealt with as such.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2008
Temporarily Banned
13,391 Posts
180 Reputation
#163
Quote from TRNT View Post :
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.
Antoinette them all.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
10,843 Posts
1,184 Reputation
#164
Quote from TRNT View Post :
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.
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2011
L10: Grand Master
11,361 Posts
2,140 Reputation
#165
Quote from Slvrshot View Post :
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.
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 11 of 38
9 10 11 12 13
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard