Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Al Norris said:
My assumption in reporting these bills, is that with the current emphasis of, "Do Something, Anything!" emotionalism, they stand a better chance than before the tragedy.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, but even then it isn't saying all that much. It's like saying your "snowball's chance in hades" has just been upgraded to "when pigs fly."

IMO, the more bills introduced, the better... if there's a dozen or so muddying the waters, those will take time to be reconciled before moving anywhere. What would worry me more would be if there is ONE bill that they all get behind. However, I think that the ultra leftist ban crowd (Feinstein, McCarthy, etc.) are going to be pushing for things that the more moderate members (who may have even had good NRA credentials beforehand) cannot support. This is also going to throw a wrench into the works and undermine eventual support.

On top of this, I don't see gun control being the first priority in a reconvened Congress... they still haven't come to any conclusion on the fiscal cliff/tax/spending issue, and that's a more urgent and important issue. Until that one is handled, I don't see Congress doing anything of any substance on anything else, and that time works for us, not against us. The more time that passes, people cool off and think more logically, which lessens the felt need to DO SOMETHING.
 
This insulates Obama from responsibility for the ultimate failure of a bill of any significance, puts it onto Biden.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point of panels.

I think that the ultra leftist ban crowd (Feinstein, McCarthy, etc.) are going to be pushing for things that the more moderate members (who may have even had good NRA credentials beforehand) cannot support.
Click to expand...
That's why I want them to continue to talk about confiscation, as Feinstein and Cuomo have been doing the last couple of days.

That said, we're veering too far into direct politics. Let's keep this on topic and off left/right wing issues.
 
That terror watch list, may sound good to some, till all those opposed to fill in the blank are declared terrorists. NRA members who own guns are thought of as terrorists by some right now. If they prove someone has ties to an organization that has declared war on the USA, or someone has committed terroristic acts, that is one thing. However, I see a high potential for this to potentially get abused though.

Here is another reason not to like it. We've already heard of abuse of the Patriot Act and everything else they passed. I'm not really that worried for myself, the Homeland Security has my whole file and just did my every so often background check. I can prove I'm not supposed to be on a watch list. Not everyone can though, some perfectly innocent people, have never even been finger printed. They might not have such an easy time proving that it was a mistake and in the mean time pleading please don't take my guns, I'm not a terrorist. It sure can happen too, I read about people on the no fly list by mistake all the time.
 
Yeah, look at my sig line, thats not free speech, Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist that rebelled against the state. Molon Labe? sounds more than just symbolic, some might claim. The whole NRA, GOA, JFPO, etc are too scary, they are terrorizing soccer moms.

If the above paragraph sounds far fetched and ridiculous to you, you haven't been seeing and hearing the same antis I have.
 
Stall as much as possible. Let the emotion calm down then possibly we can get some analytical thinking in the process. As it stands now I am not confident we can prevail. :(
 
The debate about "assault weapons" and hi-cap mags is what i call a bandwagon talking point. Theres pro-gun and anti-gun folks out there, but without major coverage of a shooting or other tragic event its not on most peoples minds. Once a tragedy occurs, such as the elementary shooting, everyone feels like firearms have an impact on their daily lives. This then creates a temporary group of pro and anti gun supporters. The temporary supporters or (bandwagon supporters) are those that are dangerous to our culture. Misinformation and preconceived notions plague this topic. Thats how they get support for a new AWB i guess. What i wonder is if a company like Bushmaster is benefiting from getting its name out there or hurting from the negative association. Personal note my sporting goods stores and online suppliers are sold out of mags and the "AR's" are pretty depleted on the shelves. Now personally i dont think an AWB is going to happen, the government cant shut the doors on a domestic industry that is growing under these difficult economic times. But that doesnt mean i havent sent letters to my local politicians and renewed my NRA subscription.
 
I see this dying in the House of Representatives. Though I do find it surprisingly conservative (by which I mean not as overreaching as expected). It's still egregious, don't get me wrong; but I figured that she would go for more. I beleive it was Feinstein who said she would confiscate all Guns if she had the votes.

Anywho, thanks for posting this! The idea that any firearm would be basically classified as NFA simply because of some cosmetic features is wrongheaded. It's disappointing to see that no real action has been taken at all, and that Washington is simply throwing out the same tired ideas to "control" Guns, when a basic google search would reveal how scare the type of gun in questions is actually used in crimes.

Typically, Washington is missing the point!
 
Last edited:
Though I do find it surprisingly conservative (by which I mean not as overreaching as expected).
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think the part about making currently-owned guns into NFA items is pretty overreaching. As a matter of fact, that particular part may prove to be the poison pill as it will likely lose her the support of people who wouldn't otherwise oppose an AWB because they already own what they want or are hoping to turn profits once it's passed. Likewise, placing such onerous restrictions on firearms that are already legally owned may not sit well with the courts.
 
Politicians have figured out that if they can't repeal the Bill Of Rights then all they have to do is redefine the definition of what was banned previously. (some guns are bad but some guns are OK - oh wait, we decided that ALL guns are bad. And magazines. And ammuniton). This is why the National Firearms Act of 1934 SHOULD have been thrown out by the Supreme Court. I have been waiting for years for them to go this route. Once you start down that path there is no limit on what they can get away with.
 
Though I do find it surprisingly conservative (by which I mean not as overreaching as expected). It's still egregious, don't get me wrong; but I figured that she would go for more. I beleive it was Feinstein who said she would confiscate all Guns if she had the votes.
Click to expand...

Of course it's "conservative." It's just as start. No point going all out right out of the gate. We start off with "small" and "reasonable" restrictions. Then, when those don't work we will have the inevitable "There must be more we can do. Won't someone think of the children" and more "reasonable" restrictions will follow.
 
This is the press release for Feinstein's new bill.

This time around, it goes after even guns with fixed magazines holding over 10 rounds. Bullet buttons and thumbhole stocks would be banned, as would any gun capable of having more than one "military feature."

She quotes some "studies" to bolster her argument, but note that Christopher Koper, the author of the first two, is a shill for the Brady Campaign. In fact, the 1st study wants so badly to "prove" that "assault weapons" are used in crimes that it lumps handguns capable of accepting more than 10 rounds in the same category.
 
In fact, the 1st study wants so badly to "prove" that "assault weapons" are used in crimes that it lumps handguns capable of accepting more than 10 rounds in the same category.
Click to expand...

I've always wanted an assault pistol, looks like I've had one all along:rolleyes:
 
The scary part of that is by trotting out those carefully manipulated studies, and subtly (or not so subtly) changing the definition of "assault weapon", if the hardcore anti-side takes those to heart it will be even more difficult to have any sort of dialogue with them.

I wonder what kind of funding increase she envisions for registering all these newly created NFA items. Even if they doubled the staff it seems like it there would be years of people being in "waiting for registration paperwork to come back" limbo.
 
Tom Servo
This time around, it goes after even guns with fixed magazines holding over 10 rounds. Bullet buttons and thumbhole stocks would be banned, as would any gun capable of having more than one "military feature."
Click to expand...

I think we can all be certain that "black" and "camouflage" will be determined to be "military features."
 
Of course this will be a fight but its probably DOA in the House. This bill is also further proof why the we must find a way to have the NFA struck down in the future. I know now isn't the time to go after the NFA but it does need to be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top