Sen. Feinstien (Calif) to intro gun control bill

Only time will tell, but John McCain at Harry Reid are very adept at knowing which way the political winds are blowing. I seriously doubt, given the fact that for all intents and purposes, the politics of guns hasn't changed one iota since the Sandy Hook tragedy, that they will change their positions.

On second thought, gun politics may have changed a little since Sandy Hook. In that there are many new gun owners, new dues paying NRA members and the resolve of most 2nd Amendment proponents, to not compromise has increased.
 
Last edited:
In a recent interview, it was pointed out to Al Sharpton that gun regulations may not bring the end of violence since criminals will rely on other means. His response? We should then consider regulating knives.

Just like England. Because their gun bans work so well.

I'm actually not being snarky. Gun bans aren't the end of creeping incrementalism. Sooner or later, it sinks to pure absurdity.
 
It will be telling to see what public statements and positions people such as Harry Reid and John McCain take up.
Click to expand...

I'm not too interested in what they say for the cameras. What they say is often so very different from what they do.

If Reid starts pushing for a ban to get to the floor for a vote, that's when we'll know he's TRULY changed. In the meantime he can mouth support for things while working behind the scenes to make positively sure nothing ever comes up for a vote.

There's a lot of people who have supposedly "seen the light" and have stated support for a ban in the last few weeks. Many of them once had good NRA ratings. Many are even from fairly moderate, if not conservative, areas. They could very easily talk a good game, hear back from constituents, and just go work on other things while making sure they never have to cast a vote one way or the other (where it's tick off your party hierarchy or anger your constituents).

Talk is cheap.
 
They could very easily talk a good game, hear back from constituents, and just go work on other things while making sure they never have to cast a vote one way or the other (where it's tick off your party hierarchy or anger your constituents).
Click to expand...
That's politics. Nobody can come off as being callous or uncaring, so they'll pay some lip service to the idea of "doing something."

So, Mr. Politician will agree that violence is a problem and that something has to be done. He'll agree to listen to any proposal. That doesn't mean he's going to support a specific bill.
 
I did find it interesting that Lindsey Graham seemed very disinterested in Feinstein's proposed bill. He even admitted to owning an AR-15. He's one of the GOP Senators that the media likes to interview because he sometimes takes the "moderate" approach, similar to John McCain. If Feinstein/Schumer/Durbin and their fellow gun control proponents can't get McCain and Graham on board, it will tell you that her bill is basically DOA. Time will tell.
 
Like others, I don't see anything passing the House. You've got a voting bloc that's set itself to deny the President anything he wants. They're not going to let him have a win with gun control.
Click to expand...

Tom, I disagree. That's the kind of complacency that could result in this bill being rammed thru faster than O'Bama Care. This bill is gaining support, and groundwork has been laid to slip it thru. It was drawn throughout the past year, while they waited for the "right circumstances" to ram it thru. Yes, it may not pass the house, it may be watered down, but it's restrictive beyond imagination and bills have been slipped thru before prior to opponents getting organized.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/we-stand-as-one-contact-congress-on-guns-email-your-contacts/.
 
This bill is gaining support, and groundwork has been laid to slip it thru.
Click to expand...
Please don't take my comments to endorse complacency. Far from it. We do need to be vocal and active. I simply feel that our chances of killing it are far better than they were 18 years ago.

As far as slipping through, I don't see it. The issue has been all over the news, and gun owners (including a lot of whom were complacent back then) are more concerned with the issue.
 
This bill is gaining support, and groundwork has been laid to slip it thru.
Click to expand...

My worry is they will use subterfuge and use some process meant for something else or maybe take a vote in some way that doesn't record the individual numbers or whatever... There was that bill that Rangel passed that was something anti gun that I cant remember at the moment that was way more than hokey...

thanks to tmorone below, this is exactly what I was talking about!
 
Last edited:
I believe it was the Hughes Amendment that Rangel got through. The video of the session is on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

Warning, that video will likely upset you. Makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...

And don't forget the domestic violence bill that was an attachment to another bill. Nobody read it, and no one wanted to be seen as not supporting preventing violence to women. Presto: You got in a minor disturbance with a family member 30 years ago. Plead guilty on the advice of your attorney, paid the $25 misdomeanor fine, and you can't own a gun--forever.
 
I think our nation and our courts and systems have forgotten.... Rights do not come from government, they never did... If this principal was honored we would not be having this conversation...
 
How much money did it cost Canada to get rifles registered? How much will it cost to register and fingerprint every American who owns a firearm that Feinstein wants to label as an "assault weapon"? How will they enforce it?
Click to expand...

Not the point. They don't know how to administer O'Bama Care, either, they'll have to make things up as they go along. It's still a law that's going to affect all of us.

Same with an AW bill. It will be administered by unelected bureaucrats, most likely.

I agree with your point, but we can't let it happen in the first place.
 
Tom Servo said:
In a recent interview, it was pointed out to Al Sharpton that gun regulations may not bring the end of violence since criminals will rely on other means. His response? We should then consider regulating knives.
Click to expand...
Next they'll make bombs illegal ...



Oh, we already did that?
 
Listen up, little cherubs!

The 113th Congress met for the first time today. So far, no bills have been sponsored or introduced. How do I know this? Because it's right here on the internet.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a process to this. A bill is not a law until it has gone through the process. It is introduced, it is given a number and a title, and it gets heard by a committee. If the committee decides not to table it, it gets debated on the floor. Then it goes back for revision. Then it gets debated again. Then it goes back for revision. Then it gets debated again. This can go on for quite some time.

If it survives that far, the House and Senate have to agree on it. If there are differing amendments, it goes to a conference committee to hash them out. If that works, a conference report is written, which must again be endorsed by both the House and Senate.

Then and only then does it go to the President for a signature.

My point? This isn't all going to happen tomorrow, next week, or next month. You still have time to contact your elected officials.

Nothing concrete is out there yet, so all we can do is speculate. Keep an eye on that site for anything more substantial.
 
How much money did it cost Canada to get rifles registered?
Click to expand...

It ended up costing over $2 billion, 1000 times the original estimate.
Click to expand...

Yikes...Canada only has ~10 million rifles; the US has at least 20 times as many firearms as Canada.

Our cost to register all guns would be $40 billion? Somebody double check my math, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top