The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 15    Average: 2.8/5]
62 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8100
Rating: 2.8
Category:
Date: 03/14/13 06:00 PM

62 Responses to Committee Wants To Ban 150 Types Of Guns [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    Link: Committee Wants To Ban 150 Types Of Guns - Dianne Feinstein says we should be happy the other 2,271 types of guns aren`t banned too!
  2. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    You`re Canadian. There is no "we" here.
  3. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm
    you guys get way too much of a boner over your guns
  4. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 6:57 pm
    Oh pipe down @FoolsPrussia! You sound like @madest when you say silly stuff like that.
    There`s a character limit, OK?

    "Do they (the American people) need a Bazooka?"
    She actually asks this! She really believes someone out there wants all Americans to own a Bazooka and SHE is the only thing stopping them!
    Never mind that current laws already restrict such things...

    "Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat?"

    Look up "strawman" on my post about Rhetological Fallacies... it ought to have Feinstein`s picture on it.
  5. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    See? The video clearly shows how she advocates for the banning of ALL firearms in the USA!

    There are 2,271 "exemptions" to the ban in HER mind! Thus ALL will be banned, sooner or later, if she gets her way.

    Your Constitutional Rights? She doesn`t want to talk about that! She wants to talk about what "She thinks" lawful American citizens "should be allowed" to own.
  6. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1947 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    In before somebody says "nobody wants to ban guns."

    BTW...diggin` my boner. Thanks for asking.
  7. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    jendrian - Your avatar is absolutely perfect for you and your comment. As a matter of fact "whack horse with poo brain" is the perfect mascot for you entire generation.
  8. Profile photo of pazerlenis
    pazerlenis Male 40-49
    1380 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:53 pm
    @5Cats Fools does have a point, you are Canadian. There is very little this evil woman can do to ban guns in Canada.

    But please don`t take this as an insult. I, for one, appreciate you defending gun ownership in a country that tried to take you over twice. That said, it`s probably not a very smart move from a tactical perspective (who knows what CA/US relations will be like in the future). If I were Canadian, I would want fewer US citizens to have guns. It makes the inevitable invasion so much easier. :)
  9. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    One or two guns at a time... until they are all gone. Serves us right for putting up with a gov`ment that`s purchased by corporations. I wonder why they want to disarm us so badly? The laws do nothing to curb crime so what is the reasoning behind it? Grandstanding for publicity...or something else?

    Discuss . . .

  10. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36870 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    Then again, I`ve had too much to drink tonight.
  11. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    As bizarre as I find America`s preoccupation with firearms, I have to admit that banning certain classes of weapons isn`t going to do squat as far as curtailing mass killings. I wouldn`t be surprised if some looney took it upon himself to make that point as soon as a ban becomes law by shooting up a bunch of innocents.
  12. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm
    What gives them the right to ban any gun?

    If these were books, can the government ban books?

    The answer is a resounding NO to both questions.

    We have God given rights, these rights CAN NOT be usurped by the government because the government never gave them to us in the first place. We placed these restrictions on government and although the first 10 are called "The Bill Of Rights", they don`t grant us rights, they say what those in government CAN NOT do.

    "The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
  13. Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    Can we ban books such as Catcher in the Rye and Heather Has Two Mommy`s? After all, to paraphrase Senator Feinstein, "we should be happy with the millions of other books that the government is gracious enough to allow us to read", right?
  14. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    It`s almost like they`re picking the weapons that commit a tiny minority of crimes and leaving the ones that commit the majority of crimes.
  15. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    hahaha turdburglar, you made me lol
  16. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    It`s almost like they`re picking the weapons that commit a tiny minority of crimes and leaving the ones that commit the majority of crimes.

    Exactly. Why? The recent shootings, sensationalized by the media, have brought emotions and fear. Certain politicians are using the fear to further extreme actions. Make no mistake, limiting to the bill of rights is an extreme action.
    They are targeting the weapons that appear scary to the uninformed. Even though these weapons are less likely than any other firearm to be used in a violent crime. They say it is to reduce violent crime. If that is true, the only logical conclusion is that the current proposed ban would be used as a stepping stone for future bans and restrictions, which would limit pistols and shotguns...the firearms which are actually used in violent crimes.
  17. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    People here at IAB keep making comments like "we should try to make it harder for criminals to get guns". Some even make comments suggesting we take certain guns from people. They don`t realize how many guns are in America. The government has NO IDEA who has weapons, how many, or where they are. If cops came to my house for guns I would simply say that I sold them to a homeless teenager for a nickel. It would be legal for me to do so.

    With no records there is no way of disarming the public. At best you would disarm law abiding citizens.

    Feel free to have the opinion that guns are bad, and we need less of them in America. If you want to complain and add restrictions to the bill of rights, you should at least have a realistic idea of how to do it. Simply saying "we need less guns" doesn`t help.

    My "things are fine the way they are" stance doesn`t require an argument because I am not taking anyone`s rights away.
  18. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    jendrian - You`re avatar makes me laugh every time I see it. Should be the IAB mascot!
  19. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 10:48 pm
    How about this, she can ban 150 guns, if I can ban 150 newspapers. That would leave AT LEAST 2,271 others. Fair?
  20. Profile photo of sonofd
    sonofd Male 40-49
    66 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 10:59 pm
    I`ve been a gun owner for years and I can honestly say I`ve never harmed anyone (never even occured to me). And unless my wife, kids or myself are threatened with grave bodily harm, it`ll stay that way. But I`ll be damned if these politicians will take away my ability to defend my family from harm. Won`t happen. No way. Oh, and the whole "assault weapons" thing is ridiculous. Fully automatic rifles have been outlawed for civilian use for years. What they are calling "assault weapons" is simply a semi-automatic rifle. One round for every trigger pull. Like most handguns..... Actually, all handguns..... Wait, actually ALL GUNS.......
    More info here
  21. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3909 posts
    March 14, 2013 at 11:35 pm
    "It`s almost like they`re picking the weapons that commit a tiny minority of crimes and leaving the ones that commit the majority of crimes."

    That`s EXACTLY what they`re doing, because they look scary. They keep calling them "military style assault weapons" and drilling that sh*t into peoples heads and it appears to be working. They may look the same, but functionally, they don`t work the same way. Regardless of all the "assault weapon" bullsh*t they keep pushing, the overwhelming majority of homicides involving firearms are committed with handguns. The ones that happen every now & then that involve semi-automatic rifles, which is what they are, not assault rifles, are the ones you see on the news.
  22. Profile photo of stk5m
    stk5m Male 18-29
    322 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 1:23 am
    Let me get this straight, I can`t buy a glock 17 but I can own a de-mil .50 cal?
  23. Profile photo of jendrian
    jendrian Male 18-29
    2516 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 1:38 am
    Here you go turdburglar, I took the trouble to find this just for you.
  24. Profile photo of securitywyrm
    securitywyrm Male 18-29
    89 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 5:39 am
    I`d like to propose a new 2nd amendment; "No application of restriction upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restriction upon those in law enforcement." Bam, there you go. New standard: "If the police can have it, you can have it." If they`re arguing that the police need to be `better armed` than a law-abiding citizen, they`re saying that the police are `above` law abiding citizens.
  25. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 5:57 am
    I hope they ban all guns in the usa. I will keep mine and use them to rob your sorry asses. What are you going to do? Toss bleach at me?
  26. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 5:58 am
    Feinstein has been at this for over 20 years and is clearly senile and out of touch with what THE PEOPLE want. When there`s states and sheriffs orginizations across the country saying we will not enforce these laws you should stop and listen to the people.
  27. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 6:18 am

  28. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 6:26 am
    No application of restriction upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall exceed the application of restriction upon those in law enforcement
    This. I`ve been arguing this for months now. I am glad to see that other people are arguing the same point as well.
  29. Profile photo of EVILLECUTTER
    EVILLECUTTER Male 18-29
    244 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 6:36 am
    i just bought a bb gun that looks just like an ar-15 ar rural king for $50 - suck on that
  30. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 6:50 am



    Has the list these 150 guns been published???
  31. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:18 am
    @McGovern: Only one problem with your George Washington quote, which I`m seeing repeated by gun enthusiasts everywhere: IT`S A TOTAL FABRICATION.

    Nowhere in Washington`s speeches, essays, letters, or other writings, published or unpublished, does this quote appear. And as a student of American literature and history, I can assert that the idiom "sending a clear message" is modern and was not used in Washington`s day.

    I absolutely *detest* it when people concoct quotes to support their positions and then stuff them in the mouths of our founding fathers. I see this "quotation fraud" more and more lately, usually with Washington or Jefferson as the source, and it is despicable.

    (My rant there is not directed at you there personally, McGovern. I know you aren`t responsible for fabricating the quote and were, no doubt, passing it along in faith that it was factual.)
  32. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:30 am
    @McGovern1981 here is the full text of the bill from swinestein

    "To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to
    keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes. "
    Full AWB bill text
  33. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:31 am
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
    -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
  34. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:32 am
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that`s good"
    -- George Washington
  35. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:32 am
    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
  36. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:34 am
    "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
    -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
  37. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:40 am
    Damn...Looks like Thomas Jefferson would have had a concealed carry permit and a 1911
  38. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:42 am

    @Abrxax: I`m not sure what your point is. No one`s saying Jefferson or Washington didn`t make statements in support of gun ownership by citizens. My point--try not to confuse the issue--is that the Washington quote in McGovern`s image is 100% fake.

    Get it now? Or are you trying to defend the fabrication of fake quotes by our founding fathers?
  39. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 7:49 am
    @Squrlz4Sale

    Hmmm wasn`t aware of that.


    @abrxax

    Skimmed through it read law is quite boring and never clear cause the can manipulate it that way. What struck me is the list of exemptions it sounds like they`re goin for alot more than 150 types of guns when you make a list of what`s exempted instead of what is banned.
  40. Profile photo of DinVen
    DinVen Male 30-39
    390 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 8:12 am
    Good.

    Because some Americans believe that they can overthrow a tyrannical government with control over fighter jets, bombers, artillery and nukes, all by using assault rifles with extended clips. Idiotic and ignorant.

    So I take it the anti gun control crowd would entertain the idea of making all kinds of weapons legal? I mean why not include military grade weaponry of every sort in the common market? Then you can finally stand up against the tyranny, except only the extremely wealthy will be able to wield significant weapons. Ordinary people won`t stand a chance, they will be fodder for the newly established war lords.

    Should make for an interesting implosion of a society.
  41. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 8:31 am
    I would like to make a comparison. Maryland to Virginia. Md will rarely issue a Concealed Handgun Permit. (CHP) Murders in Md year 2011 was...398 Source(page 19 of PDF) Virginia HAS to give you a CHP (assuming you pass required standards) Murders in VA year 2011...305 source (page 18 of PDF)
    Rape: MD=1,196 p26 VA=1,527 p24
    Robbery: MD=10,388 p30 VA=5,451 p27
    Aggravated Assault: MD=16,866 p34 VA=8,841 p31
    B&E MD=35,781 p38 VA=30,438 p38

    All and all VA seems to have a lower rate. Va also includes attempted crimes.
    VA has more legally owned a carried firearms then MD..maybe that is why its safer.
  42. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 8:38 am
    You can buy fully automatic, military grade firearms and such. Look up BATFE form 4. Its called class 3 firearms. Takes time and money.
    FLAME THROWER!!!
  43. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 8:41 am
    @DinVen


    Because some Americans believe that they can overthrow a tyrannical government with control over fighter jets, bombers, artillery and nukes, all by using assault rifles with extended clips. Idiotic and ignorant.

    Ya that`s never happened before......
  44. Profile photo of abrxax
    abrxax Male 18-29
    74 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 8:52 am
    I FOUND A BAZOOKA!!
  45. Profile photo of insane_ai
    insane_ai Male 30-39
    823 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 9:02 am
    I hope all the US manufacturers refuse to manufacture weapons for the government if this passes. Then we will be dependant on foreign manufacturers for our military and the gun grabbing nut jobs that take this argument to extremes about nukes in people`s back yards.
  46. Profile photo of AdamBomb
    AdamBomb Male 18-29
    47 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 9:02 am
    This will never make it past the House of Representatives. The 2nd amendment clearly states that the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms and the Supreme Court concurs. Any ban on any weapon that the people of the United States can bear is a violation of that right. It doesn`t specify color, size, qty, number of bullets, or what they look like and since it doesn`t specify a logical person could reasonably assume that nothing should be excluded. It`s already almost near impossible to get a fully-automatic machine gun, especially if it was manufactured post 1986 but the way the media and government portray today`s "assault rifles" makes it seem like an AR-15 type rifle is what we`re using in the military currently to someone who isn`t as knowledgeable. You can add all the laser sights, flash lights, bi-pods, flash suppressors, etc you want and it won`t make it the same thing. Be truthful about what these "Assault Rifles" really are and then let the people decide.
  47. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 9:03 am
    Because some Americans believe that they can overthrow a tyrannical government with control over fighter jets, bombers, artillery and nukes, all by using assault rifles with extended clips.
    Yes, because bending over and taking it will protect you so much more. This is why Americans think Europeans are stupid.

    Next point is that "the tyrannical government" references the collective policing agencies - not the military. Historically, in first world nations, policing forces have committed atrocities against their citizens - not the military.

    Americans, and all people, should be able to arm themselves to the level of the entities charged with policing them. This is because there are only two ways in which laws are enforceable: first, if they are morally just in the eyes of the population; or second, if the policing entity has overwhelming firepower.
  48. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 9:49 am
    @abrxax: Nice find: A 90mm Bazooka! Doesn`t come with rockets though, and you have to be an FFL holder (ie: liscenced).

    Funny thing is? Feinstein`s "new law" won`t do ANYTHING about you owning a Bazooka... ironic, yes?

    I see you`ve been lurking for ages @abrxax: Welcome to IAB anyhow!

    @jendrian: I thought it was a cat in your avatar. Now that I think about it, you told me it wasn`t a while ago... it`s cute anyhow! Nice video clip!

    @AdamBomb: Don`t confuse the issue with "facts"! Democrats HATE facts! This is purely emotion driven, to prevent your avatar from happening everywhere. The NRA wants nukes, we have to prevent that! (/sarc)
  49. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 10:14 am
    This whole debate is getting stupid. Caliber matters a touch more than how many bullets it can hold and the rate of fire. Frankly any gun in the right hands should be able to defeat a more powerful gun in the wrong hands. Learn to aim and one bullet will always be enough is what I`m getting at. So a person with practice will defeat a hoodlum with no practice with ease. Specially if they try shooting all gangster like. Just my thoughts on the matter, this would be why cops carry handguns instead of rifles.
  50. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:15 am
    "Feinstein has been at this for over 20 years and is clearly senile and out of touch with what THE PEOPLE want."

    Except that 55% of Americans support an assault weapons ban.
  51. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:22 am

    "Except that 55% of Americans support an assault weapons ban."

    This poll was taken shortly after a media sensationalized shooting. Emotions have a big part to play in it.

    Most importantly is the fact that they are using the term "assault riffles". The weapons they propose to ban are not assault riffles. By misusing this term, they gain even more fear based support.

    BTW it`s a pretty slim majority.
  52. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4896 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:27 am

    FP - The ban that Fienstein wants is not the same ban which people support. Her proposed actions are so far out that most democrats don`t support it, and has very little chance of passing. 55% may support "a ban of some sort".

    Fienstein is definatly out of touch with what the people want. She doesn`t care what the people want. Given her way, all weapons would be outlawed and taken.
  53. Profile photo of TuckFarted
    TuckFarted Female 18-29
    87 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:29 am
    Good, most of you gun toting morons shouldn`t even be allowed to wield a butter knife without wearing a helmet and taking a 3 year course.
  54. Profile photo of johnkelley
    johnkelley Male 18-29
    59 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:31 am
    Yeah "Fools", The Pew survey was conducted January 9-13, with a sample size of 1,502 adults. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 2.9 percentage points. That definitely represents the majority of America!
  55. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:47 am
    Good, most of you gun toting morons shouldn`t even be allowed to wield a butter knife without wearing a helmet and taking a 3 year course.

    That would be modeling our laws like the UK.
  56. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:50 am
    @FoolsPrussia

    Ya surveys are never skewed to push things. I recall seeing a survey MSN took saying the vast majority of Americans support keeping illegal immigrants in the US. They then posted the question for an online survey which showed something like 71% don`t support showing everyone they`re full of s**t.
  57. Profile photo of DromEd
    DromEd Male 40-49
    1947 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 11:50 am
    Pardon us (US? maybe) if we don`t our cue from a European who chooses to go by the nick of TuckFarted.
  58. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 12:28 pm
    @DinVen, you just went full-blown retard there. If we ever have to overthrow our government, the military will be on our side, not theirs.
  59. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    Ok, how about this?

    "Overall on the issue of guns Texans say they trust the NRA over President Obama by a 47/43 margin.

    And despite all of that 49% of Texas voters support an assault weapons ban to just 41% opposed to it. Most Democrats support it, independents favor it by a 53/34 margin, and even among Republicans 23% support it. We`ve found support for the assault weapons ban everywhere we`ve polled it, but it`s particularly striking to see that voters favor it in a pro-gun, anti-Obama state like Texas."

    I`m not offering my opinion on the assault weapons ban. Just pointing out that it`s not like a majority are opposed to it like you`re saying.
  60. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    Guns are for people who can`t think or work with explosives. Sure, A bullett may have your name on it, but a stick of dynamite say`s :To whom it may concern.
  61. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    March 15, 2013 at 9:17 pm
    I`m not offering my opinion on the assault weapons ban. Just pointing out that it`s not like a majority are opposed to it like you`re saying.
    That`s why the Founders put our fundamental rights into the constitution instead of leaving them subject to mob rule.
  62. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 16, 2013 at 7:15 am
    FoolsPrussia: Constitutional rights are not subject to popular opinion, especially this recent media driven hysteria.

    Let me put it this way, Would you allow republicans to ban 150 newspapers and TV news shows? Even if you`d still have 1500+ left?

    Of course you wouldn`t, and there`s no difference between the two, both laws would be unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply