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

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago in

Dianne Feinstein says we should be happy the other 2,271 types of guns aren"t banned too!
There are 62 comments:
Male 17,511
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.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]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.[/quote]
That`s why the Founders put our fundamental rights into the constitution instead of leaving them subject to mob rule.
0
Reply
Male 2,216
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
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.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@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.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Pardon us (US? maybe) if we don`t our cue from a European who chooses to go by the nick of TuckFarted.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@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.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]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.[/quote]

That would be modeling our laws like the UK.
0
Reply
Male 59
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!
0
Reply
Female 87
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

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.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

"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.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"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.
0
Reply
Male 1,735
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.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@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)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 47
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,869
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.
0
Reply
Male 75
I FOUND A BAZOOKA!!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@DinVen


[quote]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. [/quote]

Ya that`s never happened before......
0
Reply
Male 75
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!!!
0
Reply
Male 75
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.
0
Reply
Male 390
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.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@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.
0
Reply
Male 6,227

@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?
0
Reply
Male 75
Damn...Looks like Thomas Jefferson would have had a concealed carry permit and a 1911
0
Reply
Male 75
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] 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.
0
Reply
Male 75
"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
0
Reply
Male 75
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that`s good"
-- George Washington
0
Reply
Male 75
"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
0
Reply
Male 75
@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
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@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.)
0
Reply
Male 14,331



Has the list these 150 guns been published???
0
Reply
Male 244
i just bought a bb gun that looks just like an ar-15 ar rural king for $50 - suck on that
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]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[/quote]
This. I`ve been arguing this for months now. I am glad to see that other people are arguing the same point as well.
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 14,331
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.
0
Reply
Male 75
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?
0
Reply
Male 89
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
Here you go turdburglar, I took the trouble to find this just for you.
0
Reply
Male 322
Let me get this straight, I can`t buy a glock 17 but I can own a de-mil .50 cal?
0
Reply
Male 3,908
"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.
0
Reply
Male 71
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
0
Reply
Male 15,832
How about this, she can ban 150 guns, if I can ban 150 newspapers. That would leave AT LEAST 2,271 others. Fair?
0
Reply
Male 4,891

jendrian - You`re avatar makes me laugh every time I see it. Should be the IAB mascot!
0
Reply
Male 4,891

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.
0
Reply
Male 4,891

[quote] 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. [/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
hahaha turdburglar, you made me lol
0
Reply
Male 2,578
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
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?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
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
0
Reply
Female 6,381
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.
0
Reply
Male 39,916

Then again, I`ve had too much to drink tonight.
0
Reply
Male 39,916

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 . . .

0
Reply
Male 1,380
@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. :)
0
Reply
Male 4,891

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.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
In before somebody says "nobody wants to ban guns."

BTW...diggin` my boner. Thanks for asking.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
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.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
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.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
you guys get way too much of a boner over your guns
0
Reply
Male 3,445
You`re Canadian. There is no "we" here.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Link: Committee Wants To Ban 150 Types Of Guns [Pic+] [Rate Link] - Dianne Feinstein says we should be happy the other 2,271 types of guns aren`t banned too!
0
Reply