CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

Originally posted by kozmo
I see you are having a bit of reading comprehension problem - allow me to help!

Right from Feinstein's own website:


Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Hmmmmmm... the VERY FIRST item on the proposed legislation starts with the word "BANS" and goes on to list that it will BAN 120 specifically named firearms and certain other guns. Jeeeez, color me ignorant, but wouldn't the use of the word "Ban" in conjunction with WHAT they are banning constitute a BAN???

Read it right here for yourself!

Additionally, you are either deliberately lying or your reading comprehension problems are far worse than I thought, but NO WHERE in that text does she defend the Second Amendment! So how you find that she "states, very clearly" that this isn't an assault on the 2nd is beyond me.

Please stop being so ridiculously obtuse!

Banning some guns does not mean banning all guns, and as for the Second Amendment bit I'm pretty sure that I saw that somewhere. I need to check. However I did find this on Senator Feinstein's website: “On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds,” Feinstein said. “I am in the process of gathering support for the bill in the Senate and House.”

“I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation,” Feinstein added. “It will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons that fall outside the bill’s scope. We must take these dangerous weapons of war off our streets.”

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


Best advice I can give you is to stay in your basement typing out your hyperbolic comments on your utopian view of life when it starts. That way you're well out of the crossfire. Wouldn't want you getting an unintentional knick in your pantaloons.

You seem to not realize that a huge chunk of America views your description as that of an abhorrent dystopian civilization we want no part of it. While you're dreaming of gestapos roaming the streets to ensure no one has a scowl on their face that could indicate the next act of your delusionally-concocted vision of vicious savagery, the rest of us will be working to keep a free society where scowls are acceptable and people who murder other people go to prison and stay there.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

I thought you said that the bill is not a ban.

Banning some guns is a ban.
Banning a whole lot of guns is also a ban.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So since there is the extreme probability that the recent shootings were scripted hoaxes, and that discussion of that revelation is taboo or attacked at any popular website that matters, and that the gun grab is founded upon those likely hoaxes, yet now Civil War talk is promoted and allowed?

This is a super conspiracy dude.
Dont fall for it.

Well if any of those conspiracies are true expect another attack if they see their efforts failing just to tighten the lid on their process and keep everyone stirred up. I am more prone to believe the "lone drugged nut case" theory but there are many possibilities, some are currently being explored in different threads at ATS.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
I can see that a large number of people are getting het up over absolutely nothing. Guns are not going to be banned in the USA. There isn't going to be a Civil War. And a bunch of paranoid gun-happy idiots are not going to beat the US military. Can everyone please calm down?

Actually, the U.S. military is largely made up of those "paranoid gun-happy idiots." Military service is looked down upon by the leftist elite and most people who sign up are people you would probably consider "right wing nut jobs" who believe in the Constitution.

reply to post by 11235813213455


Yeah you got the right idea there bro.

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

That canada registration experiment solved a grand total of zero gun crimes too. What a waste of money.......

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


You keep citing that only 'some' guns and or components of guns would be banned, therefore the legislation is not a ban.

All the while, you keep ignoring the other posters on this thread telling you;

That the government are not stupid...some may be corrupt, but not stupid.

That a frog placed into a pan of hot water will instant try to fight against being put into the pot and will jump out, yet place the same frog into a pan of cool water, and he will stay there quite happily, even while the fire is lit under the pan, and the water get's hotter.

This is the action of a government that IS NOT stupid.

To attempt to ban all gun regardless would not only be stupid, it would be insanity...it wouldn't work.

To nibble away at peoples 2nd amendment rights, turning the heat under the pan up a little by a little is the best way to carry out a total ban on weapons in public hands.

It's a simple analogy, but it's accurate.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Target practice, multiple intruders, coyotes and wolves travel in packs. Off the top of my head.

reply to post by butcherguy


I concede the point, although I still think that it's a case of splitting hairs. Banning some guns =/= all guns however.

reply to post by TrueMessiah

You might have me confused, bro - I never started off any post saying "you americans."

But anyway, no worries - I like discussion, no harm in that.

Sorry about the time you served,, we might have crossed paths in their -- but I left everyday.

And no I wasn't a CO

For the record, I don't support any gun ban. I hope that is clear. I just don't place high odds of survival in those who think they can take on the military/gov, and win. I am sure there are PLENTY of patriotic vets, and others that can make a difference, but it's not going to be pretty that way. Our best bet is to play the game but do it politically. That means call your reps, vote the anti's out, be heard, get involved -- make a difference in a positive way.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I concede the point, although I still think that it's a case of splitting hairs. Banning some guns =/= all guns however.

With every new revelation about this bill including more weapons, many people are upset, IMO understandably so. Hell, it appears that the 'Chipmunk' youth rifle, a single shot .22 caliber rimfire rifle made for young shooters has met the criteria for the 'banned' list.
When it comes to things like this, I don't trust the federal government. They are the people that brought us where we are now, you know... the Patriot Act. What a nice name for Nazi legislation!

Edit: I just checked, the 'Chipmunk' comes in at a 30.5 inch overall length, so it is NOT on the list. I just looked at the Thompson/Center 'Hot Shot' youth rifle, it has an overall length listed at 30 inches... that's getting touchy as the ban goes.

No where in the Constitution does it grant you the right to own ANY firearm.

Sorry Charlie.

No one needs military grade weapons. Not anymore than I need a military humvee to go to the grocery store.

Ban them.

reply to post by nixie_nox

No one needs military grade weapons.

Not looking for a fight nixie, just want to point out that military snipers use rifles like the Remington Model 700 which is a popular hunting rifle.
The lines between civilian and military do cross.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
No where in the Constitution does it grant you the right to own ANY firearm.

Sorry Charlie.

No one needs military grade weapons. Not anymore than I need a military humvee to go to the grocery store.

Ban them.

The Consitution, passed alongside the Militia Act of 1791 clarifies that the intent of the second amendment was to provide that every citizen arm themselves with the weapon and equipment of the average infantry soldier. The act and the 2nd amendment have the same author: James Madison. Yes, I know this is upsetting, but the intent of the 2nd amendment was made quite clear by those who wrote it and it was not about hunting.


You want to ban people from using a truck just 'cause you don't like it? Fascist much?

National IDs with rfid chips used to vote and the precint knowing what you voted for, national ids for buying guns and ammunition. Banning guns that had no reasonable merit to be banned, or accessories that had no reasonable merit to be banned. And then tax the living # out of everyone because they are luxuries "for hunting" and "sport shotting".

The second amendment has been meaningless now for many decades through the constant watering down of it. We might as well call it piss water, such as when you drink low quality beer and don't enjoy it.

I have seen people upload videos of cz-62 semi-automatic pistols because it was illegal to make it a short barraled rifle. Or the draco machine pistol in semi-auto that shoots ak-47 rounds from a compact frame. Too bad these people cannot attach a #ing stock to the frame for stable shooting, making the gun worthless with such lousy configurations.

The brady bill absolutely sucked. Why not revert back to the 1932 regulations that actually made sense???? I am ok with banning automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds. But banning magazines with 11 rounds or more is ridiculously pointless.

I think you will start to see a few states proceed with seceding from the United States if this ban actually goes through. History repeats itself and a civil uprising or massive unrest will surely follow any ban of this type.
But with all the hysteria many are forgetting at this point Congress wont pass what Fienstein is putting forward.....not in the state it is in. And without passing congress it goes no where......so then it is up to Obama to pass an executive order to get it through...and that is a whole other can of worms.

I do not think this bill especially in this form will have the votes in congress to pass and lets say it did pass, they do NOT have the manpower to force people to comply PLAIN AND SIMPLE
stop all the screaming and rhetoric...they do NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER to enforce this.........and you will see what happened in Canada happen here....nothing
Canada passed a registration law and the last time I was in Canada I saw more bumper stickers mocking the registration law and heard it had gotten extended YET AGAIN since NO ONE was registering their guns.

Point is in this country you are not going to have anyone sane turn around and register say 10 semi auto rifles and guns and risk them being taken or denied for some BS reason. Even if it passes they cannot enforce the registration aspect of it as you will have backlash like crazy. The real danger is Obama doing and executive order
Remember a raging fire can start with the smallest spark

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Why would a civilian weapon need a military characteristic? And I regard her other points as being very sane.

Fair question, allow me to answer it for you.

First let me take you back to the LA riots of 1992. Korean store owners took up arms to protect their businesses. Check out this video. Starting at the 1:10 mark, look at the still shots and tell me what you see in the hands of these business owners?



Those are semi automatic handguns which would fall under this bill being presented. Even the .40 caliber Glock, a common handgun in the US and even used by many police, has a 15 round magazine. These are not military stye weapons. What we are seeing here in the language of this bill is a redefining of what is considered "military characteristics'

Of course the Koreans also defended themselves with semi automatic firearms of many types, as well as shotguns.

But let us get to the heart of the matter shall we? The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport. It has everything to do with defending yourself against a Tyrannical Government. One point Gun Control critics make, which is a valid point, is that the Second Amendment was written back in the days of muskets and pistols, and they are right in saying that. However, it was the Government that also used muskets and pistols. So arming the population with the same type of weapon used by the Army meant the people had a level fighting field and the means to defend themselves should they ever have to. As you see, muskets and pistols were the "military characteristics" of that time frame.

No one can suggest that today people are armed as well as the military. The average citizen is outgunned by the military, it is no contest. With all the laws and regulations placed on firearms over the decades, it is simply laughable to suggest that American Citizens are on par with the Government in regards to firearms. The fact is though, that any characteristic of a gun is a "military characteristic". You can not make a weapon of any kind that has no value in a military sense. Does your firearm have a sight? That's a military characteristic. Can you reload it quickly? That's a military characteristic too. Don't be fooled by the choice of words used, this is really common sense.

reply to post by Andromerius


For COMBAT/WAR of course..... And piss on your registration.