CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

reply to post by ManOfHart


They don't even have to stress doing that. The extant larger magazines would be grandfathered in. The article I sourced above, from Krauthammer, suggests that there is a 30 year supply already extant.

It also states the weird dichotomy and histrionics people, today, tend to gravitate towards. Murders are statistically way, way down. Sadly it's the spree killings that are more common now - and they hold our attention for weeks at a time. Way more than 20 homicides happen in the US each and every day. For some reason one at a time doesn't even garner our attention. But in groups? We freak out.

By way of comparison, the CDC says that there have been 16,799 homicides in the US this year, 11,493 of those with guns. That seems kind of damning until you look above and see the real troubling number.... 1.8 million ER visits for assault

IMO this issue isn't really about guns at all - that is the smokescreen. I believe that this is about mental health. Either the POTUS is trying to get mental health thrown into the AHA now, or we're all about to get diagnosed and thrown on expensive antidepressants.

The knee-jerk reaction we see over the gun thing I get. That's as predictable as gravity. Like Social Security, the deficit, and taxes, it's one of the instantly inflammatory subjects for a politician to table. That is what makes me suspicious about the entire thing. Feinstein is throwing herself on a sword for something - and I don't think it's to get a bill passed that will take 30 years to have any real impact.

~Heff

I like how people keep saying, " the right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed " is a complicated issue. It isn't. Don't like America's constitution? America to dangerous for you? Please, get out.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by angrysniper
No, it would ban the handguns themselves, or rather the sale/manufacturing/importation of them. As for your last statement.. you have a very distorted perception of sanity.

edit on 27-12-2012 by angrysniper because: (no reason given)

No, it would not. Here's the relevant part of the summary:

"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.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration."

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

how can you not see that it BANS all GUNS capable of ACCEPTING magazines! that's pretty much every handgun and every rifle, save a few that are meant for hunting only.

this is a clear infringement on the right to bear arms.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege Examples of INFRINGEMENT

or, say, any government action limiting the ownership of guns. you can't violate the constitution any more directly than this.

don't let the wording fool you: it might as well say "and certain other guns that shoot bullets" meaning pretty much every gun. "certain" in this case equates to a VERY large number. pretty much anything that has a practical defensive value.

the only things i can think of that wouldn't be banned are single/double barrel shotguns, revolvers, and some hunting rifles that have permanently fixed clips. the whole "10 rounds or under" thing is pointless because while hunting you aren't even allowed to have that many bullets in your gun, so there are practically no fixed clip rifles with a 10 round capacity.

Originally posted by beezzer
I was going to wait until my birthday to buy a Henry Rifle.

Not anymore.

Beez, I'm impressed with your choice of stocking puffers indeed.
The ladder sight alone gave me a nostalgic tear in unison. Henry:
there'll never be a nicer lever. *sigh*. Take good care of her...
Back to topic, I wish these people with plainclothes security contingents
trashing their jacket linings with maybe MP5's would kind of get off the
hypocrisy. For a prime example, Chuck Schumer has wanted from forever
to knock us down to neoprene powered slingshots and longbows--
as long as his team can spray a composite 3200 rounds a minute.
I mean please, Senator. "There----- out past them trees...."Mr.Duke

I have to wonder.. when they re-faced the Supreme Court, did they chisel
off "Equal Justice Under Law" and trowel on
"The shortages shall be distributed equally amongst the peasants"? Jeez.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I like how people keep saying, " the right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed " is a complicated issue. It isn't. Don't like America's constitution? America to dangerous for you? Please, get out.

I like that too. We should talk to those people, huh? In fact, if you could source me to where somebody has said that, I'll be happy to reply to them as well. Or were you just randomly putting words in my mouth? As it happens I am very ardently pro second amendment. What I am against is the empty and reactionary type of automatic, knee-jerk, reaction that is so often displayed - reactions that could well lead to this Bill getting passed. Things like calling for insurrection, or telling other native born Americans to "get out..."

Funny how you would assert your own rights by telling me that mine should be denied. What's that about?

~Heff

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Nothing.

Well stated. Like I tell my son, "Our ancestors fought and died. They suffered hardships you, at your young age, cannot even begin to fathom. Don't let it get pissed away in your lifetime."

Civil war, indeed.

reply to post by Hefficide


Heff....the word "insurrection" is not really applicable. "Reclamation" may be more fit. We have enemies of the state running the state.

Now, it isn't bad enough for me (yet) to set my hopes, dreams, and aspirations aside to fight this enemy hand to hand. But talk of revolution is the most American thing that there is. Being unruly is an American trait. Folks in the city, who have been tamed by all those laws and officers enforcing those laws...they may not remember this. But us folks out there in the sticks, we are still unruly.

And us oilfield trash may just be the most unruly of the whole lot!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Ah, but my point is, insurrection is the world they'll use. Civil uprising. Dissidents. Domestic terrorists. Fringe elements. We've all seen it before. Up until now it's been mostly empty rhetoric. But look at the landscape. Watch the social engineering.

I don't disagree at all that Washington is rotten to the core - not at all. All I am saying is that if the intent is to provoke, then the strategically sound reaction is to not be provoked - at least not visibly or outwardly. We, here, should recognize these tactics. The forum trolls live by them. Provoke, provoke, provoke, until they illicit a reaction. Then a good member winds up in trouble and the troll simply fires up TOR and picks a new identity, laughing the whole time.

IMO we aren't at just another play in the ballgame right now. We're well past the two minute warning - and we're third and long. If we get suckered into trying our Hail Mary now? We'll end up forth and forever to go.

~Heff

ETA: An after thought. Once I posted this, I sat back and tried to think "What would a dog and pony show accomplish right now???" and it hit me.

Even though it's five days away, when was the last time anyone around here said the words fiscal cliff?

If the right hand is waving? Watch the left.

reply to post by Hefficide


I am still trying to figure out what are you are talking about.

Oh, I replied to the wrong person. I meant to reply to a person that posted an article on the previous page.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Ah, but my point is, insurrection is the world they'll use. Civil uprising. Dissidents. Domestic terrorists. Fringe elements. We've all seen it before. Up until now it's been mostly empty rhetoric. But look at the landscape. Watch the social engineering.

I don't disagree at all that Washington is rotten to the core - not at all. All I am saying is that if the intent is to provoke, then the strategically sound reaction is to not be provoked - at least not visibly or outwardly. We, here, should recognize these tactics. The forum trolls live by them. Provoke, provoke, provoke, until they illicit a reaction. Then a good member winds up in trouble and the troll simply fires up TOR and picks a new identity, laughing the whole time.

IMO we aren't at just another play in the ballgame right now. We're well past the two minute warning - and we're third and long. If we get suckered into trying our Hail Mary now? We'll end up forth and forever to go.

~Heff

ETA: An after thought. Once I posted this, I sat back and tried to think "What would a dog and pony show accomplish right now???" and it hit me.

Even though it's five days away, when was the last time anyone around here said the words fiscal cliff?

If the right hand is waving? Watch the left.

edit on 12/28/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)

I don't know how closely you have to watch to realize that they are after the guns, plain and simple. They want the guns and that is what there doing.

reply to post by Helious


In the US there are roughly 89 guns for every 100 citizens. As this thread, and several others have clearly demonstrated, many - if not most - of those 89 per 100 are not going to cooperate with giving up their weapons.

So, logistically speaking. How do we get from A to Z here?

ETA: Correction. Obviously the number of guns is not indicative of the number of gun owners. It's late and I apologize for drawing an incorrect conclusion from the data. I will see if I cannot find a percentage of the population who owns guns figure vs a guns per capita number.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Don't like America's constitution? America to dangerous for you? Please, get out.

Why? Where in the US Constitution or the laws passed in accordance with it does it say only those who like the US Constitution are allowed to stay in the country? May be those who don't like it will change it to their liking in accordance with its rules or otherwise. After all, the US Constitution was made by men and those that didn't like then existing laws and government. They didn't follow then existing laws to get what they wanted nor did they leave the colonies. Those that don't like the existing laws and meta-laws (the Constitution) will find their own ways to change it.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Helious

 

In the US there are roughly 89 guns for every 100 citizens. As this thread, and several others have clearly demonstrated, many - if not most - of those 89 per 100 are not going to cooperate with giving up their weapons.

So, logistically speaking. How do we get from A to Z here?

ETA: Correction. Obviously the number of guns is not indicative of the number of gun owners. It's late and I apologize for drawing an incorrect conclusion from the data. I will see if I cannot find a percentage of the population who owns guns figure vs a guns per capita number.

edit on 12/28/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)

Pretty easy, you go after them one at a time. You don't send your under staffed force to collect them all at once. You pass the legislation and in a relaxed fashion enforce it starting with the "worst" offenders one at a time, all the while smearing and demonizing gun owners through the MSM. God forbid somebody would actually resist..... They will be painted on the six o clock news as the biggest whack job on the planet and an obvious "lone gunman" terrorist.

Give me a break, we are not talking about high school bullies, we are talking about the U.S. government. They can take the guns if there is not a very concerted effort to stop it. Random refusals will end up in deaths and life in prison sentences.

reply to post by Observor


Exactly.

Rebel or leave. Whining about the 2nd amendment is falling on deaf ears. This bill wouldn't even pass the house.

2nd Amendment isn't going any where.

If it does and a state or states rebel, ill join the rebellion or succession. Otherwise I'd just leave the country if there is no rebellion.

Oh, by the way, the 2nd Amendment is my right, there is nothing you're going to do about it, I promise. So, there is no reason for me to really consider rebellion or to leave. You on the other hand, have those options to be considering. I know you don't have the gall to rebel, so your only option is to leave or get over it. Is it not?

----

By the way, I don't think you fully realized what you typed there. You don't have to like the constitution or the law, but you will follow it. Don't like it? You have three options again. Leave, rebel, or get over it.

reply to post by Helious


I don't care if we're talking about six headed martians with death rays. Logistics are logistics. The best number I could find was two years old and said that about 45% of Americans own guns. That means two guns, roughly, per gun owner.

The number of Americans, right now is sitting at 315,069,557 - 45% of that is 141,781,301 people to disarm. The standing US military is currently about 1,456,862 ( 2010 numbers ). Add to that about 1.1 million police. That's 2.5 million to disarm 141 million.

Again, the logistics don't add up. The "they'll take them one step at a time" debate kind of falls flat when there are people in this thread flatly stating that they're either going to rise up or leave the US simply at the mention of a ban on any type of gun.

Smoke and mirrors.

What in the world do people need COMBAT/WAR automatic/semi-automatic assault weapons for??????

The only weapons a civilian will ever need are sport and hunting weapons and those MUST be registered because they kill as well as any other gun. Do not tell me you going to hunt deer shooting 70 rounds a minute. Why don't you take a rpg then? And while we are at it, maybe a freaking missile would be in order.

The second amendment is outdated, what % of the population hunts for food nowadays. This isn't a cowboys movie. It was written in a very different context and time.

There is no need for civilians to carry guns, ever. If there is ever a need for an uprising, guns will appear as they always do but in the mean time, people have no business having combat weapons.
I say that if you need to have a gun, you should have your background checked, your biometrics registered and you should have a very good reason for needing one.

How many people were already killed in the last 200 years because of your second amendment? Every life is precious so even one death would be one too many.

Many legit guns are stolen and/or sold on the black market, and used to murder people so it is not enough to say you are responsible.
I understand that you live in fear and you feel better by having an ak-47 with you but you are not addressing the real issue here: Why do you live in fear? Where i live, i sleep with my door and my windows open. Nobody has guns except for the police, we had maybe 5 or 10 murders in 2 years.
Open your eyes dudes, stop leaving in dream land and address the real problems.

You country is in shambles due to several issues and you debate having guns or not in civilian hands... what's wrong with you? Are you all insane? Wake up and get your *snip* together because one of this days you are going to wake up and it will be too late.

Control access to weapons, control who gets them and why. Then maybe senseless killings will much more rare.
All i see is people wining about their rights but i never ever see them talking about their obligations and duties.


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Observor

 

Exactly.

Rebel or leave.

There is a third option, subvert or reinterpret

Whining about the 2nd amendment is falling on deaf ears. This bill wouldn't even pass the house.

2nd Amendment isn't going any where.

Let the amendment remain. No one is trying to repeal it. But your idea of what it means is not the final word on it

If it does and a state or states rebel, ill join the rebellion or succession. Otherwise I'd just leave the country if there is no rebellion.

There will be no rebellion. There may be some isolated incidents of lawlessness. Nothing more. They will be effectively dealt with. So get prepared to leave. I know you won't be doing it. But just saying because you suggested the possibility.

Oh, by the way, the 2nd Amendment is my right, there is nothing you're going to do about it, I promise. So, there is no reason for me to really consider rebellion or to leave. You on the other hand, have those options to be considering. I know you don't have the gall to rebel, so your only option is to leave or get over it. Is it not?

You can keep your right, the second amendment, along with the other nine. No one is attempting to remove them. They will be reinterpreted in accordance with the needs of the day. The constitution, after all, is a living document

reply to post by Observor


An Assualt rifle ban, if brought before the Supreme Court, most likely would be found unconstitutional. Every man in America is a soldier. A militiaman. Constitutionally any way.

The whole point of the second amendment is so the people can maintain a fighting force. A militia. Not just so we can hunt, but to fight.

If the first amendment applies to modern devices and technology, so does the 2nd amendment.

--------

I know that guy killed 28 people, and i don't mean to sound heartless, but I didn't do it.

The only solution is to put armed guards in schools. Should we have too? No. We also shouldn't have to have submarines lurking around each others borders ready to annihilate millions upon millions of CHILDREN and women, but guess what? We do.

reply to post by Andromerius

Where i live, i sleep with my door and my windows open. Nobody has guns except for the police, we had maybe 5 or 10 murders in 2 years. Open your phukin eyes dudes, stop leaving in dream land and address the real problems.

It is you, I'm afraid, who lives in a "dream land". You cannot leave your doors and windows open or the methheads or crackheads or who knows what else will relieve you of your belongings and/or life. Where is it that you live that is so special, and is all unicorns and rainbows? Outside the U.S. you say? Then refrain from voicing your opinion on matters that do not concern you.

If cars need to be registered then I do not see why guns shouldn't be.

We need to keep track of these things, and we need to know who owns them and we need to know their full background information & mental health