New posts

"Assault weapon" ban 2.0

Jan. 26, 2013, 2:02 p.m.
Posts: 2285
Joined: Feb. 5, 2005

So on Jan. 24, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 150, her long-anticipated bill to ban "assault weapons" and "large" magazines.

Under this ban, this shotgun would be banned:

This rifle would be banned:

But this rifle would still be legal.

Ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 named firearms. Presumably, these were chosen by looking at pictures, as Sen. Feinstein has said she did before introducing her first legislation on the issue in 1993.

Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have any one of the following "features" particularly a pistol grip—which is defined to include any "characteristic that can function as a grip." Other features that would cause a rifle to be banned include a forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or (as an absurd propaganda move) rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or a threaded barrel.

Ban all detachable-magazine semi-auto pistols that have any of the following: a threaded barrel, second pistol grip, or magazine that mounts anywhere other than the grip. The bill would also ban any handgun that is a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic handgun.

Ban all semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have fixed magazines that accept more then 10 rounds.

Ban all semi-automatic shotguns that have just one of the following: a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; a pistol grip; a fixed magazine that can accept more than five rounds, a detachable magazine; a forward grip; a revolving cylinder; or a grenade or rocket launcher. As with the rifle provision, this could potentially ban any semi-auto shotgun, because all of them have "characteristics that can function as a grip." And of course, countless Americans have pistol-grip shotguns for home defense.

Ban all belt-fed semi-automatic firearms, such as semi-auto replicas of historic machine guns.

Ban all frames or receivers of banned guns, even though in many cases they are identical to the frames and receivers of guns that would not be banned.

Ban "combinations of parts" from which "assault weapons" can be assembled. Read broadly, this could ban the acquisition of a single spare part that could be combined with parts you already own.

Ban any "part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle"-a vague definition that could ban items such as competition trigger parts.

Ban the sale or transfer of all ammunition feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds. Even those lawfully possessed before passage of the bill could never be transferred, even to your heirs through a will.

Though not requiring registration of currently owned firearms under the National Firearms Act (as Feinstein threatened in December), the new bill would go far beyond the failed 1994 semi-auto ban by requiring background checks on the private transfer of any "grandfathered" firearm.

Finally, unlike the 1994 ban, the new bill will not include an automatic "sunset" clause, so it would remain in effect unless repealed.

Full details on the ban here

Can anyone explain how this is actually going to work, or how Feinstein actually thinks that the courts will rule this constitutional? Fortunately there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who favor gun rights so this will not pass.

That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.

I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.

Jan. 26, 2013, 2:38 p.m.
Posts: 1923
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

I 100% agree with banning of pistol grip shotguns, shotguns with secondary grips, rifles with more than 10 rounds, anything regarding pistols in general and frankenstien guns although like you said how do they establish that?

No need for more than 3 rounds in a shotgun and pistol grips do nothing.

Although some of the rules are so grey in areas I could never see it working I think it's a step in a positive direction.

Then again all the small penis gun slingers will chime in with we need more than 10 rounds and pistol grips to have fun etc..

Clunking is for retards.

Jan. 26, 2013, 2:49 p.m.
Posts: 2285
Joined: Feb. 5, 2005

I agree that 30 round mags probably aren't necessary. I disagree on pistol grip. I have an 11-87 with a normal stock, and a supernova with pistol grip. I'm a lot faster to aim with the pistol grip, which when trap shooting, turkey hunting, duck hunting, etc is important.

What I disagree most in this ban is that their definition of what makes a gun more deadly is that it is based on cosmetic features. It has nothing to do with the function of the gun itself. Second, you are treading damn close to constitutional rights. Any individual's opinion of the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. The SCOTUS has rules that it guarantees an individual's rights to keep and bear arms.

Finally, it does nothing to address the real issue - that there are people with serious mental problems who need help. It is a cultural thing. Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and extremely low gun crime. Maybe it is about time we look at the culture that is causing this.

That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.

I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.

Jan. 26, 2013, 3 p.m.
Posts: 1923
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

I agree that 30 round mags probably aren't necessary. I disagree on pistol grip. I have an 11-87 with a normal stock, and a supernova with pistol grip. I'm a lot faster to aim with the pistol grip, which when trap shooting, turkey hunting, duck hunting, etc is important.

What I disagree most in this ban is that their definition of what makes a gun more deadly is that it is based on cosmetic features. It has nothing to do with the function of the gun itself. Second, you are treading damn close to constitutional rights. Any individual's opinion of the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant. The SCOTUS has rules that it guarantees an individual's rights to keep and bear arms.

Grip is a grip, your hand is already on the gun, faster is in the eye of the gun holder I suppose.

I was going to put a comment in regarding the amendment.. something along the lines of it's time to fucking change it because those yanks can't control their psycho gun wielding population anymore. Yet they still cry wolf with all these school/public shootings. Guess you can't teach some people you need to evolve beyond rules written a hundred years ago.

Cosmetics sure, but you see very few hunting rifles modified to look pretty that fire more than 5 rounds.. Wood finish is an art, synthetics and stock grips are wannabe military types who have small penis syndrome and along with that comes lack of rules caring and proper safety. I do agree they aren't more deadly, aside from threaded barrels(meaning silencers or short/long barrel replacements?)

I'm gonna go sit hide under my rock with my citori now..

Clunking is for retards.

Jan. 26, 2013, 3:04 p.m.
Posts: 295
Joined: Oct. 23, 2003

freedom isnt free.

I seriously doubt the second amendment is worth its cost.

Ha Ha! Made you look.

Jan. 26, 2013, 3:13 p.m.
Posts: 2285
Joined: Feb. 5, 2005

No it isn't

That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.

I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.

Jan. 26, 2013, 3:53 p.m.
Posts: 130
Joined: Jan. 21, 2013

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:06 p.m.
Posts: 3202
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

New guy wades in and fails.

See previous thread for all the logic of Canada and the idiotic mumblings of "CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT MURICA"

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:13 p.m.
Posts: 2285
Joined: Feb. 5, 2005

Alright go-t, explain how in Canada, with extremely tough gun laws (especially for pistols) criminals were able to shoot each other publicly back in 2007ish when all of the foreign gang turf wars were going on around Vancouver?

Criminals don't listen to gun laws.

That's the problem with cities, they're refuges for the weak, the fish that didn't evolve.

I don't want to google this - sounds like a thing that NSMB will be better at.

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:21 p.m.
Posts: 1124
Joined: July 28, 2008

Cosmetics sure, but you see very few hunting rifles modified to look pretty that fire more than 5 rounds.. Wood finish is an art, synthetics and stock grips are wannabe military types who have small penis syndrome and along with that comes lack of rules caring and proper safety. I do agree they aren't more deadly, aside from threaded barrels(meaning silencers or short/long barrel replacements?)

Seriously?

Are you saying that because I (and thousands of other Canadians) have a rifle with a synthetic stock and a pistol grip I disregard rules and have an inferiority complex about the size of my dick?

Using that logic, would you also say that I'm gay because I've got a couple pink and purple dress shirts?

Making generalizations about people because of something they like is pretty lame.

Suppressors make a gun more deadly? How exactly? A suppressed .223 has a sound level around 135 decibels. That is still a lot of noise and nowhere near the "click" that many people assume they make.

>>---------> (x)
My flickr

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:26 p.m.
Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 15, 2003

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

^^^^ this, is 100% true.

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:29 p.m.
Posts: 15075
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

well the gangs were for the most part were atempting to kill each other with guns they got illegaly sure there was collateral damage to non gang members but mostly the gangs were just killing one another, some would argue its cheaper to bury a criminal than prosecute him but thats not cool

which is a whole different thing than a country with hundreds of millions of handguns being leagly/readily available to the general public for domestic disputes, accidents, kids playing with dads guns yada yada

Very similar countries but you are way more likely to be killed by a gun in the U.S than Canada, I think the genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to stuff it back in you will never ban or restrict assault weapons or handguns in America so the answer is be happy you don't live in America

Farmer if you think the gun culture of America is great … stay there

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:42 p.m.
Posts: 3202
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

Alright go-t, explain how in Canada, with extremely tough gun laws (especially for pistols) criminals were able to shoot each other publicly back in 2007ish when all of the foreign gang turf wars were going on around Vancouver?

Criminals don't listen to gun laws.

… Do we have to go through this weekly? The US has nearly five times the per capita gun murder rate than Canada, and almost ten times the rate of the United Kingdom. Before you bring Switzerland into the mix, they're higher than both of the other examples I listed, and they match their gun ownership with strict laws - something that is absent in your precious Union.

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:47 p.m.
Posts: 1124
Joined: July 28, 2008

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.

Yep.

Pinning normal capacity magazines to 10 rounds and banning other cosmetic items isn't going to make the world a safer place. This only removes these items from those that use them for sport or protection.

If you can prevent a mentally insane person from owning firearms, shouldn't that be the thing to figure out?

What good is a ban on an inanimate piece of plastic (aka, a pistol grip), when a person can still pass a background check and buy a firearm because the state never reported their mentally ill status to the NICS.

How is a piece of plastic the thing that people are focused on?

>>---------> (x)
My flickr

Jan. 26, 2013, 4:58 p.m.
Posts: 3202
Joined: Aug. 4, 2009

Yep.

Pinning normal capacity magazines to 10 rounds and banning other cosmetic items isn't going to make the world a safer place. This only removes these items from those that use them for sport or protection.

If you can prevent a mentally insane person from owning firearms, shouldn't that be the thing to figure out?

What good is a ban on an inanimate piece of plastic (aka, a pistol grip), when a person can still pass a background check and buy a firearm because the state never reported their mentally ill status to the NICS.

How is a piece of plastic the thing that people are focused on?

It truly amazes me how quickly the NRA publicity and lobby machines work. You guys really drank that kool-aid quickly…

Forum jump: