Dianne Feinstein to Introduce Assault Weapons Ban for the Next Congress

We’ve been hearing about Senator Dianne Feinstein’s upcoming Assault Weapons Ban proposal for weeks. Even prior to the events of Friday, she had been meeting quietly with ATF officials to try and come up with a more restrictive version of the Clinton era AWB that expired in 2004. And apparently she has decided to use the emotional wake of this tradgedy to push her political agenda through. She announced on Meet the Press that she will be introducing simultaneous AWB bills in the House and Senate when the new Congress convenes. Here’s what I expect . . .

Here’s the statement she made on meet the Press:

“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. “The purpose of this bill is to get… weapons of war off the streets.”

According to David Codrea’s sources, this version of the AWB is going to be a LOT worse than anything currently in place in the United States. We’ve been hearing that the following would be tacked on, above and beyond the traditional AWB:

  • No pistol grips
  • No high capacity magazines
  • NO GRANDFATHERING
  • No sale if already in possession — destruction or alteration only

The old version allowed guns already purchased with the features to remain unchanged, but required new guns to be altered to meet the requirements. Apparently this upcoming version will be having none of that, with ALL civilian owned AR-15 and WASR-10 style firearms immediately illegal upon passage.

Also included is a ban on high capacity magazines. According to the Senator:

“Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?” Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. “These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”

Given the events of the past week, I fully expect the Senate to vote and approve their version. And the President seems ready to sign it into law. The only thing keeping this law from passing is the majority Republicans hold in the House.

I’ve talked at length about how an Assault Weapons Ban is a dumb idea. Hopefully they can keep common sense alive and keep ridiculous laws from punishing the law abiding for the actions of criminals.

comments

  1. avatar UcsbKevin says:

    she called magazines clips…..get her!

    1. avatar TTACer says:

      She abrogated her duty to uphold and defend the constitution, get her.

        1. avatar Mike says:

          No she was freely elected and can advocate for public policy she and her constituents believe in. You may not agree with her but she is entitled to her opinion. Just like other senators are.

        2. avatar Lance says:

          Mike your clueless on this issue either your a anti-gunner trying to make peopel here look band or your new with guns. If they succeed with this ban all guns used for self defense would be outlawed not just ARs would be banned but Glocks Berettas 1911s SiGs and S&Ws pistols all would be. Banning a gun based on its looks (all AWBs have been about looks not lethality) does nothing to stopp mass murder. looks at history which liberals never do. Just in China where all guns are banned a man kills 22 kids more than Fridays murders with a sword, No AWB would have stopped that. Or in the 30s a man kill mass number of children by using dynamite on a school in the first recorded mass school murders. No gun ban would have stopped that. Laws cannot stop Evil and our broken liberal society is making this not firearms. Problems are that Socialists like her hate American and what it stands for she thanks only here god like thinking and laws can make a new Socialistic America a utopia in here twisted mind. Her vision and law idea’s failed every time in Germany Russia and China and ect. It leads to more murder and deaths.

        3. avatar Keith says:

          Uh-hum. She may be entitled to her opinion, but to say she is entitled to legislate on that basis alone is ludicrous. Sometimes I wonder about the thought processes going on around here.

        4. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Mike, she’s free to advocate whatever policies she wants – as long as they don’t violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you do not like it, she is free to propose amendments to change it – but she does not have the right or authority to propose ignoring the Constitution to do as she pleases.

        5. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          There’s no violation of the Constitution in any of that. Could you be any more melodramatic Totenglocke?

        6. avatar skeptical_realist says:

          Mikey random_number:
          1- No pistol grips
          -Infringes on the second amdt, which includes all small arms in common use by decree of the SCOTUS. AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US.
          2- No high capacity magazines
          -Same as above. Besides, a 30 round mag is normal capacity for many rifles. Hi cap is a political lie.
          3- NO GRANDFATHERING
          -Ever heard of Ex Post Facto Law? It’s unconstitutional under Article 1, section 9.
          4- No sale if already in possession — destruction or alteration only
          -This would amount to theft of personal property by gov’t decree to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars. Do you realize how many AR-15s are in private hands? (not harming a soul, I might add).

          Also, to address the original bone-head comment, the whole reason we have a representative republic, and not a pure democracy, is to prevent mob rule. It is the duty and responsibility of a rep to tell their constituancy “NO” if they want something illegal, which this is.

    2. avatar Phil says:

      Someone who doesn’t know the difference shouldn’t be making laws that restrict them

    3. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Let her restrict “clips” of more than 10 rounds. I dont own any gun that takes “clips”. Only magazine fed guns in my collection, so those should be good if they choose to use that wording.

      1. avatar C says:

        I would LOVE for that to make it into the actual legislation. Literally only banning “hi-cap” clips.

        Sadly, on the Ignorant vs Malicious spectrum, i believe she falls significantly closer to malicious and will not make that mistake.

      2. avatar Totenglocke says:

        The only guns I own that take clips (Mosin’s and Springfield 1903A3) only have 5-round magazines, so I’m totally OK with that!

        1. avatar ak74 says:

          I would cry, they would take all my ak74 stripper clips because they hold 15 rounds.

    4. avatar Hal says:

      She has her finger on the trigger… get her!

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t fire off a round right there, just to prove how unpredictably dangerous these weapons are.

    5. avatar Chris says:

      But that’s a nice piece she has there. Do you think she has ever been to the range with it?

    6. avatar OleBoy says:

      i noticed that right away. if you don’t have enough knowledge to call it a mag, how can you have enough knowledge to be trying to pass a AWB?

    7. avatar James says:

      this woman or thing needs to get a life, a total idot some one needs to charge her with treason & should be impeached, sara palin is twice the woman she is so because she dont have a life she blames ever thing on a gun, but she dont say she hears voices in her head that talks to her, &she carries a gun, so talk about 2 faced, and all this time she has body guards too, just like obamas children there gaurded by the secret service, is are kids guarded no, does he care no, is he telling you there are fathers of children who dont want our guns taken away no, i say impeach obama & arrest the rest for treason.

      1. avatar James says:

        and the fathers i was talking about, was of the children killed in sandy hook. on april 19th 1995 at 9:02 am tim mecveigh blew up the federal murrah building. in oklahoma city oklahoma there he killed 168 ppl. 19 was children under the age of 6, with a five thousand pound home made bomb. witha ryder truck, did the goverment ban. ryder rental trucks, plastic barrels, JET fuel, diesel. fertilizer. no they did not, so why do they need to ban guns. for basically doing the same thing that happen in oklahoma city. ( SO IMPEACH OBAMA)

  2. avatar Ross says:

    If these are the elements of the bill and its passes then every signer of this bill has committed an act of Treason

    1. avatar Curzen says:

      You’ll want to re-read the constitution, passing a new stricter AWB would not in any way fit with what is described therein as an act of treason.

      1. avatar Average_Casey says:

        To knowingly seek to eliminate rights garunteed in the Constitution is treason. I’m not going to tolerate it.

        1. avatar Mike says:

          It doesn`t eliminate rights under the constitution. You will still own guns, as many as you wish. Just not assault weapons, because for hunting and self-defense you don`t need to fire thousands of rounds at a time.
          Get some proportion. All rights have some sensible limitations. Like driving a car – we have lessons and rules of the road. Does that infringe your rights?

        2. avatar JAS says:

          Driving is not a right – it’s a privilege…..

        3. avatar Mike says:

          Driving was an example. OK lets talk about freedom of assembly. This is sometimes limited for demonstration because of security concerns in sensitive places. Freedom of assembly is a right. Another example is where freedom of speech has been curtailed in limited cases for national security purposes. Again a right curtailed at the limits. The second amendment is just the same, some limitations can be applied without negating the whole thing.

        4. avatar Greg Camp says:

          And the number of rounds that a magazine holds is a silly thing to legislate. Changing magazines isn’t hard. When the control freaks figure that out, they’ll want limits on the number of magazines that a person can own. Then they’ll move on to the number of guns, since a person could just carry more than one. There’s no limit to what they want.

        5. avatar Keith says:

          Buzzt, wrong again Mike. It does eliminate rights. The 2nd amendment is primarily about the people’s check against government tyranny. Nascent tyrants like Feinstein would like nothing better than to leverage off of a bunch of quislings like Mike here disarming his neighbors in the name of “sensible” levels of firepower in the hands of the people who are supposed to be running this republic.

        6. avatar Chris says:

          No gun fires thousands of rounds at a time. Some fire thousands of rounds over a period of time, but those are already banned in the US for civillian use (except for a few aging pre-ban firearms).

        7. avatar Average_Casey training says:

          Mike,
          Apparently, you don’t understand the english language very well. “…shall not be infringed.” Means that you cannot mess with the rights at all. To preclude someone from owning a particular type of firearm is infringing upon a right. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. Also, it sounds like you don’t understand what the definition of an assault rifle is. They are semi-automatic, meaning one pull of the trigger causes one round to fire. So I don’t shoot thousands of rounds at a time, I shoot one at a time. Before you give an opinion, why don’t you actually try to understand what you are talking about, that way you don’t make foolish statements.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        agreeing with Curzen.
        disagreeing with Ross and Average_Casey as regards the term ‘treason’.

        Treason is the only crime that is ‘defined’ in the Constitution. This was done to prevent it being misused by a corrupt, over-reaching government.
        Treason is a specific kind of action against the United States During Time Of War. Mrs. Feinstein is not guilty of treason. However, she is in direct violation of her Oath Of Office (“to support the Constitution”), and she should be impeached for that violation.

        1. avatar Derek says:

          Ya know what, that just gave me a really nifty idea. Every time the Supreme Court finds a law, policy, EO, w/e un-constitutional, then they should automatically impeach everyone who voted for it, enacted it, or enforced it. Boom. Done. End of story. No explanation, no waiting, no appeal.

          Lets see nitwits vote for questionable crap then.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    What, we didn’t know that prior to the election she already had an AWB waiting in the wings? Our best chance of stopping this was to remove her influence from the white house and the senate. We, as gun owners couldn’t even agree on this little fact.

    If our rights are restricted or lost all together it will be as much our fault as the fault of the loonies committing these horrible crimes.

    Instead of a run on soon to be illegal semi autos people ought to consider stocking up on revolvers and shotguns.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      And this is at all a surprise coming from difi???

    2. avatar Chris says:

      If only the Republican party had not supported the insanity under George W Bush, and had not chosen unelectable nuts to run for office. The choice between voting for a President and his party who might or might not enact an AWB, or the GOP candidates that were was a lose/lose situation.

      We need better politicians rooted in reality, not their own vanity and ambitions.

  4. avatar supton says:

    How long would it take for such bills to make it through? I wonder if magazine manufacturers are going to go 24/7 for a bit.

    Would it be another 10 year ban?

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      I am sure they would make it permanent.

  5. avatar rketch says:

    i’m not happy about this, but how do you reconcile her saying the bill is not retroactive with supposing there will be no grandfathering?

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Yeah, I was confused on that part.

    2. avatar Chris says:

      Maybe she just doesn’t know what those words mean, or she’s spouting nonsense so she can always produce a sound clip to support whatever argument is convenient that day.

  6. avatar Ross says:

    There will be no sunset on this one, give them up or go to jail.

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Oh that old thing? I sold it months ago. Don’t mind that shovel over there covered in dirt; I was gardening.

      1. avatar Moonshine says:

        Tragic boating accident. Miraculously, I survived.

  7. avatar OldLawman says:

    As I have said before:
    Who is going to comply with a retroactive ban on possession of what were previously legal guns ? How would this be enforced ? What are they (meaning government) going to do when few citizens do not comply with an order to turn in these guns ?
    There are not enough police and (possibly National Guard) to go door-to-door, and what will they do when citizens actively resist? And how many LEO will enforce a ban ?

    I don’t have the answers, only concerns.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      The first time some old guy takes out a few ATF guys defending his freedoms, that will be the sign..

    2. avatar In Memphis says:

      My question is, following orders or not how many AMERICAN LEOs and soldiers will without question even try to disarm us?

      I dont mean an act of civil war but thoes men and women are Americans and many also share our passion. Will they uphold the constitution they SWORE to defend? Or follow orders against the constitution and their own families?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        how many AMERICAN LEOs and soldiers will without question even try to disarm us?

        Every damn one of them.

        1. avatar Nicholas says:

          With the exception of me, and various other soldiers I’ve come to know.

        2. avatar OldLawman says:

          Ralph:
          I think the answer to that question is very regionally based. In the Northeast and much of the West Coast, many LEO would be happy to do so. In the South and Rocky West, not so much.

          Until citizens start shooting. Something I do not want to see, but think would happen an isolated incidents, then swell dramatically.

        3. avatar Accur81 says:

          Not every LEO is a mindless zombie.

        4. avatar Ron says:

          Not this one.

    3. avatar Bob says:

      The vast majority of LEO’s will vigorously enforce any law, remember Katrina? Just like the NAZI’s, American LEO’s are no different. They will blindly obey. After all, they’re just “doing their job”, and “obeying orders”.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        Forgot to mention, they’re also heavily unionized.

  8. avatar In Memphis says:

    Magazine in the gun, finger on the trigger… anyone else notice? Can anyone tell if the safety is off, I cant.

    1. avatar Steevo says:

      Yep, safety off as well. Three strikes.

      1. avatar NWGlocker says:

        She’s gotta ban herself from handling these things

    2. avatar In Memphis says:

      You know, it would be the guns fault if it were loaded and went off. I have never felt the recoil of an AK but I doubt she could handle it. My point? Despite the obvious danger in her handling of that AK and the photographic evidence, it would have “just gone off.”

    3. avatar Nicholas says:

      Is someone who is as oblivious to basic firearm rules as this lady seriously trying to make laws regarding firearms? This IS a joke, right?

  9. avatar Ricky says:

    If it passes, at least it will let the rest of us see if the ‘oath keepers’ put up or shut up. I’m guessing the latter…

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Oh some will fight.

  10. avatar Curzen says:

    I’m sorely tempted to pick up a Glock 19 before the end of the year instead of another revolver as I had planned so far.

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Probably a good idea.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    The statement that was quoted says there would be grandfathering: “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively . . .”

    If anything else is tacked on — like turn ’em in or destroy them — the bill would be a nonstarter. I don’t think that there are 50 votes in the Senate for a bill that destroys thousand of dollars of people’s money without compensation. There certainly aren’t enough votes in the House for that.

    So they’ll tack on a lot of draconian bullsh!t that they know they can’t get, and then they’ll “compromise” by letting us keep the products that we previously purchased legally.

    “This government has failed us, the government itself has failed us. The white liberals, who have been posing as our friends, have failed us. Once we see that all these other sources to which we’ve turned have failed, we stop turning to them and turn to ourselves. We need a self-help program, a do it yourself philosophy, a do it right now philosophy, an it’s already too late philosophy. This is what you and I need to get with…”
    Malcolm X.

    1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

      So what are you going to DO about it ralph? If the government has failed and it’s time for the tree of liberty to be replenished then are you going to actually use your gun to defend the constitution? Are you going to march on the capitol and shoot a few politicians tomorrow?

      Or are you going to impotently run your mouth some more? You baggers lost – get over it. Thankfully a majority of the country didn’t want some bigoted kook running the place, and although that means lots of other bigoted kooks are pretty butthurt about it, you will just have to deal with the wind of change that’s coming.

      1. avatar JAS says:

        Hmmmmmmmm, I see you forgot to take your Ritalin again.. Saddens me when I see someone with so little self control.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Nice work, hmmmmmjob. Conflating armed revolution with legal resistance is exactly what I would expect from you.

        I’m a lawyer. Better still, I’m a retired lawyer with time on my hands. What I’d do is break their balls in the courts until they beg me to go away.

        It worked before.

      3. You just re-elected a far more dangerous, bigoted POS that harbors nothing but disdain for our beloved nation. His entire agenda is committed to usurping the Constitution, undermining our Second Amendment rights, destoying American exceptionalism, and elevating the image of the genocidal cult of Islam within our borders.

      4. avatar Average_Casey says:

        Wow, it sounds like you are the bigot. I’m not going down without a fight. Every Senator in my state that supports an AWB will get me spending way too much of my time ensuring they will not be reelected. Hell, I’d even run for office. As a Marine, I gave my oath to protect this country against all enemies both foriegn and domestic. People like you are enemies of this country as you seek to ignore the rights guaranteed in the Constitution because you don’t agree with them. There are laws and rights afforded I don’t agree with but I won’t try to stop them because I believe that they are protected by the constitution. That’s the difference between people like you and me, I actually won’t try to screw with the innocent because I have a contrary opinion.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          Samper FI

      5. avatar Nick says:

        Christ, I just love your comment about “dealing with the wind of change that’s coming.” What is it with you guys that you think you have the right do whatever you want without the assent of the other half of the country?

        I saw enough of this crap in the old CCCP. People like you are dangerous as hell. You don’t need a gun because your attitude and your ideas are guaranteed to turn this country into another dictatorship of the proletariat where some animals are more equal than others.

        See ya at the barricades.

      6. avatar Aharon says:

        Why are you guys responding to troll hmmmm?

    2. avatar Lance says:

      Good point the original AWB passed a Democratic House in 94 by one vote and it was the grandfather clause and the 10 year expiration which is the only reason it passed I very doubt a even BIGGER and and TOTAL ban would pass even the senate. A Original AWB 94 style reinstatement would not pass a GOP house. But we must help support our NRA A+ men in congress call them and tell them we support you and help stop the bans.

      You must read the history about the AWB it started not in 1994 but in 1985 GOP controlled one part of congress and stopped it many time before the 1992 election gave the liberals a super majority in congress. And it only passed by one vote, in Democratic hands little lone by a GOP majority we thankfully have now.

      Its sick reading all the gloom and doom the media say we are in for and from seller who say we are dead. BUT never give up always fight. And I think we could win this.

      1. avatar surlycmd says:

        Watch DiFi hold up school pictures of 20 murdered 6 year olds and see who folds. I would be surprised if any politicians stood firm. The one and only thing pols are interested is maintaining power and the associated wealth.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          If only people could figure out that gun ownership is not a factor in massacres. They occur even without guns, and most often in places without guns or any other means of defense.

          The greatest factor in massacres is violent mental illness. This needs to be addressed, and we cannot do that when we are wasting time and energy on nonsense attacks on law-abiding citizens.

          Perhaps one good thing to come from Obamacare will be more accessible mental health care?

    3. avatar DerryM says:

      I, too, read the statement “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” to mean it will “grandfather” existing possessions. Also, by inference, that if you already possess an affected arm(s) you are basically unable to sell, transfer or give it away and your survivors would have no choice but to destroy it or surrender it to some TBD authority.
      Insofar as having to alter existing possessed affected arms – that’s not so clear at present.
      Also unclear is what the retroactive status of greater than 10 round magazines would be.
      I checked Sen. Feinstein’s website, and it does not even mention her upcoming AWB Bill, at the present, so no further information there.

      1. avatar Anon in Ct says:

        I read it the same way. You can keep ’em, but you can’t sell or otherwise transfer ’em.

        Wonder how that affects spare parts – will those still be freely made and sold? If no, it might be good to stock up on the most commonly worn out parts.

        As to mags – do you have receipts showing the date of purchase of all your mags? I might have some, the ones I bought over the ‘Net, but certainly not all.

        1. avatar DerryM says:

          It’s not clear about spare parts, either. She says she met with ATFE for consultation, so they probably thought to include Lower Receivers, at least…but we’ll have to wait for more details. I’d buy a few key things ASAP in the meantime.

          I bought my magazines back in the 80’s and have no receipts. I usually bought at Gun Shows and got no receipt in the first place. Before the CA magazine ban, it never occurred to me to hang on to magazine receipts…couldn’t imagine a need for them… L(bitterly)OL! In CA they grandfathered magazines.

    4. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Ralph, would not the banning of possession of previously legal private property require compensation for the taking, per the Fifth Amendment?

  12. avatar APBTFan says:

    It’s a good thing the majority of the focus isn’t on something beside the fact like a better mental health care system and a concerted effort to better identify and help those that show a real potential for harming others. Sarcasm off.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      indeed. That would be too logical and solve the rout cause.

  13. avatar JAS says:

    Sigh….. This will not end well. At the very best, only criminals will have the use of high capacity firearms….. The poor woman is so clueless.

    About grandfathering, that one will end in the Supreme Court.

  14. avatar Lance says:

    No picture the hag is too ugly to be shown!!

    I hope fully republicans will defeat this.

  15. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

    I just want to add that if you right wing nuts were in the least bit open to sitting down and rationally discussing how guns need to be controlled in the modern age then politicians wouldn’t need to wait for an atrocity like this to begin the political process. You are going to lose far more ground soon than if you had sat down and come to an agreement before this terrible event – that’s on you and your intransigence.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Hmmmmm. I’m a gun owner. Not a right wing nut. I have supported legalizing drugs and could care less if gays want legal marriege. But thanks entirely to your attitude here I make this promise now.

      I will forever vote against legal weed and gay marriege. Abortion rights, no more. This is a promise I make in your honor.

    2. avatar Scott Henrichs says:

      Compromise? That is liberal speak for give up more of our rights. Giving up the right to bear arms in schools is what left our teachers and administrators disarmed and unable to protect our children. Giving up rights is what allows criminals to shoot up Chicago and DC while citizens live in fear for their lives. Giving up rights is the cause of the problem and people like you have blood on your hands. The only conversation I intend to have is how quickly can our rights be restored and people like you made to admit that gun control is the problem.

      1. avatar Hazzard Bagg says:

        Hey Hmmmmmmmm

        By calling us all “right wing nuts” you demonstrate that you know very little about TTAG. Name calling is frowned upon here. Keep it up and the grownups will just begin to ignore you.

    3. avatar michael says:

      guns do not need to be controlled in the modern, or any age. These shootings are clearly the result of the failure of government. you sir, blinded with your apparent state worship, are the one who isn’t rational.

    4. avatar In Memphis says:

      Hmmmmm….

      Sorry if I didnt put enough m’s in there. No, Im not actually.

      Explain to me how being pro-Secomd Amendment makes me a right wing nut?

      Use all the facts you consistantly fail to produce and tell me how I am a cinservative, tea bagger or even Republican?

      I am pro-choice. I am a Libritarian and Agnostic. PROVE to me I am a right wing nut.

    5. avatar Ralph says:

      Hmmmjob, we appreciate your concern. We don’t know what we’d do without your wisdom to guide us through these troubled times. Thank you for sharing.

    6. avatar Curzen says:

      being a liberal, the cause is socioeconomic problems in the US. With 300 million in private hands any guncontrol is only going to annoy people and not change the deathtoll. Banning guns will work about just as well as the war on drugs.

      1. avatar Chris says:

        Correct, and how well did prohibition work for it’s intended cause of “the need to destroy the political corruption of the saloons, the political power of the German-based brewing industry, and the need to reduce domestic violence in the home.”? It merely invented new forms of corruption and created the ATF as we know it.

    7. avatar Merits says:

      Your attitude and overreach exploiting an opportunistic evil event will cause many, including myself, to go on the offensive. We will purchase more weapons and vote to keep our rights ever more vigilantly. We will petition our lawmakers and donate our money to causes that fight to maintain those rights. We will persuade those uninformed, and those newly interested due to this violence, of the importance of firearm ownership and the history of destruction of unarmed citizens by their own governments. Your misguided attempts at usurpation of our contitutionally protected rights will motivate us to gain more freedom, not lose it.

    8. avatar colby says:

      hmmmmmmmm,
      How can you so thoroughly demonize otherwise liberal gun owners such as myself and expect me to want to cooperate in any way.

      To quote Dan Baum from Harpers Magazine “The Price of Gun Control”

      “The harm we’ve done by messing with law-abiding Americans’ guns is significant. … I met many working guys, including plumbers, parks workers, nurses—natural Democrats in any other age—who wouldn’t listen to anything the Democratic party has to say because of its institutional hostility to guns. I’d argue that we’ve sacrificed generations of progress on health care, women’s and workers’ rights, and climate change by reflexively returning, at times like these, to an ill-informed call to ban firearms, and we haven’t gotten anything tangible in return. Aside from what it does to the progressive agenda, needlessly vilifying guns—and by extension, their owners—adds to the rancor that has us so politically frozen and culturally inflamed. Enough.”

    9. avatar Ralph says:

      I’ve noticed that there’s no difference in kind — only in degree — between the mall shooters of the world and the tr0lls of the world. In either case, they are insignificant and they know it, and hope to gain whatever ego boost they can by causing whatever grief they can to people who are better than they are. Eventually, the mall shooter blows his own brains out of the back of his head, while the tr0ll just skulks away.

      1. avatar Hal says:

        Burn. Consider yourself digitally high-fived, Ralph.

        BTW, in the event that you DO get bored and you are mounting any legal challenges in the future be sure to set-up a paypal account for donations. You’ll be getting some of my discretionary income (that which doesn’t go to ammo and guns of course)!

      2. avatar WLCE says:

        damn.

        well im not going to disagree with you ralph 😀

    10. avatar Phil says:

      This won’t pass. And also, get the hell out, troll.

    11. avatar Greg Camp says:

      Hmmmmm, if you want compromise, what are you willing to give us that we want? That’s the thing. Compromise to your side means we give and you take.

    12. avatar Hal says:

      Hey hmmmmmmmm, guess what? For all the fear floating around on here, this AWB will be DOA in the house. Nice try. I’ll name my next “assault weapon” after you. I already have one named after Mikey.

    13. avatar Sammy says:

      You sound like a hysterical woman. How are you planning to disarm the gangs, and assorted criminals? My friend just did jury duty on an illegal gun case. A thug with priors for armed robbery saw a cop and tried to ditch his pistol. Both nabbed and 1 guy, because he said cops always lie, hung the jury. Thug is on the street with easier access to a piece than I have to renting a DVD. F you and your know it all attitude. You don’t want a gun, don’t get one. And before I forget, Bag this.

    14. avatar surlycmd says:

      hmmmmmmmm,

      What has more influence on a mentally unstable person, violence as entertainment or guns? I somehow doubt this killer decided to kill people after he picked up a gun.

      I maintain that misuse of the 1st Amendment influences unstable people to abuse the 2nd Amendment.

    15. avatar Average_Casey says:

      I will not bargin a reduction of my god-given rights because ignorant people cannot ascertain the foolishness of their efforts. Would you bargain away your 1st amendment rights? How about the 5th amendment? Maybe get rid of a woman’s right to vote? Why? I’ll tell you why, it’s because they are rights and no one should have to willingly give any away because a group of people have an opinion that isn’t backed up by any facts. If you want this crap to stop, pull you head out of your rear and realize that if one or two teachers had been armed, no kids may have been hurt. It’s you stupid “common sense” legislation that ensured all of those innocent children died. In talking to older people, their teachers carried guns on school grounds and there weren’t any school shootings. Imagine that.

    16. avatar CA_Chris says:

      First off, I’m not a right winger on the great majority of issues.

      Second, what do you think we’re doing here on this site? We spend hours a day debating rationally the role of firearms in our society.

      Third, gun owners have already made compromises and concessions over the years. Gun control has not worked, it will never achieve the goals that the prohibitionists want it to achieve, and we cannot support adding more prohibition to the books that will further fail to stop gun violence while greatly harming the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their natural and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Telling us that we will lose more if we don’t give in now is a falsehood, we already did the “give in now” part and the prohibitionists came right back for more.

      We know better, we know our rights, and we know that gun control does not produce the desired results.

      1. avatar B-dawg says:

        Ah, but gun control WILL achieve the prohibitionist’s goals.
        The chief goal? Namely a terrorized, defenseless, dependent, and infantilized citizenry (or peonage, to be precise.)
        Civilian disarmament has worked beautifully, time and again, at achieving that goal in every time and place it’s been implemented.

    17. avatar WLCE says:

      im a slightly left leaning classic liberal.

      when it comes to rights, there is no compromise.

  16. avatar Steve Ramsey says:

    No transfer means reducing the monetary vale of your property to ZERO. You can’t sell it. You cant leave it as an inheritance, and you can’t give it away.

    And the only way to enforce this provision would be to register every single weapon, and every single magazine.

    All this will likely mean making it all a restricted weapon, requiring the tax stamp, and the paperwork.

    Then you will have to be able to prove it’s existence, and the fact you owned it, before the ban took place, just to keep it.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      When they passed the AWB in California you had a finite amount of time to register your unneurtered guns with the DOJ or get them out of state. That was the only grace period allowed. Any weapon not so registered still in the state after the deadline became a felony.

      Grandfathering does you little good if you cannot resell or transfer. What do you do when the mags start to need replacing?

    2. avatar Ross says:

      It’s yours, you can do what you want with it, it just wont be legal.

      1. avatar Sammy says:

        Like Tickle on “Moonshiners” TV show said ” Ain’t nothin’ illegal till ye get caught.

  17. avatar Bill says:

    Time to start deleting my AR pictures off of facebook and buy some PVC pipe and a shovel.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Deleting your pictures on Facebook might not help. I would bet a week’s pay that our government keeps a running record of Facebook because it is a treasure-trove of intelligence.

      By all means, delete the pictures. Just don’t count on that action to remove evidence of your previous possession.

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        you would be correct. who do you think was the biggest investor to facebook and mark zuckerberg? its a certain person affiliated with a certain three letter agency.

    2. avatar Moonshine says:

      “and buy some PVC pipe and a shovel.”
      ——
      This looks like a good place to post this. I am not affiliated with Cabela’s.

      http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-dpms-t-e-k-rifle-package-1.shtml

  18. avatar jake45 says:

    A revolution started this country, maybe we need another one to keep it!

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Paranoia again. No need for an armed revolution. That is treason. Just because you don`t like who freely got elected you cannot run off and start a revolution.

      1. avatar Hal says:

        I’m not sure he was responding to the election sport. Nice logic leap. Read: you have none.

      2. avatar CA_Chris says:

        Revolution is not treason. Check your copy of the Constitution some time for an actual legal definition of treason in the US.

        But I agree, armed revolution is not the answer at this time. We need people to listen to us and understand, not run in fear and demand more oppressive laws and more oppressive law enforcement.

      3. avatar Anon in Ct says:

        Winning one or two elections does not give the party who won the right to suddenly remake (i.e. “fundamentally transform”) the very fabric of the country. For that you need the wide consensus necessary to amend the Constitution.

  19. I won’t say what I would like to do to her.

    She basically wants to start a civil war in the US. Because that is exactly what will happen when her ATF thugs start breaking down peoples doors to take their guns.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Not their guns, just assault weapons which someone has said would never be retrospective. You will still have guns for hunting and self-defense.

      1. avatar Dracon1201 says:

        How long will that last? As soon as you do that and the next spree killer starts taking potshots from the top of a clock tower with a Remington 700 bolt action with a legal 10 rd mag will they say, “Who needs a high power rifle with a 10 rd mag anyway?” Bolt actions will become the new “assault weapons” and then you will say, “give up your 10rd mags! Think of the children!”

      2. avatar Phil says:

        You do realize that the 2nd amendment isn’t protecting our right to hunt: it’s to keep the civilians armed against the prospect of an oppressive government

      3. avatar macgearailt says:

        Mike, I’ve been a peace officer in California for over 28years.I don’t want another piece of ineffectual legislation from Sen.Feinstein . The Clinton AWB and the California AWB have been dismal failures

        1. avatar Lance says:

          To see a gun owner Cop in Kalifornia that’s a good thing to see.

      4. avatar skeptical_realist says:

        Mike, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “Assault Weapon”.
        ALL so called “Assault Weapons” are for hunting and/or self defense.
        There is not a single firearm on the market that is marketed/sold/used as an “Assault Weapon”.
        That term is a made up political definition that means “all the guns we think we can ban or confiscate right now”.
        Remember, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” -Rahm Emanuel

  20. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I suggest everyone take a look at the Takings Clause in the Constitution. Even assuming they got by the senate and house, they would have to convince SCOTUS this is not a taking for which compensation is due.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’m not sure that the takings clause would apply when something is declared illegal. The G would not be taking something for public use. It would be declaring the thing illegal to possess. There’s a huge difference.

      When pot, heroin and cocaine were declared illegal, nobody was paid for their stash.

      1. avatar CA_Chris says:

        Confiscating firearms would be unconstitutional oppression, so I wouldn’t expect compensation or any other acknowledgment of our rights by the tyrants.

        But we aren’t there at this time.

  21. avatar m.ia says:

    Her finger is on the trigger. She needs to learn the 4 safety rules

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      She needs to learn one rule — “keep your stinking hands off my guns.”

  22. avatar TRP says:

    As my pastor repeatedly said this morning, what we are seeing is the continued erosion of morals in our country. There has been evil in the world since Adam and Eve, just ask your local LEO or military folks. God has been thrown out of the schools and courts, so why should we be surprised when these types of things happen? America has turned their back on God, and God is now turning his back on America.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      This could be due to mental illness, not a lack of religion. Other countries which are more secular have less mass killings so God is not always the answer to this type of thing.

      1. avatar JAS says:

        In a mental illness situation you are right. With all due respect though, I think the God thing is where you go wrong Mike. God fearing people are by definition moral people.

        These people pass their moral beliefs to their children, and strive to educate them in non-secular schools where these moral beliefs are further reinforced. Charity and help to the disadvantaged is required in the curriculum. These children grow up and pass on these same moral beliefs to their children.

        I know, because I’m one of these children, and my children are way on their way to pass these moral beliefs on to theirs.

        Now compare that to what goes on in inner cities, where morality (or lack thereof) is learned in the streets…

        1. avatar Justice06RR says:

          +1000000000

          I have also been raised in a family that has very strong roots of faith and Christianity. And although half of my family on my dad’s side is in the Military and LE, my family has always been peace-loving people.

          Now those “thugs” in the ‘hood, I doubt many of them go to church or have any kind of belief system.

    2. avatar Lance says:

      Good word. AR-15s been here since 1964 and semi auto rifles with mags been around for decades before this and it wasn’t till the last few decades when society turned away from morality and values when crap like this happens yet the forces that lead to the moral decline are the one blaming our rights for this. See the problem.

      1. avatar Mike says:

        So up until the late ’60’s we had morality? So assassinating Presidents was moral, having slavery was moral, etc?

        1. avatar JAS says:

          Mike, you really don’t have a clue as to the meaning of morality now do you?

    3. avatar TRUTHY says:

      There have been MORE people killed in the NAME of religion than ANY other reason, get a grip.

      1. avatar JAS says:

        “There have been MORE people killed BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION than ANY other reason, get a grip.”

        There, I fixed it for you :).

      2. avatar Anon in Ct says:

        Uh huh. The 100+ million killed in the 20th century by the avowedly atheistic, socialist regimes of Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe. Angola, Nicaragua and Cuba make the casualties of the previous 2000 years of religious wars look like a drop in the bucket.

        Prior to the 20th century, your statement would have been valid, but once we let the atheists have power, then we saw some serious slaughtering.

        1. avatar APBTFan says:

          For all those regimes atheism was a mechanism of subjugation more than anything. The primary goal of those regimes was homogeneity which means any and all religion was a divisive and destructive factor that needed to be eliminated.

    4. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      If there was a god I could sure agree with you TRP. I normally leave others & their religion alone, you posted though. Back to the real problem, bitch feinstein, like others have said… fight. Randy

  23. avatar Hazzard Bagg says:

    How could such a bill possibly pass the Republican House? The purpose of a bill such as this one is to embarrass the Republican opposition rather than to actually change law. The same was true of the Veterans’ Jobs Bill put before congress this past summer. It’s just more (highly provocative) posturing.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Of course the GOP never did posturing during their time in control.

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      perhaps the House could attach national CCW with no restrictions as an amendment? Just like national carry in federal parks got attached to the credit card bill, make this proposed legislation something hard to swallow. All I pray is that Feinstein, at age 79, doesn’t have longevity genes . . . .

      1. avatar jwm says:

        national constitutional carry. I’d be willing to give up the EBR I don’t own for the right to strap my .38 on and walk down the street.

  24. avatar TRUTHY says:

    I guess there’s one good reason for the R’s running the House. At least there’s one good thing they can do. Ban the ban!

  25. avatar JSIII says:

    Hey DiFi kiss our gun owning asses.

    Signed the founding fathers

  26. avatar Adam says:

    I’m really curious about how your country proposes to enforce this. Consider the example of Canada: when the Chretien government introduced C-68 (licensing, registration), only about half of gun owners complied with the legislation, and the current Conservative government finally pulled the plug on the registration portion after about Cdn$2B was blown on the exercise. Not to mention that ‘assault rifle’ owners who DO comply will demand compensation, entitled to them under the U.S. Constitution. ‘Fiscal cliff’–what’s that?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “[T]he Supreme Court has determined that a state has no duty to compensate a property owner if an entire class of property is destroyed for the public good rather than taken for public use.”

      http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/OhareAndPedreira.htm

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        OK, thanks for that answer Ralph.

  27. avatar Jan says:

    I was just talking to my mom (who hates guns) that if assault weapons were so scary and effective at killing people, then I want as many of them defending myself and mine from somebody using one against me.

  28. avatar Greg Camp says:

    This is unlikely to pass the Senate, since there are enough Republicans to support a filibuster, and it certainly would be DOA in the House. Don’t let your elected representatives in both bodies forget which side you’re on.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The Dems are trying to change the filibuster rules. It takes s supermajority to break a filibuster, but only 51 votes to change the rules.

      I’m sure that the Dems would love to have the Reps pull a filibuster so they could call the Republicans “baby killers” etc. You know, like they called our troops when they came back from ‘Nam.

    2. avatar Lance says:

      I agree said the same thing Not only many progun republicans can kill it Blue Dog Dems would join Harry Reid may not support this. I know Indiana’s new senator is a A rated NRA senator. I dont think its a easy pass for a BIGGER nastier (But not as ugly as Feinstine herself) BIG AWB. And Yes with our support its DOA in the House.

  29. avatar ST says:

    She cannot outlaw grandfathering. Anyone with an evil rifle today would have to be allowed a legal means to continue ownership.Otherwise any charges of illegal possession would be thrown out on 5th amendment grounds. Without a legal means of ownership,anyone with an AR15 would be admitting to a crime by turning in their weapons to police in the event of an outright ban-thus constituting self incrimination.

    I fully expect however that this bill will be akin to the Canadian NFA:you can own an evil gun after the ban but once you die the gun is forfeit to LE.BTW,right now support for gun control is at an all time high.Even pro gun Republican House members can’t ignore calls supporting a renewed AWB.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      There would be a period of time where anyone could turn in their iron with no adverse consequences. The 5A argument won’t work.

      1. avatar ST says:

        The owner of a current firearm has to possess a means of legally disposing of it to avoid self incrimination . An amnesty doesn’t make the cut, because Joe Gunowner is still a criminal, as he became one the moment the law which banned his gun was signed. It just so happens that an “amnesty” means he won’t be arrested and charged for being a crook , at the strategic discretion of the government.

        The 5th Amendment protects someone from the risk of self incrimination, which is impossible to avoid if firearms are retroactively banned and an affected person wishes to become compliant. Just transporting the gun to a furnace is illegal in that event, to say nothing of turning it in to Law Enforcement for destruction. I forget the exact case which establishes this precedent, but the gist of it is that a guy in the 1930s got busted with an unregistered pistol and beat the rap on appeal because there was no way for him to surrender the gun without incriminating himself. With an AWB that bans currently legal guns , the anti’s risk having a renewed AWB struck down based on that 5th Amendment case law.

        What makes more sense is that the new AWB bans the sale and ownership brand new guns made AFTER a certain date, and criminalizes the TRANSFER of weapons made before the ban takes effect. This avoids the 5th Amendment problem because people who currently own evil guns don’t instantly become felons subject to self incrimination if they try to get rid of the gun.

  30. avatar TRP says:

    Sorry to hear about your lack of belief in God, Randy. If you believe in nothing, you’ll fall for anything…. Our country was founded in Judeo- Christian beliefs, and it is still the predominate philosophy the last time I checked….

    1. avatar Greg Camp says:

      Our nation was founded on the principle of individual liberty, not conformity to a particular religion.

    2. avatar Moonshine says:

      Sorry to hear that you equate the lack of belief in a god with the lack of belief in anything.

  31. avatar Seank says:

    as per the picture, she might want to keep her finger staight and off the trigger
    aka “gun control”

  32. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Diane is one thing. But earlier today Mr. Mayor Bloomberg went out of his way to say, maybe as a warning to us…that he has spent 600 MILLION DOLLARS on one of his other pet projects, smoking. That is a small amount for a Billionaire gone wild on social work. He is shortly leaving the mayors mansion. I could easily see him with a pliable POTUS and Senate, and a wiggly House, spending a BILLION dollars on gun control. That is quite a lot of money. The NRA has nothing near that to spend. This is going to be a couple of real tough months.

  33. avatar IdahoMan says:

    The reanimated-corpse is drilling for her weekly AWB? What a shock.

  34. avatar Sammy says:

    Something is going to pass. The questions are what and how soon.

    1. avatar IdahoMan says:

      ATTITUDE CHECK.

  35. avatar Darkstar says:

    She’s been trotting a bill like this out forever. I’m wondering if it will even get out of the Senate. I’m no fan of Harry Reid at all, but he’s a pretty staunch 2A guy. There are a few other dems that are pretty pro 2A as well. I can’t imagine Harry wants to piss of his constituents by going for something like this but who knows? I have little faith in any politician these days.

  36. avatar Tom jones says:

    If rifles are banned before I can purchase one, they should ban fists because I am going to punch her in the cünt.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Bwahahaha. I don’t say this very often because it’s an overused cliche, and often not true, but, it’s a good thing my keyboard is not easily damaged by moisture.

  37. avatar Slappy says:

    I’m curious to see which “900 specific weapons” difi’s bill exempts. Is she talking Mini 14 or flint locks and wrist rockets??

  38. avatar beanfield says:

    Where’s Reid on this proposed bill? If he isn’t willing to bring it to a vote in the Senate, it’s a non-starter. He was adamant about no new gun legislation in the previous Congress.

  39. avatar OLD&Bald says:

    The Sen puts on an Al Capone type coat, her finger on the trigger and then wants gun control? First she should get her head out of her ass..

  40. avatar Peter says:

    I think that some people are ignoring the elephant in the room.
    After the ’94 AWB passed the antis proudly proclaimed “here comes the rest of the camel”, the AWB was just the first of a laundry list of anti gun legislation that they hoped to pass.
    This is not about “assault weapons” it is about ALL firearms, then knives and so on until they get their dream of a British style America, where not only weapons are verboten for the little people, but any form of self defense.

  41. avatar JAS says:

    Why this law will never work:

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet

    From where I quote:

    “Extensive measures are taken to ensure the security and integrity of the system information and agency use. The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. ”

    And as for states, with Florida as an example:

    “Confidentiality

    Background check records collected by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement must be destroyed within 48 hours of either approval or non-approval of a firearms sale. Likewise, all approval and non-approval numbers provided by law enforcement must be destroyed within 48 hours of issuance. Firearms sellers are prohibited from sharing the content and outcome of requests for firearm sale approval.”

    Enforcement is impossible…. Even if the the records were somehow kept they would be inadmissible in a court of law because they would have been obtained illegally.

  42. avatar Badger 8-3 says:

    Following the terrorist attacks on 11SEP2001, I am unaware of anyone calling for so called “feel good” legislation banning airplanes. Rather, the blame was placed squarely where it belonged; on the shoulders of those who committed the act, and not upon the innanimate objects used. Granted, in the wake of the attack, legislation was passed that banned the in-flight carrying of devices identical and similar to those used to gain control of the aircraft. Yet, to date, there have been a few instances of other attempted aircraft hijackings: the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber both come to mind. In both of those instances, neither the (then) current restrictions nor the airport security prevented the terrorists from boarding their flights. Instead, it was an educated and alert citizenry who prevented those two individuals from committing their planned acts of mass murder.

    This, I believe, begs a question: Why should the Connecticut school shooting be treated any differently? Bear with me for a minute…

    After the 11SEP2001 terrorist attacks, “feel good” legislation was passed, namely the PATRIOT ACT. While this document did make the average citizen “feel” safer from terrorism inside the United States, it also managed to painfully erode many of our Civil Rights via implementation of warrantless wiretaps and indefinite detainment of “suspects” (innocent until proven guilty?), among other infringements. Why should we settle for further infringements upon our rights that will most likely not make any impact towards preventing future instances of mass murder? When did American exceptionalism become replaced with placating the average?

    What is needed in the event of such senseless killing like 11SEP2001 and the Connecticut school shooting is not more senseless action in the form of laws but a rational and educated approach to combating the source and not the tool.

    The conclusion to be drawn from attempted attacks such as the shoe bomber and underwear bomber is not that more stringent security was needed. No, it should have been that individuals intent upon attacks will improvise and adapt to the environment they have chosen. Thus, the idea of increased security at schools is flawed in both cost and conclusion. Once another criminal adapts to the security measures, what is the end game? TSA-style scanners and pat downs of all visitors, adult and child alike, to any place of education? I certainly hope not.

    A second conclusion can be drawn from not only the failed bombing attempts but also from the Oregon mall shooting. New evidence in the latter case is strongly suggesting that the shooter there was prevented from continuing his rampage by the presence of an educated, alert, and armed citizen. In these instances, it has been America’s true first line of defense, her educated and alert citizens, who have stopped the threat.

    Educated and alert citizenry starts with the children. And meaningful action needs to be taken in that department. Children need to be educated that bullying (for example) is wrong. That education needs to be effective. Not annual or semi-annual school-wide seminars taught in an auditorium with the aid of cheesy videos. In a country that spawned some great thinkers and explorers I find it hard to believe that a better method for teaching the negativity of such a common thing has not been implemented. Conversely, children need to be taught that the correct response to bullying (again, example) is neither running to the nearest authority figure (reinforcing the idea that personal safety is someone elses responsibility) nor is it returning to the place of the bullying with a weapon and killing those involved and those who “just stood by.”

    Lastly, I would like to suggest that in the case of school shootings, mall shootings, movie theater shootings, and the like, we as a nation stop sensationalizing the event. I find it disgusting that in the case of the Columbine shooting, most can name one if not both of the shooters. How many can name one of the victims? It is a widely accepted that many such shooters attempt to offset the feeling of “unjust annonymity” in their normal life with universal infamy in their final hour…a motive best accomplished by a high body count or high profile target. If we cease sensationalizing them we remove the motive. If we remove the motive, we remove the crime.

    What say you?

    v/r
    Badger 8-3

  43. avatar MotoJB says:

    Pathetic…

    Why the hell don’t these anti’s or people in general look at the root causes behind these murderers…and realize they can’t legislate out every way to commit mass murder or can’t legislate out crazies?

    You can’t take away from all, for a small minority of murdering scumbags. Especially when they will simply resort to new means. You can’t eradicate risk in a free country!!!

    How about a more likely issue/cause for these nitwhits to get behind? What about the myth of mental problems being solved or treated by psychotropic drugs??? What about all of the extremely prevalent psychotropic drugs that the pharmaceuticals and psychiatrists are stuffing down the throats of millions of Americans???

    The bottom line is 50% of those who commit suicide in this country are on psychotropic drugs…they are also blamed/credited by some sources with killing 2.5 times more people than are killed by homicide each year.

    The myth of the chemical imbalance (and all of the medical conditions that were made up to treat), was made to SELL DRUGS. Drugs that are poisonous and far more impactful that most realize. Can these drugs be partially behind some of these modern day mass murderers??

    A very interesting video – that points to stuff way more sickening and worth looking at than what these anti-gun morons are focusing on.

    Was this crazy kid on psychotropic drugs? Just throwing it out there. I’d sure like to know if by tracking all of the murder/suicides, mass murderers, etc, how many were on these sorts of drugs.?? Not meaningless banter…it’s well worth pointing out and questioning, long before these idiots should be trying to come after our guns!

    Ahh, but drug companies are more powerful financially and politically than the gun lobby.

  44. avatar Aharon says:

    When I first saw the picture I thought it was a poster ad for a new Chicago gansta movie.

  45. avatar ScottyV says:

    She has her booger hook on the bang bang switch and terrible muzzle control, scary woman to tell the truth, and I did not vote for her…

  46. avatar pat says:

    Is that picture of her real? What a monster. To all the democrats on this forum……how in the name of sweet Jesus can you belong to such a party?
    “Bring back Patriotism and God to the classroom”.
    Or TRY to ban billions of inexpensive metal boxes with springs in them.
    These are your two choices regarding mass shootings.

  47. avatar Jim says:

    I suppose if she lived in China she’d be calling for a knife ban about now….

  48. avatar Derek says:

    An AWB will stop gun crime just like Prohibition and the War On Drugs stopped alcohol and marijuana consumption.

  49. avatar Mike says:

    Can someone please inform Senator Feinstein to read the handgun study guide provided by the California Department of Justice.

    She might just learn a thing or 2 about gun safety.. like uhmm.. FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER! 🙂

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email