Democrats’ New ‘Assault Weapons’ Bill Would Ban the GLOCK 17, More Semi-Auto Pistols

The Democrats' assault weapons ban would also ban the GLOCK 17

The text of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault rifle ban bill is now available on her website and, contra Nick’s expectations, it isn’t simply a copy-and-paste re-run of the failed Clinton era assault rifle ban language. It’s worse. Much worse.

How bad is it? In the first four pages, it bans the popular GLOCK 17 9mm pistol, a gun that’s commonly used for shooting sports and personal self defense by hundreds of thousands of Americans.

That’s right, one of the most reliable, commonly-used pistols in the US, from one of the most popular firearms manufacturers in the world is now on the chopping block.

But it’s not just the G17. The Beretta 92, the CZ75, and the HK VP70 would also be forbidden. Heck, even the Luger P08 would be out.

Why? Because among the many things the bill prohibits — from the “CZ Scorpion Pistol” [sic], which it somehow defines as an “AK” to the jihad it wages against barrel shrouds that keep people from injuring themselves — the senior Senator from California wants to ban any “semiautomatic versions of an automatic firearm.” (See page 4 of the bill.)

That means that if a manufacturer ever made a fully-automatic version of a semi-automatic pistol (i.e. the GLOCK 18, a select fire version of the G17), the semi-auto gun would be verboten. Feinstein’s bill, if passed, would classify these guns as a “semiautomatic assault weapons” and, therefore, outlaw them.

Let’s be clear here: this isn’t a serious bill. This isn’t intended to generate a conversation leading to an acceptable compromise. This is pure red meat for the anti-gun base, written by a legislative staff who view the Bill of Rights with utter contempt. And it laughs in the face of Supreme Court precedent concerning commonly-used firearms.

To the civilian disarmament advocates who read this blog (and you know who you are): if you ever wonder why we fight you on every single issue, in every forum, on every two-bit propaganda show…if you wonder why rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 have proliferated in civilian hands to an amazing degree in the past ten years…if you want to know why we burst into raucous laughter every time one of your acolytes in the legacy media parrots the falsehood, “no one’s coming for your guns,” this is why.

The bad faith, ignorance, and contempt for the Bill of Rights enshrined in Senator Feinstein’s latest 123-page abomination of a bill is why.

comments

  1. avatar fiundagner says:

    I do so miss failure to fire. I really wish He would bring it back.

    on a side note are you sure this isn’t a serious bill? It might not look like one to you and I, but I’m sure they would love to pass it as written
    Key provisions

    Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
    Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
    Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.
    Exemptions to bill

    The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.
    The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.
    Other provisions:

    Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.
    Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.
    Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
    Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      I getcha.

      So, by that you mean, the Bill is worthy of people hunting them and theirs to extinction?

      Interesting. Let me think it over.

      1. avatar joetast says:

        When your done thinking………I will need a ride.

    2. avatar Shotgun Sam says:

      Isn’t there a full auto version of the 10/22 the Israel Army was using?

      1. avatar Hank says:

        Yes there was.

    3. avatar Corey Yilmaz says:

      i only have 2200 guns to choose from?
      They are infringing on my right!!

      1. avatar fiundagner says:

        Pick the 2200 words you want to use for the rest of your life. And the 2200 words that you want your children to be able to use for the rest of their lives and your grandchildren and so on and so forth. Those are the only 2200 words you ever get to use again. If you use any of the other words you get to go to jail and lose all of your rights. If you change any of those 2200 words for example by making them plural you get to go to jail for the rest of your life. the government still gets to use all of the words they want, and they can in the future further restrict that list of 2200 words as much as they want. But it’s not an infringement on your rights?

        1. avatar Patrick A says:

          That sir was an outstanding retort. I will be stealing that analogy for my own use on those around me who say “but you can still have a deer rifle if you want”. I have always come back at the argument they use “the founders never imagined modern firearms when the wrote the 2nd” with “the founders never imagined radio, TV, internet, megaphones, etc, etc when they wroth the 1st.”

    4. avatar David says:

      I saw a fully automatic 1911 once.

  2. avatar MintMar says:

    Nice. You got your own US version of the European Commision gungrabbers!

    Now imagine they find the “Colt Automatic” label on the 1903 Pocket Hammerless…

  3. avatar Joe R. says:

    Ban the evil (D), indict Obama, Hillary, Podesta, Comey, Mueller, on the Uranium 1, and the “Pee Pee Dossier”.

    They all need to do permanent hard time in KS.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      Guantanamo Bay.

      1. avatar Ironhead says:

        You guy are thinking too small…… got round them up…. and their children….. and grandchildren.
        Hold the kids and grandkids until the trial is over… once found guilty they will be given a choice. Death, or you will be dropped off on a deserted island with nothing except your extended families. . And i mean nothing. No food, no water. The will have to robinson crusoe it. Then they can have the gun free utopia.
        Until we decide to us the island to test a new hydrogen bomb or something.

        1. avatar RockyMountain9 says:

          Jesus, man. You are messed up. Can we get a moderator?

        2. avatar Michael says:

          Is the Bikini Atoll available for the relocation of these anti-gun folks..??? It’s far enough away, clear of any interlopers, and was irradiated of any and all living things during the atomic tests of the 1940-50’s. They could have their ideal perfect community there…!!!

        3. avatar Robby says:

          Instead of the Marshall Islands let’s send them to Antarctica , bare foot.
          After all the Marshallese have done for us since WWII, they deserve better than us sending them these imbeciles too.

        4. avatar Recce1 says:

          Ironhead, it’s too bad you have such a hatred of the Constitution and the Scriptures. After all, they oppose corruption of blood punishment. But I understand such a comment coming from a far right demagogue, progressive, or Islamist. You’re certainly no American patriot or Christian.

        5. avatar GunDoc says:

          Michael,

          Bikini Atoll is one of the most beautiful locations on the planet. Zero radiation. Absolutely redolent of fecund tropical life. Have sipped Mai Tais on the beach after scuba diving the scuttled wrecks that were sank to lend “realism” to the Bikini Bomb Movie. Took my own geiger counter to make sure. Not a tick above background.

          Just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Zero radiation. Nukes, (if they are even real, which is unlikely) are pretty weak and useless, and should be mocked and laughed at.

    2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Don’t forget using government agencies to harass conservative groups and spy on the republican campaign.

  4. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    If the Republicans had any balls or cared at all about liberty, they would immediately pass national reciprocity in retaliation for this nonsense even being proposed. But we don’t have to worry about that happening.

    The Democrats clearly want a second American Civil War with millions dead, and no, I’m not kidding. If some of these stupid Republicans don’t wake up, it just might go there.

    1. avatar The Punisher says:

      Well think about it from their perspective. They think themselves “elite”. They see you and I as mere fodder to be used up. They are rich.

      The system of government currently in place is untenable. They know that. People want peace and quiet and civility. They want total and utter control.

      The system of economics currently in place is untenable. You cannot run an economy on debt and debt instruments and create “wealth” out of thin air. Well, and at least expect it to last.

      But they are the beneficiaries of all these untenable systems. They have the power and the wealth.

      So if it were to all burn down what do you think the outcome would be? Lots of people dead, but not them. They will merely fly to another continent or to their private island and wait for the killing to subside.

      Then they will come in like white knights with new names and they will proclaim to be able to rebuild out of the ashes and everyone will fall for it and the whole thing will start again.

      This is not me merely thinking this will happen, it is literally the history of the world.

      Ideas have consequences and until we get past the whole “other men have a right to rule other men” idea then nothing will change only the names and forms…

    2. avatar tiger says:

      Keep In mind it is not a burning issue to all. If your from Montana or Wyoming? It is easy to follow your “Damn the torpedoes” approach. When you get into a flippable Suburban district in PA or NJ & the angry mob is outside your offices outnumber the gun fanatics? You start to think about retiring from DC…..

    3. avatar John Obrien says:

      Gun confiscation is about having whites killed. No one in their right mind would lay down their weapons to a government that funds the cartels and isis. Also, we are run by the banking cartel that murdered people in the soviet union. Prayers and guns to all!!

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Gun confiscation is about having whites killed.”

        It used to be about preserving the elite — who hide behind armed men — from everyone else, and rendering everyone defenseless against the elite.

        Now, the dynamics have changed, and I feel that you are absolutely correct.

  5. avatar fiundagner says:

    https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

    PDF file of the bill. Haven’t even made it past page 5 and I’m already frothing-at-the-mouth. Among other things that bans shotguns with revolving cylinders. but I don’t see where to Define shotgun. now since they make shotgun shells, AKA snake shot, for everything from 22 to 20 that would pretty much take all revolvers out of operation. Or maybe I’m just reading too much into it.

    1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      Be aware that the text of the bill only includes the language it amends or changes — there will be other definitions in the U.S. Code that would apply regardless.

    2. avatar Stereodude says:

      That’s probably a feature, not a bug. Write purposefully ambiguous laws so they can later get creative in the courts to persecute people they don’t like with them.

  6. avatar Hank says:

    Another question to you gun grabbers, if you ever succeed legislatively, just who exactly is going to confiscate everyone’s guns? You? 😂 It sure as hell won’t be the police and military with the way y’all liberals act towards them.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Any national order to confiscate guns, of any kind, would certainly start a serious separation of the men/women from the boys and girls…

      I don’t think it would go very far… and no, the politicians won’t be coming for our guns themselves, by any means. The question remains to be seen if they can hire it done, at any price. I don’t think so… or they would probably have done it long ago.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Call out the “Hessian” hirelings. Plenty of princes today that would hire out/send their draftees to the US. The Chicom PLA could surely (though reluctantly) spare some troops for their comrades in the DNC.

        1. avatar John Obrien says:

          They will probably use illegals to fire on patriots. They will use men of other races to fire on white patriots and confiscate guns when given the order. Millions of blacks and mexicans would love to kill white men.

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Cops would. They are already arresting people for similar violations in New York and elsewhere. I laugh when people say that cops won’t arrest people for violating firearms laws like this. It’s already happening in some states. People are already getting arrested for possession of high-cap magazines and banned rifles, and the guns and magazines are getting confiscated. Even certain ammo like “hollow point” rounds.

        1. avatar Jeh says:

          Thats in liberal states where american values go to die. On a wider scale, Im not sure cops want to end up disemboweled or hanging from trees en masse……..conflicts with their “go home safe tonight” mantra…..

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Maybe now, but how long will the “cops” participate when they start getting shot at? Sure, they will continue as long as people surrender… but that’s not always going to be the case. What happens to “getting home at the end of their shift” mentality then?

          I don’t doubt that confiscations will be attempted in big cities… but even there it won’t be a safe operation, by any means. I do hope they video the attempts to confiscate guns from the Chicago, NYC and Los Angeles gangs… should be a hoot.

        3. avatar joetast says:

          Cops definitely would, it’s their job, gotta keep THAT job. Seat belts Dan, seat belts. Lol

        4. avatar Mike RIPD says:

          Any law-enforcement that is an oath keeper will not confiscate guns. I would say 99% of law enforcement is pro second amendment and will not follow any laws to un-arm civilians. I’m a retired LEO and have had many conversations about government killing the 2nd and there are very few that would enforce confiscation.

          The idiots that try to take guns will shit little round ones when they see the groups of people who would come together to stop them.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m a retired LEO and have had many conversations about government killing the 2nd and there are very few that would enforce confiscation.”

          The number of people who would sacrifice a job, a family, a home (a nice life) for a “principle” is quite small. When there is no threat of loss, answers are facile. Once faced with a real threat of life change, a whole ‘nuther frame of reference enters the picture.

          Who among any of us has not seen someone (or several someone’s) benefit from taking advantage of another person? Who has not seen injustice in the workplace, and refused to step in? Who has seen a person declare to management that if a read line is crossed, that person will resign? Knowing of the situation, how many times did anyone stand next to the principled person and say, “I am willing to sacrifice my own job and future, by resigning also, if you (management) persist in this unjust (illegal?) action !”
          [NOTE: been there and, didn’t do that]

          As for the culture known as law enforcement, the tolerance of “bad cops” is rampant. If “bad cops” are tolerated even though they are dangerous, or commit crimes, why should I imagine “good cops” would not tolerate (and execute) an unconstitutional demand to confiscate private firearms?

        6. avatar Drunder40 says:

          And to add.. there are law abiding citizens getting arrested for following a states law exactly as required and still get arrested and thrown in jail.. Property confiscated…

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Another question to you gun grabbers, if you ever succeed legislatively…”

      Gun grabbers, indeed the entire lib/left/elite statists are provably psychotic. Listening to a popular radio program, the host took time to note that the very people who want to confiscate all the guns also believe Trump is moving toward creating a dictatorship. One that will round-up all the “resistance”, and jail them. The confiscationists want to remove the very weapons they would need in order to thwart a right wing dictatorship. Giving up the weapons you need to prevent a dictatorial takeover is proof positive of a mental disorder.

    3. avatar Jack Howard says:

      “Another question to you gun grabbers, if you ever succeed legislatively, just who exactly is going to confiscate everyone’s guns? You? 😂 It sure as hell won’t be the police and military with the way y’all liberals act towards them”

      It’s been thought out way beyond that. Think of at least one government agency that can step in and freeze or seize your assets until you prove yourself innocent, consider the aggressive push to remove physical currency and eventually end/disallow physical cash transactions, every financial transaction to be done electronically. The “authorities” won’t have to send out confiscation teams 99% of the time and they won’t be overly concerned with the “loyalty” of leos and military.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        We are sorta stuck on the paradigm that “confiscation” can only be accomplished by SWAT teams in the dead of night, kicking in your front door. Theoretically, I can fight those guys, and give up my guns when they are pried from my cold dead hand. I cannot fight bureaucracy in a heroic fashion. Besides, the bureaucrats spend every waking moment figuring out how to take my guns without deploying a fire team to my yard. I can’t keep up with that.

  7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    …if you want to know why we burst into raucous laughter every time one of your acolytes in the legacy media parrots the falsehood, “no one’s coming for your guns,” this is why.

    I don’t know about you, but my response isn’t “raucous laughter.” My response is resolute, cold determination commensurate with their intent.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      I certainly laugh, but it isn’t playful laughter. I take all of the tyrants serious and I’d hope hey pay me the same respect. Libs have no clue how different we are compared to 1994.

    2. avatar Sal Chichon says:

      Concur.

  8. avatar Texheim says:

    Finally Glocks getting the treatment they need.

    1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      My PX4 never gets any love.

      1. avatar Drake Savage says:

        And something is wrong with my CZ75, it has NEVER jumped out of the holster and killed anyone.

      2. avatar ACP_arms says:

        The PX4 is noted in the bill, in what way I don’t know for sure.

        1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

          Well I guess I’m happy and sad then.

  9. avatar Model 31 says:

    I never wanted a Glock brand glock…until today.

    1. avatar BIGDICKWILLIE says:

      First off mother fucker which other brand glock is there for you to purchase other a piece of shit nock off that the wonderful china men done made for the great America

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Deep breath, Bigus Dickus, deep brath and happy thoughts!

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Have you met his wife, Incontinentia Buttocks?

  10. avatar FedUp says:

    How bad is it? In the first four pages, it bans the popular GLOCK 17 9mm pistol, a gun that’s commonly used for shooting sports and personal self defense by hundreds of thousands of Americans.

    So, is it safe to assume there’s a giant carve-out for LE and FineSwine’s bodyguards?

    1. avatar blahpony says:

      Shhh, don’t remind them.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Now there is a position pill that should be attached to every anti gun bill: “all provisions of this act shall apply equally to all law enforcement departments and employees.”

    3. avatar Dave Miller says:

      Yes, there is. See page 17.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Bring it on leftards…over your lifeless corpse’s. Yes I believe the demscum are serious. I live in Illinoisistan😡

  12. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Whelp, I suppose it’s time to buy another couple thousand rounds of 5.56.

    Would someone please pour a bucket of water on that old witch.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      You’d need something far more potent than water to melt and rinse away that 160 pounds of bear scat…!!!

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Democrats’ New ‘Assault Weapons’ Bill Would Ban the GLOCK 17, More Semi-Auto Pistols”

    Here’s an all inclusive thought, ban all democrats…

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      If bans worked it would reduce violence across the board. Dems are viscous and hateful people indeed. Live and let live doesn’t really seem to be part of their skill set.

      1. avatar DaShitLord says:

        Too bad criminals don’t follow the rules and will still find means of committing crimes.

        1. avatar John Obrien says:

          Mexican mafia and other foreign entities will sell black market weapons to criminal gangs and communist revolutionaries.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “Dems are viscous and hateful people indeed.”

        Especially after you run ’em through a blender…

        1. avatar Fafhrd of Lankhmar says:

          You beat me to that, almost word for word.

  14. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Did Feinstein actually read the entire bill…or is another one we have to pass to see what is in it deal?

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      silly wabbit… feinstein can’t read….

  15. avatar Parnell says:

    Since there is a “Grandfather Clause” in this excuse for “public safety” I’ll wager there’s another tsunami of AR/AK buying coming before this thing comes up for consideration. I don’t think it’s got the chance of a fart in a windstorm of passing but I wouldn’t want to bet on it. So, buy all the “high capacity” mags and repair kits you can afford and get your AR/AK as soon as possible.

    1. avatar fiundagner says:

      There is a grandfather clause but that clause also mandate that they cannot be passed or transferred. So upon your death they have to be surrendered to the government and not your children. It also mandates that all grandfathered weapons be kept in a quote-unquote safe storage Style requiring gun safes and gun locks. Again still haven’t made it through the bill so I don’t know if there are inspections complicit in the bill or not to ensure that grandfathered weapons are being stored safely. Also not sure if it has registration In it or not

      1. avatar Drake Savage says:

        Doesn’t the Constitution say that Congress shall not pass “ex post facto” laws. If something is grandfathered in, but it is going to be illegal later, that is “after the fact” Plus, what about private property rights? I can leave my heirs my land, silver coins etc.. but not my gun? This makes no sense at all…. What am I thinking, liberals NEVER make any sense !

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “ex post facto” means something done before the existence of the law is illegal (and a chargeable offense” just because a new law made whatever illegal. as it stands, many laws are made that create a new crime for actions that were not criminal before. however, the new laws cannot “look back” and identify you as a criminal today. an “ex post facto” law would look something like (just making this up) this: “Starting in 2017, making whiskey outside a government authorized facility is a crime. Anyone apprehended making “illegal whiskey” commits a felony. Anyone who ever made, at any time past, what is now illegally produced whiskey is also considered to have committed a felony, even though private whiskey making was not a crime until 2017. The mere suspension of the private production of whiskey due to implementation of this law is not a defense permitted at trial.”

        2. avatar Jimbo says:

          uh’ the GCA of 68′ was ex post facto
          if you had a felony conviction prior to the Act you became a prohibited possessor after it became law

          pure ex post facto

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “pure ex post facto”

          Not quite. Ex Post Facto means what was a legal activity prior to the passage of the law becomes illegal. The “look back” to declare one in violation of the law is the ex post facto. A person who committed an illegal act in the past, committed that illegal act. Declaring anyone who is convicted of a felony (past illegal act) is now a “prohibited person” is looking at the convicted person’s current status, and creating a new category.

          The history of ex post facto was a situation where a monarch decreed a new law, then sent his police or army out to arrest anyone who had legally acted in a manner that was now illegal. An example might be a situation where a monarch declares that anyone who was ever a resident, even though they are not now a resident, in County Nincompoop is now guilty of the crime of tax evasion, subject to arrest and trial.

          More to the point, ex post facto is the reverse of “grandfathered”. We are all aware that some states make something about guns illegal. From that point on, anyone in violation of the law is subject to arrest. However, the law states that people who, prior to the law, acted in a manner that is now illegal is “grandfathered”. In specific, firearm magazine capacity of more than ten rounds is illegal, after today. Anyone who has magazines with more than the limit may keep the magazines, but they cannot be traded, sold, gifted, transferred or inherited. To proclaim that “henceforth, any person within the boundaries of this state, who possesses, after June 01, 2018, for whatever reason, a magazine of greater than ten round capacity commits a felony”, is not “post facto”. To proclaim that “anyone who ever possessed, at any time, for any purpose, a magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds capacity commits a felony” is ex post facto.

  16. avatar DoomGuy says:

    And it’s in the senate judiciary which is run by that worthless traitor Grassley and the co-chair is DiFi odd are that this will end up passing the senate.

    We’re screwed.

    1. avatar Dave Miller says:

      It still must pass in the House, and then be signed by the President. But there will be no sunset provision in this bill.

  17. avatar Noishkel says:

    Well you know this is actually kind of good. As usually Feinstein has bitten off way more than she can chew gum (she is the oldest member of the Senate after all). Which, while scary, her over reach almost always makes the bill a non-starter.

    That said, much like North Korea, you can’t just relying on the incompetence of our enemies to keep you safe.

  18. avatar BDub says:

    Grist for the secessionist mill.

  19. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    I like how they are so kind to gun owners to exempt a bunch of single shot, small caliber, copies of antique guns made by companies long out of business.

    The title of the bill also pisses me off. What if a Republican proposed a bill that was titled “An Act to ensure the 1st or 5th amendment is not unlimited”.

    1. avatar Travis Brock says:

      I agree with you my friend. The 2nd is the only one that is limited.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The 4th and 5th Amendments have been gutted due to the War on (some) Drugs and “officer safety”. Terry v. Ohio should be overturned as violating the 4th Amendment.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      The 5th has already been limited. The situations in which you may remain silent have been whittled down. Now you have to say “I am exercising my right to remain silent”, because if you just remain silent that can be used against you.

      The Republicans roll over for anything cops want. And don’t trust them to protect the 2nd either. If Bush the Lesser had been given a new AWB he would have signed it.

  20. avatar Travis Brock says:

    Why doesn’t that bitch go ahead and have her inevitable stroke. Jeez I’m so sick and tire of some son of a bitch telling me what I need and don’t need. Just leave us good people alone.
    PS Why don’t they just go on to North Korea where they feel at home thos commi bastards.

  21. avatar W says:

    The term at question is way too vague. “A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.” Is a M1911 a semiautomatic firearm? There have been fully automatic versions.

    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/03/29/colt-m1911-machine-pistols/

    So, would the M1911 considered the original form? Or, given the existence of fully automatic M1911s, would the normal M1911 be considered a semi auto version of an automatic?

    Vote Democrats out. The root of this idiocy is with them.

  22. avatar LJM says:

    I guess the M1 and M14 variants aren’t ‘scary’ enough to be banned.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The M-14 was fully automatic, and there was a version of the M1 Carbine that was fully automatic as well.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Nah, that was an *M-2* carbine.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, he was talking of a select-fire M1 carbine, not Garand.

  23. avatar P-Dog says:

    While I suspect this kind of bill has zero chance to pass federally, I am worried about what will happen in California.

    Currently as it is, we’re already effed in the arse when it comes to gun rights here. If some bold democratic state assemblyman decides to adopt the language of this bill and update a few things in California, it will get a whole lot worse. As mentioned above, the Glock 17/Beretta 92/other handgun ban is one thing, and an awful one at that for sure.

    Another aspect is if they decide to adopt the new assault weapon language, then ANY rifle with a “barrel shroud” (ie, a handguard) will become an assault weapon. Currently that barrel shroud requirement is not mentioned, and so we are able to still get some funky looking ARs and AKs into the state (but still quite neutered). If Handguards become banned, then kiss nearly all semi-auto rifles good bye. Seriously, the only ones left are old Browning BARs (not the WWII ones either) and Mini-14s with wood stocks. Eff that.

    While I do envision a workaround for the above handguard example (not spoiling that here) , there are just too many other poison pills in the new AW bill. I have a deep sense of foreboding about gun rights for California, MA, NJ, and NY, as these states haven’t ever seen a gun control bill they hate.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      California’s microstamping law that has been in effect since May 2013 has had the effect of limiting the availability of new semi-auto handguns. As older models are replaced, fewer and fewer semis will be available, unless the AG’s determination that the technology to microstamp exists is overturned (cases pending).

      1. avatar Bob in Calif says:

        The last I checked, new firearms added to the list is exactly ZERO! Those that have been removed from the list consists of 36 pages with more falling off every year. Most listed firearms have a removal/recertify date of 1/1/2018.

  24. avatar TweetyRex says:

    Let’s be honest with each other. The Left fully believes that the Right wants a total ban on abortions. The Right fully believes that the Left wants a total ban on guns. They both believe that any “reasonable regulation” is just an incremental step on the “slippery slope” to a total ban. I believe that both of their beliefs are true.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So do I. And I reject both of them as infringements on freedom.

  25. avatar Smitty says:

    Di Fi, why won’t this old B. just go ahead and die already?

    1. avatar Emfourty Gasmask says:

      She needs to go, along with all the other NeoCons like McCain, Romney and Bush, who want nothing more than the DNC to win at this point and are grasping at everything to make it happen, so they can go back to being the token paid resistance.

  26. avatar Matt says:

    Is it just me, or did they forget to define semiautomatic rifle? They define semiautomatic handgun, semiautomatic shotgun, then jump right to semiautomatic assault rifle, and reference a never defined semiautomatic rifle.

  27. avatar Anthony says:

    The Democrats are attacking our second amendment rights to no end. By fighting these communist who don’t believe in “our bill of rights” all the way till we win again. By summoning our greatest Ally the NRA we shall succeed!

  28. avatar Icabod says:

    The gun grabbers need mental cases shooting people. Can’t pass gun control?
    “Senator Chuck Grassley proposed legislation that would have increased funding for the NICS background check system, and would have pressed states to send more records to the FBI on felons and others barred from buying guns. It also revamped language that prohibits some people with mental health problems from buying guns. Grassley’s bill had majority support, 53-47, but wasn’t passed because the Democrats filibustered it.”
    Then, VP Biden said:
    “Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
    What do the democrats get from mass shootings? Feinstien’s bill is a good example. It’s not going to pass. However, she and others of her irk can curry favor with their base. They can collect money. They get publicity. All this for little or no effort.

  29. avatar Michael says:

    Wow, where are these magical rocket launchers that fit under the barrel of an AR. Pretty sure you need to have at least an FFL and paper work on any and all destructive devices as far as the grenade launcher goes. Maybe she would even go so far as to add an addition to the bill such as a provision for a chainsaw bayonet. The type USA Today seams to think exists.

  30. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    Well, Fienstien, since you decided to be hyperbolic I’ll play that game too: We should ban all women, and the pussy beta-males who agree with you from ever holding any public office ever again. I’ll call it the, “Mommy Mentality Ban of 2017.”

    Oh, what’s that you say? It’s a denigreating, and pointless thing to say? Do go on…

    Bitch.

  31. avatar little horn says:

    from the wording, they would have to been made and designed for automatic use first, then it was made into a civilian semi version, that is what they want banned. Unlike the Glock or Luger which were designed as semi’s FIRST, then modifications were made and auto’s were manufactured. so if a pistol was only made in automatic first, THEN it was developed into a semi, that is what they are talking about.

    Thats what i got out of it anyways, not that i agree but it seems thats what there were intending.

    But as we all know, this is just them getting the proverbial “foot in the door”

  32. Retired Marine we will give up our weapons when pigs fly. The first thing any country does before the enslave you is this. Look at Cuba if you don’t believe me.!!!!!

    1. avatar joetast says:

      Not only Cuba, it’s a take over for sure. Not to long ago Trump passed something? That cops can use military equipment, I think? I mite b wrong. . I like to play chess I m seeing the boards getting set up for a kill, ” their ” going hard after my queen

  33. avatar robby says:

    Let’s make everything super duper, extra special, mega illegal, again!!
    All really scary looking, but difficult to use junk “Shotguns with revolving cylinders”, must be banned!!
    Don’t they remember, they reclassified street sweepers and striker 12’s as destructive devices years ago.
    They are so stupid it is a wonderment they remember to breath!!
    Before they are run out of Washington on a rail, I say tar and feather the whole damn lot of them!
    A pox on them one and all!

  34. avatar Quasimofo says:

    I like how my BLR is specifically exempted TWICE in this bill, although wouldn’t it be exempt by default because it’s not semiauto? Meanwhile, the BAR Mk3 may not be clearly exempted at all. Clearly this list was put together by people who know their stuff…

    Also, when you use a forward grip you might as well be giving Satan a rusty trombone, so they must be banned for the sake of the children. No one denies this!…

  35. One gun after another..
    It’s not about guns anymore.
    It’s about the Democratic agenda to rule..
    But first, They must disarm all citizens so we are unable to resist.
    Check your history books..
    Control of every thought, every action..
    Citizens being children ruled by governmental parents..
    Subjects of a Democratic regime..

  36. avatar Adam says:

    Wouldn’t the Heller decision immediately make this illegal? Pretty sure commonly owned handguns, which the G17 is, were explicitly stated to be covered in the individual right to keep arms by SCOTUS.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “commonly owned”

      Is in the eye of the politician. “Common” handguns are revolvers. “Weapons of war” (scary black semi-auto) are not common because the US has not had an internal war since 1865. Bolt action rifles, and maybe double barrel shotguns are “common”, but not those scary black things that look like weapons of war.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “US has not had an internal war since 1865”

        There are several going on just in Chicago, as we speak.

  37. avatar Hank says:

    Feinstein is just doing what Republicans did when they crafted ObamaCare repeal legislation they knew Obama would never sign. She’s playing tough on guns for her dimwit supporters.

  38. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    Technically, nobody is coming for your guns.

    Realistically, they wouldn’t have to. You won’t be allowed to sell them or give them away, even to immediate family. And when you shuffle off this mortal coil, the State will take possession.

    Nope, nobody is coming for your guns.

  39. avatar Ed says:

    “..if you ever wonder why we fight you on every single issue..”
    Where was the fight for bump fire stocks a few weeks ago? I saw and heard a lot of “pro gun” people more than willing to have them banned up to and including the NRA.
    There has been no serious demand for any type of true pro gun legislation and any that show signs of life that RINO p.o.s. Ryan kills it. Fuck this corrupt bullshit system.

  40. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Why would a halfwit introduce a bill that has no chance of even being considered, let alone passed?

    “It’s the economy stupid!”
    “It’s all about the benjamins”
    “If you want to understand why things are the way they are, look at who benefits”

    Fiendstein, Pelosi, Schumer et al are in panic mode. They invested heavily in firearms industry stocks during the Nomobama years and made vast fortunes. The Trump Slump has been a drain on their personal wealth. This proposed legislation is nothing more than an attempt to motivate Americans to buy more artillery and accessories.

    Now that is some good fake news!

  41. avatar Ronda Krasowski says:

    I get what you’re saying. What I don’t understand is why no Republicans seems to be crafting a more acceptable piece of legislation. I and many other gun owners are in favor of common sense reform and would be grateful for reasonable steps toward compromise. Just digging in and opposing this legislation isn’t helping us progress beyond the divide. And doing nothing doesn’t seem acceptable in the face of so much grief across our country.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Ronda, the only “reasonable” legislation would be a repeal of ALL anti-gun “laws” ever written. There is no “progress” in any compromise with those who want to kill you and your children… just death and destruction. People who are grieving these murders need to look hard at themselves and see what they can do PERSONALLY to defend themselves and their neighbors if such becomes necessary. Disarming gun owners does not serve that purpose. And it is impossible to disarm only the criminal murderers, much less predict who they might be in the future.

      All of this is as plain as the nose on your face… only willful ignorance or the desire to control other people would obscure it. The root of ALL evil is the desire to control other people… by legislation or any other means, including weapons of any sort.

      1. avatar Drake Savage says:

        I would maintain that ALL Federal gun control laws (beginning in 1934) are Unconstitutional. Someone please show me where, in the Constitution, that gives them this power. “Those power’s not given to the Federal government, belong to the States and to the People respectively”

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Ronda, what common sense reform are you talking about? Exactly what law do you want to pass that would have stopped Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs, TX?

    3. avatar clst1 says:

      ” I and many other gun owners are in favor of common sense reform and would be grateful for reasonable steps toward compromise.”

      What common sense reform would you suggest? UBC or any other gun law, would not have changed the outcome of the Las Vegas or Texas Church shootings.
      To the liberals the only compromise they would be happy with is complete capitulation by the right.

    4. avatar DoomGuy says:

      Rhonda, you’re either a liar, or a sellout and either way, you’re a fool.

      There is no reasoning with gun grabbers. They’ve told us what they want (which is complete confiscation) and they will spend a century trying to get it. Any one with half a brain can see that this is the start of a very steep and very slippery slope.

      Now, first off, I think you’re simply a gun control activist posing as a “gun owner” because 1. you hit all the buzzwords (i.e. Common sense, reasonable, compromise, reform etc.); 2. you’re pushing this outrageously draconian gun control bill while attempting (and failing) to appear “non-partisan”; 3. you spouted off the tired, old and disproven “most Americans support more gun control” democrat party talking point, and 4. you’ve done the new thing gun grabbers like to do and make it a point to say you’re a gun owner in order to establish “street cred” that you’ll lend to the gun grabbers.

      So pardon me for thinking you’re full of crap right off the bat. Also, if you’re offended by me, I’m very sorry but I’m not very tactful when talking, but I’m being as professional and informative as possible while at the same time being a wary, cynical, and brutally honest individual.

      Second if you are a gun owner, then here’s what you need to do: go to your local police station and take all of your firearms and surrender them to the police. Be done with it and then join the gun control side. If you want to give up your rights that’s your business and nobody is going to stop you.

      Where people like us get pissed off is when squishy people decide that they’re going to speak for the entire gun owning community and bestow it upon themselves to give up our rights for us. And it angers us even more when you try to appear “reasonable” while agreeing with every single one of the gun grabbers demands and not even offering any sort of refutation to their lies, fighting for the second amendment, making counter demands towards the side of freedom (like repealing the NFA, National Reciprocity) and not realize that theirs is an incrementalist strategy and we must not yield an inch.

      Gun owners like you (if you even are one) are toxic to the rest of us because the MSM now gets to portray you as the ones who *really* speak for gun owners and will embolden anti-gun politicians to ram through legislation because now they have political cover.

      As it stands right now, you’re not going to win any favor with the rest of us.

      If you’d like me to use buzzwords to appeal to your emotional sensibilities, then here’s two. The “Gun Culture” are *reasonable* and *tolerant* people who believe passionately about the RKBA.

      We are tolerant because we welcome people from all walks of life to preserve our God-Given Rights and enjoy the freedom for whom many have fought.

      We are reasonable because we use reason and logic to understand that there are those who want to seize total power and control over this country, and they want people disarmed so it makes their agenda easier to implement; and they’ve proven to be persistent and patient and willing to spend generations making small gains until they’ve gotten everything they want and more. Reasonable does not mean siding with them and surrendering in the hopes that it will stave off worse infringements; A reasonable person would realize that that only emboldens them to make worse laws in the future.

      And now I’ll say the “But” statement because many butthead gun grabbers love to start off with, “I believe in the second amendment, but…” in an attempt to appear “reasonable” while unveiling their unreasonably egregious infringements.

      But… in the Gun Culture, there is one unforgivable sin, betrayal. Look at Jim Zumbo, Dick Metcalf, Springfield Armory, and that dude in Arizona who publicized his surrendering his firearms to the police. We don’t care if you don’t want to support the second amendment anymore and wont hold it against you if you don’t; but be an adult about it.

      We are angered by self aggrandizing fools who decide that want fame and political points while the rest of us are left in an even harder position. The only people who you would win any favor with is the MSM and gun control activists, and it will only be temporary. The gun grabbers will throw you by the wayside once they’ve used you and can no longer exploit you for political gain.

      I hope this has helped and I hope that you seriously reconsider your stance. If not, then you go your way and I’ll go mine.

    5. avatar Sam I A, says:

      “And doing nothing doesn’t seem acceptable in the face of so much grief across our country.”

      Every innocent death is a tragedy. Somebody is anguished, regardless of the nature or means of a tragedy. Death is part of life. “Reasonable action” regarding the existence, possession and use of guns would be fine, if “reasonable action” was not code for “All guns are bad. All guns should be kept out of the hands of the public because all guns are bad for all people, all the time. All guns should be kept out of the hands of the public because all guns are bad for people, and people who have guns are bad people; bad people because guns are bad, and people with guns are bad by extension, and bad people should not have guns.
      (“If you want to fly combat missions, you are crazy, and cannot be allowed to fly combat missions. If you do not want to fly combat missions, you are not crazy, therefore you are fit to fly combat missions”).

  42. avatar Troy Arch says:

    They will never take my Glock 17 It’s is in the second amendment. They are a bunch of pencil pushing son of a Bitches!! And you are not Fucking with my pain medicine either! This is the United States of America! And I am a AMERICAN CITIZEN!

  43. avatar joetast says:

    GOD BLESS AMERICA. .. My country I love her so, and I’m watching her slowly die.

  44. avatar Eli2016 says:

    Uh… I’m not white and I don’t attend church on a regular basis. But i own several glocks including a g17. Am I exempt? I do have a ccw.

  45. avatar Patriot says:

    Grandstand:

    verb (used without object), grandstanded, grandstanding.
    3.
    to conduct oneself or perform showily or ostentatiously in an attempt to impress onlookers:
    The senator doesn’t hesitate to grandstand if it makes her point.

  46. avatar Brian Fusilier says:

    I left my guns out all weekend loaded and they didn’t kill anybody maybe they’re broken I should have them looked at

    1. avatar Charlie says:

      They are broken for sure. I’ll be happy to take them off your hands.

  47. avatar ACP_arms says:

    Hell(!!!), In the bill you can’t have a Henry lever gun in 45-70!!

  48. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Based on previous comments on TTAG, Senator Feinstein should have plenty of supporters.

    There are many supporters of bump stock bans and banning guns with bayonet mounts. I’m glad you all have taken your masks off.

  49. avatar RTinIA says:

    Did anyone see that she wants to ban the “FN M2495(sic)”?

  50. avatar T. Gunny says:

    It’s not a ban on the present population…its about preventing our seed from owning a weapon or paying a high fee to transfer down to the next generation. Its about the future generations shes banning from ownership and our way of life, and making slave workers out of the middle and lower classes to coddle the rich. There is only the uber wealthy and then the rest. Color, race, gender won’t matter only wealth someday. They will enslave us all.

    Someday is getting nearer and this is how it happens.

  51. avatar Emac says:

    Wow, that’s dumb because I recently just bought a glock 17

    1. avatar Chris CA says:

      Emac says:
      “Wow, that’s dumb because I recently just bought a glock 17”

      and I’m sure they were targeting you specifically in this bill.
      SMH

  52. avatar Charlie says:

    The Demoncrats are trying to legislate us into an armed revolt to protect the Constitution, the foundation of our country that they took an oath to protect.

  53. avatar Charlie says:

    The Demoncrats are trying to legislate us into an armed revolt to protect the Constitution, the foundation of our country that they took an oath to protect.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      they took an oath to protect.

      They lied.

  54. avatar cisco kid says:

    Gun owners have no one to blame but themselves because they have done nothing to stop the mass murder and the coming bans and restrictions that will start in 2018 and be catastrophic in the 2020 Presidential Elections when the Dem’s will control Congress and the Presidency.

    It was a failure to do anything about the blood bath that has become an American way of life “the new normal of mass shootings and rivers of blood flowing on the streets of your big cities”. Of course the non-gun owning public which comprise roughly 65 per cent of the American people have had enough as they realize no civilized nation can put up with such mayhem and mass murder on a daily basis. Its no different than living in an insane asylum. Today Freeway shootings are the norm with our nations roadways turned into a shooting gallery of nut cases blowing people away for cutting them off or snipers killing people on their way to work just for something fun to do.

    The failure to institute civilized gun control as all other nations in the world have done for decades simply has paved the way for draconian gun bans with a power mad Supreme Court only to willing to ban as many guns as possible. The Court has sanctioned each and every draconian East and West Coast Gun ban in the last 10 years culminating in the latest California confiscation law that over the next two years will have an Australian style melt down of tens of thousands of banned assault rifles and all as a result of the Federal Government not instituting the vetting of all guns and safe storage laws both of which would have cut off tens of thousands of stolen and second hand guns being funneled onto the streets of our big cities resulting in a blood bath not ever seen in any other Nation on earth.

    Yes you can take the Constitution and wipe your ass with it as the Power Mad Supreme Court down through history has ruled not on what the Constitution actually says but “What they say it means” and being a dictatorship appointed for life know they can get away with the most outrageous rulings imaginable. Even a retarded monkey in a zoo would not be fooled by these charlatans.

    Lack of safe storage laws have also resulted in over 10,000 children being maimed or killed by loaded guns lying around irresponsible peoples house. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children

    The real facts are that any criminal that just walked out of prison or any nut case (the latest mass murder) who just walked out of mental institution can simply go to the nearest gun show and buy all the weapons and high capacity magazines he wants no questions asked. This is pure insanity. All other civilized nations have vetted all gun purchases long ago as well as requiring safe storage to prevent theft and accidental child shootings which amount to over 10,000 a year which includes maiming’s and deaths. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children

    True the latest nut case did not go to a gun show but if the Neanderthals in the U.S. Military had done their jobs and fed his record into the data base it would have made no difference as he simply after being denied would have bought an assault rifle out on the street or at the nearest gun show showing the insanity of living in the U.S. of Hey which has become the Nation of Right Wing Fanatics who put unrestricted gun ownership over the lives of the Nations people and even their children of whom over half were the victims in the latest example of mass murder and pure insanity in the U.S.

    Its interesting to note that when the Ignorant Right Wing Hill people scream about mass shootings in other Nations they conveniently ignore the fact that they have way less of them and when they do have them its almost always not private citizens that do the deeds (like in the U.S.) but the people who do them are sponsored by foreign governments that give them money and weapons which are out and out acts of war. Now there is the difference the Fanatics on the Far Right ignore every time and that simply is that Australia stopped mass shootings as long ago as the 1980’s and so did Britain as well. When a nut case shot up a neighborhood with an AK 47 Britain but an end to it and when a Nut case took two pistols and shot up a grade school Britain put an end to it and again that also was way back in the 1980’s.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        More Right Wing bullshit. In Hunt Australia a guy killed his family 4 people not the mass amounts of blowing a way large crowds of people in public in the U.S. and the Hectorville shooting was 3 not even in the class of a mass shooting,

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bullshit.

  55. avatar Nick says:

    Wow. I just read through all of these posts. First off, I’ll add my street creed by saying that I own 3 guns, one of which is a Glock 17 gen 4. One of my guns is a customized 10/22 with an M4 stock and red dot sight. I enjoy shooting my guns at the range and keep at least one 17 round magazine loaded with hollow points “just in case.” Now for the bombshell:

    I’m a liberal. I know, right? I support gay rights, abortion, and many other “liberal things” including new gun regulations. I read this article because I saw the Glock 17 mentioned and I was like, “Oh crap, I don’t want to have to give up my Glock that I love so much. What I read in the comments saddened me, but did not surprise me. This country was founded on tolerance for other people and their ideas, yet we as a nation have become so divided. Let’s not get into a name calling or put down match here, but we as a nation need to be able to come together and have conversations again.

    So here are my opinions, and please feel free to disagree respectfully and offer up your opinions in a respectful way, because I respect you and your opinion.

    1. How many more mass shootings need to occur before we do ANYTHING? A bill like the one being discussed here is overboard in my opinion, but it’s a far left place to start the conversation. If we could compromise, then perhaps we can meet in the middle and start saving lives.

    2. I don’t have an AR-15. The ammo is expensive. I wouldn’t mind an M&P or one of those newer Saints, though. So I get it that AR’s are used for hunting and home protection. But, how many AR-15’s does one need? Certainly it would be exceptable to think that one or two is enough. Your house doesn’t need to double as an armory for a whole platoon of soldiers.

    3. The same goes for handguns. I hear of people in forums saying that they have more than one of the same gun? Why? We have such a variety of awesome guns to try, why have 4 Glock 17’s? Would it really be unreasonable to limit the number of guns you can buy to like 2 or 3 in each caliber?

    4. The government is in debt and always has been. I’m fairly confident that the funding doesn’t exist to pay for whoever you think they’d hire to come and confiscate your guns. If you believe what Republicans say at face value, then you should take a leap of faith and believe it when Democrats say that the aren’t going to take away our guns that we legally purchased and are being responsible gun owners with.

    5. Guns are a huge part of our culture and the 2nd amendment was created so that the good people of this nation could protect ourselves for future generations to come. When the Bill of Rights was created, the world was a much different place. Just as technology evolves, so should our way of thinking and looking at the world. There weren’t mass musket shootings back in colonial times, so there wasn’t a need to have a gun control conversation. There also wasn’t that many people living in this country.

    Fast forward 200 years or so and look at this country and how far we’ve come in terms of technology and innovation. We’ve changed and adapted to the times we’re living in. Can we not seriously sit back and rationality consider that times are becoming different in regards to gun violence? Should we not have discussions about how our way of thinking could and should change, considering our way of life has changed so much?

    Thanks for reading my long post (First post on this site, which I visit all the time because I love the gun reviews). I truly want to open up the lines of communication and if you’re reading my post or replying to my post just to call me names, then you’re just as extreme as a liberal who truly wants to live in a gun free America. I can assure you that I am not one of those liberals.

    We may disagree and we have the right to, but we can also have respect for our fellow men (and women). That’s what makes America the greatest country on earth. In the words of Sootch00 (who is awesome by the way): be strong, be of good courage, God bless America, and long live the republic.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      First, welcome to TTAG.

      I’m a liberal. I know, right? I support gay rights, abortion, and many other “liberal things” including new gun regulations.

      Out of curiosity, what “new gun regulations” do you believe are needed, what needs would they address, and how would those specific regulations address those specific needs?

      How many more mass shootings need to occur before we do ANYTHING?

      Mass shootings are exceedingly rare, and should in no way be the basis for policy-making decisions or actions. Want to do something about firearm deaths? Deal with the 60-90% (depending upon whom is counting) that are gang and/or drug-related.

      If we could compromise, then perhaps we can meet in the middle and start saving lives.

      What (additional) compromises are needed? We’ve been “compromising” our second amendment-protected rights for over a century.

      So I get it that AR’s are used for hunting and home protection. But, how many AR-15’s does one need? Certainly it would be exceptable to think that one or two is enough. Your house doesn’t need to double as an armory for a whole platoon of soldiers.

      What need or public good would limiting the number of AR15s (or other rifles) owned by the law-abiding address? How would such a restriction address that need?

      Would it really be unreasonable to limit the number of guns you can buy to like 2 or 3 in each caliber?

      What need or public good would limiting the number of pistols (or any firearm) owned by the law-abiding address? How would such a restriction address that need?

      The government is in debt and always has been. I’m fairly confident that the funding doesn’t exist to pay for whoever you think they’d hire to come and confiscate your guns.

      Take the recent attempt at banning bump stocks, for example: what purpose does it serve to make such novelties illicit even to own, if such policy is not backed up with an enforcement method?

      If you believe what Republicans say at face value, then you should take a leap of faith and believe it when Democrats say that the aren’t going to take away our guns that we legally purchased and are being responsible gun owners with.

      I’ve seen what Democrats in states such as New York (NY SAFE) and Connecticut (AR15 ban/registration) want to do. I’ve heard what Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi have to say about citizen firearm ownership. I do take them at face value.

      There weren’t mass musket shootings back in colonial times, so there wasn’t a need to have a gun control conversation. There also wasn’t that many people living in this country.

      Again, mass shootings today are still no reason to dictate policy decisions. More people are killed by both hammers and bats, and by bare hands and feet, than are killed by rifles of all kinds, each year. Long-gun firearm deaths account for fewer than 5% of all firearm-related homicides. Anyone who truly believes that the firearm is the problem would be looking at the vast majority of firearm-related homicides committed using not rifles, but handguns.

      Can we not seriously sit back and rationality consider that times are becoming different in regards to gun violence? Should we not have discussions about how our way of thinking could and should change, considering our way of life has changed so much?

      There are some 400 million firearms in the US, in the hands of some 100 million law-abiding firearm owners. If law-abiding people owning firearms were an inherent problem, there would be nobody left alive.

      The firearm is merely a tool (among myriad tools), used by evil people who intend to perform evil acts. The firearm isn’t the problem. The problems are cultural, social, and political.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        Hi there. Thank you for the welcome. You’ve posed very good questions and I admit that I don’t have the answers. That’s why I recommend starting some dialogue. The more people from each side that can join the discussion, the more intelligent and thought out solutions can arise.

        For new regulations (and forgive me that I am not very familiar with the regulations as some may already exist), I think background checks are extremely important. People with mental illness, convicted felons, and people with a history of domestic violence shouldn’t have access to obtaining guns legally. Can guns be obtained illegally? Absolutely. Can someone kill a bunch of people with a hammer? Of course. We’re not going to outlaw hammers. There’s also this new string of vehicular murders, and we’re not going to outlaw cars. Bad people are going to do bad things, regardless of the legality and regulations. The best we could do as a modern society is to try to make it more difficult for those bad people.

        Gang and drug related shootings are a different topic altogether, and for a different thread. I agree that there are more people killed with those crimes than with mass shootings. I think a difference is that we (unfortunately) have come to terms with the fact that we’re limited with what can be done to keep guns out of those people’s hands.

        Limiting the number of AR-15’s for citizens could maybe have limited the number of them that the vegas shooter had. I understand that the situation was a one off and again, bad people will still find ways to do bad things.

        Banning future sale of things like bump stocks won’t do anything for all of the ones out on the street, but it could stop adding more to circulation.

        When I consider the Democrat vs Republican argument on just about anything, I will typically agree with the side that doesn’t limit individual people’s rights. As a liberal, I am flabbergasted by liberals who are against the death penalty, but again, a different thread. For states with stricter gun laws, I am not really sure what good they are currently doing. I grew up in Chicago, and in IL, they’re pretty strict about things like 3 day waiting periods for handguns. That’s doing so much good though, as the murders in Chicago are worse than NY and LA combined. Also, limiting the magazine size is pointless. In California, I couldn’t have a 17 round Glock magazine, so they make 10 rounders. So bad people can just buy like 10 ten round magazines. Do the lawmakers really think the bad guys are going to not commit a gun crime because changing a magazine is “so inconvenient.” Do they think that while the bad guy is changing mags, some other civilian is going to pull out their 10 round gun and save the day? Ha, doubtful. So I don’t understand that argument and think it’s dumb. Luckily, I now live in Oregon, where gun laws are more relaxed and we haven’t had a whole lot of gun related issues that I’m aware of.

        I 100% agree with you that guns themselves are not the problem and they are just tools. The saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is inherently true.

        The cultural, social, and political differences in opinion IS the problem. I think the liberals who want to take guns away don’t understand gun enthusiasts’ opinions or needs for such tools because all the liberals think are that if we take the guns away, the problem will go away. We can’t dismiss our problems by removing one aspect and thinking that everything will magically be ok. That’s why I appreciate this forum and I applaud you, Chip, for having this conversation of different opinions and viewpoints. You posted some very good points. There are good people with different sides of the argument that, at the end of the day, both want to do what they feel is right. The first step is deciding to have respect for each other and each other’s opinions. Stereotypes need to be eliminated. Not every Republican is a gun toting redneck and not ever liberal in an uninformed sissy. We’re all in this together and we all (should) love our country.

        Thank you for your comment Chip and have a great weekend!

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Hi there. Thank you for the welcome. You’ve posed very good questions and I admit that I don’t have the answers. That’s why I recommend starting some dialogue. The more people from each side that can join the discussion, the more intelligent and thought out solutions can arise.

          I think you’ll find that the TTAG commentariat, while pulling no punches, will engage in good-faith discourse with those who hold differing viewpoints and beliefs – provided that those who hold such beliefs demonstrate a sincere willingness to dialogue.

          For new regulations (and forgive me that I am not very familiar with the regulations as some may already exist), I think background checks are extremely important. People with mental illness, convicted felons, and people with a history of domestic violence shouldn’t have access to obtaining guns legally.

          But, background checks have been in place for over 20 years, and have not moved the needle, at all, in the manner in which prohibited persons obtain firearms, or in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons. Firstly, the vast majority of prohibited persons, before and after FFL BGCs, obtained their firearms through theft (40%) and family/acquaintances (40%). Some 10-15% obtained them through an FFL (some felons may not have (yet) been prohibited when purchasing a firearm, and far too often, prohibited persons aren’t properly flagged in the database, and are wrongly given a “proceed” from the BGC).

          At the same time, background checks are an inherent infringement on the law-abiding, by a) subverting due process, b) adding a state-imposed financial cost on the transfer of a firearm, and c) inhibiting the acquisition of firearms through the non-trivial number of false-positive denials.

          Worse, the legitimate denials are prosecuted at an absolutely abysmal rate.

          So, FFL BGCs have really done nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons.

          Private-transfer BGCs would be even more ineffective because a) very few prohibited persons currently get firearms through third-party private transfers, b) black market firearm transfers simply will not comply with a private-transfer BGC law, and c) there are some 400 million firearms in current ownership/circulation, with no chain of custody.

          Gang and drug related shootings are a different topic altogether, and for a different thread. I agree that there are more people killed with those crimes than with mass shootings.

          Sure, it’s a different topic, but if the goal is to reduce “gun violence”, you have to consider the primary, contributing factor. Trying to deal with mass shootings, while ignoring gang/drug-related violence, is a fool’s errand with respect to reducing “gun violence.”

          I think a difference is that we (unfortunately) have come to terms with the fact that we’re limited with what can be done to keep guns out of those people’s hands.

          That is true, regardless of what type of violent criminal we’re discussing. The only real solution is to separate the violent criminal from free society.

          Limiting the number of AR-15’s for citizens could maybe have limited the number of them that the vegas shooter had. I understand that the situation was a one off and again, bad people will still find ways to do bad things.

          The Las Vegas shooter would have been far more effectively lethal if he had simply used a single, scoped rifle, without a bump stock. The overall injury total might have been fewer, but the overall death total could have been in the hundreds.

          He also could easily have gotten as many rifles as he wanted, even if there had been a law in place, limiting the number he could lawfully own. He was determined to carry out his act, and planned it deliberately. He also had far more financial means than needed to do whatever he wanted to do.

          Banning future sale of things like bump stocks won’t do anything for all of the ones out on the street, but it could stop adding more to circulation.

          Bump stocks are really nothing more than a novelty. In reality, they reduce accuracy and effectiveness. They increase the rounds discharged per minute, but at the cost of all control of the firearm.

          But the bigger issue is, there is really no practical way to craft legislation to ban bump stocks that isn’t over-broad, simultaneously banning a whole host of innocuous things (after-market triggers, rubber bands, etc.).

          The cultural, social, and political differences in opinion IS the problem.

          We certainly agree here: both in terms of the root of the violence that we see in our country, and in how the law-abiding determine to deal with our circumstances. (And that truly is a topic worthy of its own thread.)

          I do hope you continue to engage here. Bring ideas. Help us think and discuss through them. Expect to be challenged, but likewise don’t be afraid to challenge. It is a refreshing change.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Limiting the number of AR-15’s for citizens could maybe have limited the number of them that the vegas shooter had. I understand that the situation was a one off and again, bad people will still find ways to do bad things.”

          Hi, Nick. Just thought I’d make a couple of comments on this one passage.

          First, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do any such thing. And second, if the fed government can assume the authority to limit the number of AR-15s a person can own to,say, 5, and make it stick, it would take a very short time for that number to be reduced to zero.

          Also, just from curiosity, are you aware that the US already has 22,000 gun control laws in effect? Seems to me like a lot of liberals operate under the assumption there are none, we must hurry and get one passed. Common sense says there is no reason to pass another gun control law unless it will accomplish something positive. Yet all we hear about is we gotta do something. Suggestion; Why not make murder illegal? If passing a law accomplishes something, why not outlaw narcotics while you’re at it? Just because you are a liberal does not mean you are forbidden to think.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      “please feel free to disagree respectfully”

      Very well then. Respectfully, GFY.

      Forgive me. My tolerance for low-IQs is at an all-time low.

    3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      I’d be glad to have a serious conversation on keeping people alive in the US. You, and Senator Feinstein, are free to start doing that any time. I’ll be waiting.

      Not to be misunderstood in my following comments, I will be explicit: I don’t believe Senator Feinstein’s proposal, or your missive here are good faith attempts to have a conversation, find a compromise, or even propose a solution. What you posted is so demonstrably wrong, ineffective, and a non-starter, what could it possibly be but posturing, a false-flag operation, red meat, and a self-elevation demonstrating who is awesome and who sucks.

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        1. How many more mass shootings need to occur before we do ANYTHING?

        Plenty of people do plenty to keep people alive, including when mass shootings happen. Why is *legislation*, *prohibiting something*, for *people who haven’t done anything wrong*, by *forcing them to do something they don’t want to*, the only thing on the menu?

        This relentless Ban All The Things is a distraction at best, actively keeping us from doing what we can, that would help. If this is about starting a conversation, name three things other than a federal ban on citizens’ firearms that might help.

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        If we could compromise, then perhaps we can meet in the middle and start saving lives.

        Excellent. How many more people would have lived had an armed response showed up at Pulse Nightclub sooner? Stopping Las Vegas-guy? Contrarywise, how many more would have died if NRA-trainer with his evil assault AR hadn’t stopped the Church shooter when he did?

        “Compromise?” The game of staking out an insane position, then demanding those other people meet you half way toward crazy. For bonus points, call them “extremists” if they don’t. So a sloppily written ban, that will sweep up half of the most popular and commonly owned arms in the US is … a serious proposal, or a starting fake position for this kind of nonsense pseudo-compromise?

        Here’s my compromise. Federal legislation allowing the citizen ownership of anything and everything up to bazookas and tanks; mandatory firearms training and storage of military-compatible arms in the home I’m willing to negotiate away in the interest of “compromise.”

        I actually have a rationale: armed responses stop BGs in the process of doing mass shootings.

        Hey, if it helps, it’s on the table right? Or is this a Ban All The Things conversation masquerading as solving a problem, and “compromise?”

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Federal legislation allowing the citizen ownership of anything and everything up to bazookas and tanks;…”

          Boo, hiss, ppfffffftttt.

          2A is NOT about self-defense. It is about the people being able to defend against invasion, and countering any attempt by the central government to round up and eliminate their opposition. The very idea that government is permitted to dictate the tools of the people to discipline a tyrant is reprehensible. Logic dictates that if government can prohibit a single weapon held by the people, then the determination of which weapons the government will allow provides for government to restrict the people to .36 caliber Walker revolvers.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          I would argue, and I think successfully, that self-defense is part of 2A.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, self-defense is part of 2A, but it is not the sum and total of it (self-defense being inherent in repelling invasion).

          My point is that restricting our thinking to small arms is forfeiting the argument. The founders were not overly concerned about personal self-defense, but defense of the people against raiders and rogue government. When we tie our own hands as to what weapons are “reasonable” (only small arms), we lose the full force of the people, the militia. Government (and its apologists and sycophants) should have the full meaning of 2A shoved up their noses, daily). “Reasonable” weapons are those permitted by the powerful, not those that can keep a tyrant in check.

        4. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          I fully agree that small arms is not what we are restricted to.

      3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        “What I read in the comments saddened me, but did not surprise me. This country was founded on tolerance for other people and their ideas, yet we as a nation have become so divided. Let’s not get into a name calling or put down match here, but we as a nation need to be able to come together and have conversations again.”

        Really it should have surprised but not saddened you. Pro-gun pushing back in kind isn’t at all common. Occasionally, pro-gun folks will get down to calling statists, well, that, but it isn’t that common. Saddened? That’s been the tone and tenor of every anti-gun initiative for the last 30 years. If it makes you sad, maybe stop doing it. Or maybe just sad that somebody else has read their Alinsky, and is finally willing to use it, having tried everything else.

        So, you wanna have a conversation based on ideals, don’t be surprised when the irredeemable, clinging, deplorables start assuming base motives when your out of the gate proposal is to ban something for those people, repeating a ritual that did no good when it was tried.

        Or, if you respect these people’s knowledge and opinions, start by asking: “I assume we’d all like fewer people to die. What happened bugs me. So, what do you think we can do about this?”

        Then you listen. Or maybe look at what they’ve been proposing all along.

        Wrapping ad homenim in soft language doesn’t make it better; it’s worse. So, “What I read in the comments saddened me, but did not surprise me.” These people make you sad? Which people? People who are unAmerican, without that American tolerance; without the decency to come together. Indeed these people suck.

        After you got your shots in “[l]et’s not get into a name calling or put down match” because “we as a nation need to be able to come together” Around your proposal, one presumes.

        I’d much prefer you insult me to my face. At least, when she thought nobody she was talking about would hear it, Candidate Clinton was willing to come straight out and call people deplorable and irredeemable. Candidate Obama didn’t seem to be concerned who was listening when he called people who disagreed with him on guns bitter clingers. (“bitterly clinging …” then he went on to outline the twisted motives and warped thinking he presumed upon these people. In the interest of coming together with respect, one presumes.)

        You want to legislate something that didn’t work, taking something away from people it bothers. You want to have a conversation, what’s your proposal, what evidence that it’ll work, and at what cost, to whom?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Nicely done.

      4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        2. … But, how many AR-15’s does one need? Certainly it would be exceptable to think that one or two is enough. Your house doesn’t need to double as an armory for a whole platoon of soldiers.

        What good would it do? How do you know that? At what cost? To whom?

        I can translate the above “proposal.” “People who like guns don’t count, so we’ll just limit what they can do, and who cares. BTW, how about y’all gunny-folks get on board with this right now?” Of course nobody else needs more guns than your small collection, so it’s no loss. I thought diversity was good, BTW. Says so right in the preamble to that post.

        On point, Where’s your evidence? If you have a case that that proposal will do some good, make it.

        If the game is “Proposing impositions on other people, without any evidence that it will help, besides we don’t care what burden we put on them.” I can play too. How about a sunset clause on trying any legislation again? No “assault weapons bans” for you for, I don’t know, how about a generation after one was tried and failed?

        (This is just another rhetorical technique. “Hey, let’s have a discussion. I’ll start by putting you on your back foot, defending an extreme-sounding aspect of your position. I’ll declare what successful defense is, and you have to convince me. Go.” That’s a cheat, four ways. If you have a position declare it. If you have a case make it. The palmed cared is what counts as success, in this case you “need” all those guns. And who decides; you do.)

        Neither an honest, nor a respectful start for a discussion.

      5. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        4. The government is in debt and always has been. I’m fairly confident that the funding doesn’t exist to pay for whoever you think they’d hire to come and confiscate your guns.

        So, having “laws” we don’t enforce is OK? Funding won’t expand to cover what they set out to do? Partial enforcement, just another charge or reason for charging when someone’s in their sights isn’t a thing?

        If you believe what Republicans say at face value, then you should take a leap of faith and believe it when Democrats say that the aren’t going to take away our guns that we legally purchased and are being responsible gun owners with.

        These are our choices? Believe the R’s or the D’s, or both all the time or something?

        How’s this, I don’t believe a word they say any of them. Also, what I believe or not, or thing might be a workable policy or not, doesn’t go with who says it? Indeed, the second worst thing for our experiment in self-government is people choosing up teams and agreeing with everything “their” team says and does. The worst is those teams becoming sources of identity and self-worth for people.

      6. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        5. Guns are a huge part of our culture and the 2nd amendment was created (& etc. – ed]… Just as technology evolves, so should our way of thinking and looking at the world. There weren’t mass musket shootings back in colonial times, so there wasn’t a need to have a gun control conversation. There also wasn’t that many people living in this country.

        One indicator of crappy, faux-discussion is conflating several things together into one “point.” It’s a rhetorical cheat. So, “guns are part of our culture” … Ban All The Things, because Mass Shootings.

        The 2nd amendment says “arms”. Or as Pavlich said to Piers Morgan asking “Where does it say AR-15?”, “Right next to where it says ‘musket.'” The point is *parity*.

        If times have a-changed so much that this is worth letting go, let’s have that conversation. One way to have that is to propose an amendment, not try to push that particular folding-stocked camel through the 2A. The point of the amendment process is that people have to “come together”, “have a conversation”, and find “consensus.” Vs, say, forcing something through on a straight party-line vote, wrapped in procedural shenanigans, and so on.

        If things have changed, make that case and push that through. You’re talking about another “assault weapons ban” more egregiously restricting citizens than the DC law shot down by the Supreme court, under the prior administration. You wanna remove arms in common use, you need an amendment.

        But this isn’t a serious conversation, is it? It’s a portfolio of worn tropes and old proposals, wrapped in “But, you have to be nice, after I started by insulting you.”

        Fast forward 200 years or so and look at this country and how far we’ve come in terms of technology and innovation. We’ve changed and adapted to the times we’re living in. Can we not seriously sit back and rationality consider that times are becoming different in regards to gun violence? Should we not have discussions about how our way of thinking could and should change, considering our way of life has changed so much?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The point of the amendment process is that people have to “come together”, “have a conversation”, and find “consensus.” Vs, say, forcing something through on a straight party-line vote, wrapped in procedural shenanigans, and so on.”

          More elegantly put than I would have. Were you intentionally channeling the1850s?

      7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Fast forward 200 years or so and look at this country and how far we’ve come in terms of technology and innovation. We’ve changed and adapted to the times we’re living in. Can we not seriously sit back and rationality consider that times are becoming different in regards to gun violence? Should we not have discussions about how our way of thinking could and should change, considering our way of life has changed so much?

        Well, let’s reassess the permanent back door into your iThingie because Things Have Changed.
        And you being under permanent surveillance, because Things Have Changed.
        And …

        BTW, who is this “we?” I know plenty of people, still, who live more like it was, than it is in these precarious urban enclaves. There are still plenty of people who don’t live in stacked, cookie-cutter warrens, trudging off to their orchestrated functional jobs, doing literally nothing else for themselves than their paid work, buying everything else.

        We can distribute knowledge work around the world these days. Why not live in your vacation cabin in the woods, digital linking your gig work to whoever you work with? With your shotgun by the door.

        If this proposal were about lifestyle fit, the scope of the law would be a given city, or metro area, or maybe, maybe state. But it’s federal — telling people who don’t live like you and don’t want to, that they have to live under rules designed for your convenience.

        Propose a state law.

  56. avatar Ds says:

    I call B.S. on that bill.

  57. avatar Geoff says:

    There should be a Law that says failure to uphold your Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution is a Felony and subject to 10 years imprisonment. That should stop all the anti-2A bills the Democrats keep introducing.

  58. avatar Dave Miller says:

    So, how many of you armchair Three Percenters actually doing something constructive? Are you members of the NRA, GOA, JFPO, or the 2nd Amendment Foundations? Have contacted your representatives? Have contributed Monday or time to fight this and other legislations? Have you educate other gun owners about the threats they face from the gun grabbers?

    Or have you just been blowing smoke on the Internet?

    Please, don’t give me the standard B.S. that the NRA is not a real gun-rights organization, not “true” to the cause in some stupid way. If this bill turns out to be a real threat, which is not assured, then the NRA will be doing the heavy lifting in Washignton to kill it.

    Never, ever, not be a member of the NRA. For all their faults, there would not be much of a gun culture left if not for the NRA.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I don’t know how to not sound insulting, but would you consider yourself a member of “the swamp”? Someone who supports the idea of sustaining a failing political party that has no real principles beyond, “we are not as bad as they are”? Someone who would encourage endorsing and voting for the non-conservative Republican establishment-type politicians, because if we don’t, the Republicans will cease to exist as a party?

      The call to fund non-effective “gun rights” organizations seems a little like an “establishment Republican” telling us to keep voting for them because survival of the party is more important than actually having and exercising core principles.

      When you really think about it, the only reason NRA exists is because the entrenched politicians are essentially proponents of a disarmed populace, and originally NRA was an obstacle. The current prime directive of the NRA is “survive, at any cost”. It is what happens to a group who have lost their guiding light. And now, there are a number of “gun rights” organizations that are more effective in court than the NRA. Organizations with goals beyond being an organization.

      1. avatar Jorge says:

        You are wholly ignorant of the reasons the NRA became and it’s purpose today. You’re addressing a sub section of the organization, the ILA, institute of legislative action, created to combat anti gun organizations. The rest of the members organization does what they’ve always done since inception. Train, educate, manage, shooting officers, events, ranges. All range officer, CCW trainers, shooting instructors are NRA certified. The NRA is hardly obsolete. In fact they are more important than ever with the influx of new shooters, woman in particular are becoming CCW holders and shooters of all disciplines. The people that train, teach, instruct are the NRA.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The original purpose of the NRA is long behind us. Military marksmanship training has improved to where lack of familiarity with the shooting sports is not a crucial factor in learning to be an effective rifleman (rifleperson?). The nation no longer needs a permanent corps of citizens who can shoot well before entering military service. All the safety and instructor qualification courses came after the original marksmanship charter.

          In the struggle to preserve “gun rights”, the NRA-ILA is the face of the NRA. The gun grabbers cannot differentiate between “good NRA” and “bad NRA”. NRA = “guns everywhere”, equals most prominent “gun rights” force. Whether the “good NRA” likes it or not, the “bad NRA” is what most people think of. Indeed, even the “good NRA” is “bad”, because guns. So that leaves us with the NRA that supports “guns everywhere”. And that NRA is not serving its members well. Thus, we are back to the original question: why should gun owners continue to fund a “gun rights” advocate that is squishy (unreliable) at best?

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Hey Sam,

        “Reply” button not present on your prior reply to me. So, yeah, formally, the 2A isn’t about self-defense. I’ve said that ’round here many times.

        That said, with the “bazookas and tanks” I’m just staking out an opening negotiating position, leaving room for Our False-Flag Interloper something to compromise with.

        B 2’s and attack subs might be too far; he might just give up. Besides, hard to fit those in yr garage.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “B 2’s and attack subs might be too far; he might just give up. Besides, hard to fit those in yr garage.”

          That’s probably our fault for building small garages !

          As to 2A restricted to small arms (for argument sake), the anti-gunners use Trump negotiating tactics quite well, and we fall for it, rather than turn it around on them. Meaning? The proposed ban is three or four times more preposterous that the anti-gunners actually expect to achieve; outrageous demands. All so we can feel victorious when we accept what they actually intend. Because they know our friendly legislators want to look “reasonable” to the other side.

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      So, how many of you armchair Three Percenters actually doing something constructive?

      So much this. And just the regular the cops on here, too. We read and hear the rally cry, “we’re not going to let the government confiscate our high capacity magazines and AR-15’s (etc).” Yet the government does confiscate high capacity magazines and AR-15s all the time, from otherwise law-abiding citizens.

      The cops confiscate the arms, and the armcair 3%ers and even cops continue to bluster. I had a cop tell me just yesterday or the day before that he would shoot other cops that took people’s guns, or at least he would support those that did.

      Really? Then why aren’t you doing it now because it happens all the time in places like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Washington D.C, and California. Just off the top of my head.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Cops are praetorian guards for the political scum that runs the country. Most cops understand this. Some do not, and act under the delusion that they are “helping people.”

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        WTF is a 3%er?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Referencing that only 3% of residents own all the guns, thus the 3% are the problem, and 97% believe guns should be severely restricted.

          Or something.

  59. avatar Jay Dee says:

    It may be called gun control but this is really a bid to hire more bureaucrats to contribute to moronic senator’s reelection campaign. I suggest that she go forth and multiply with herself.

  60. avatar chris says:

    There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

    • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
    • 3% are accidental discharge deaths

    So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
    • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
    • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
    • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

    So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

    This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

    Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

    Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

    But what about other deaths each year?
    • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
    • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
    • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

    Now it gets good:
    • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

    • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

    So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:
    Taking away guns gives control to governments.

    The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

    Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

    So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

    Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”

    1. avatar ChrisCA says:

      “Do the math: 0.000000925% ”

      Perhaps you should do the math before you copy and paste.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        It is a really small percentage. 100X what’s quoted, but still *REALLY* small. As in, 100Xzero is still zero

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “gun control” IS about saving lives; the lives of the non-minorities. The racism of the left (libs, demoncrats, statists, etc) is astounding. The anti-gun gang has no interest in ending suicide, or murders through gunfire. The anti-gun gang doesn’t live in crime-infested neighborhoods, doesn’t live in “bad” places, doesn’t go to “bad” places. The anti-gun gang is about, uh, uuummm, well, “white privilege”. The anti-gun gang does not fear MS-13, or any other gang. The anti-gun crowd only lives, works and goes into “nice” places. And it is in “nice places” that they find the crazed, not yet criminal gun owner. It is the “nice places” the anti-gunner wants to preserve, to be free of fear that a normal-looking person will suddenly open up on the crowd.

      Oh, and suicide people are just icky. No one wants to be around suicide people (who are self-limiting), so there is no need to worry about icky people, even if they go to “nice places” because suicide people usually don’t want to hurt others, just themselves. Unlike gun-owners who secretly carry around guns that are used only to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time, in nice places.

  61. avatar JD says:

    Love the carve outs for campus police since we all know every college campus needs up armor APC’s and full auto weapons to keep the peace. I assume the 2200 or so “permitted” weapons are somehow supposed to impress me enough to get behind this stinking pile broom Hilda came up with? May she drop dead today from a massive and painful coronary.

  62. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    We are again living in dangerous times. When will all you gun folks finally take a stand! Raising your voices and saying enough is a enough…

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      It’s not our voices that we will need to raise.

  63. avatar Bill says:

    Absolutely disgusting. Every time there’s a tragedy, these bastards come out with their pre-written bills (that they planned for such an event) and try to take away Americans’ rights to defend ourselves with the weapons we choose.

    That, along with the fact that Stephen Willieford, the guy who intervened in the Texas shooting, used an AR-15 to confront the attacker! It throws everything these idiots believe out the window. But ultimately, they have an agenda and won’t stop until they force it on us.

    California should just go ahead and secede from the union, along with down-state New York. The rest of the country will be a whole lot better off without those hellholes muddying the waters.

  64. avatar YankeeBill says:

    Just a word from an old hand. Back in the mid-nineties, I worked full-time as an LEO for the state of Connecticut (barf). A state basically built on the back of the firearms and military weapons industry. The state government began turning their back on the firearms industry way back in the 80’s. Anyhow, there had been talk back then of banning so-called “assault weapons”, and the mere possession thereof. A statewide ban was instituted at a point, but it did not ban “mere possession”. I spoke with many of my brothers in the L.E. community at that time, both pro and con Second Amendment (yes, there are cops who are not pro 2nd), and the consensus was that none of us wanted to confiscate weapons from civilians, and all of us knew that the manpower was not in place to accomplish such a dastardly deed. I am not saying it could never happen, but total confiscation would probably not be practical or attainable. Didn’t they try that in California? I haven’t heard much about that for years. I do not think that effort was very successful. Don’t get me wrong, I am totally against anyone messing with any of our Second Amendment rights. I only offer this as an example of the prevailing attitude in the L.E. community at that time, in what has been an ultra-liberal state for many, many years now. By the way, I escaped that now financially insolvent liberal utopia many years ago due to many injuries incurred on that job, dealing with many of the liberal, law breaking, residents (among them many immigrants both legal and illegal) of that once fine state. The South has risen again!

  65. avatar Matt says:

    My fear isn’t that this gets passed at a Federal level. If the Dems ever control both houses and the presidency again (who knows) it is extreme and flawed enough we’d probably find at least a couple with some shred of sense who wouldn’t vote for it.

    My fear is that states will latch on to this as being a better assault weapons ban. Like Maryland. Oh, our current ban that mirrors the old federal one, as well as requiring handgun licenses, has only increased murder rates since we passed it. Total ban uber alles! Let’s pass this one since the feds can’t get it done!!!

    Ugh.

  66. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Hey, Again, Sam…

    Thanks for the kind words. You get it on the shenanigans of our honest, sincere negotiating partners.

    On point to your question, I haven’t been reading 1850s lately, but yr right, the formulation and rhythm of that bit is very mid-1800s. Sometimes, some of the good writing I’ve read sticks. (As an exercise, you can pretty often call when something was written, and where by the style.

    With some more work, I think I can crisp up some of the riffs in that last fisking rant of mine; make them more compelling and useful, by making them over all more “elegant.”

    Several notions in my fisking-rant would make good beats in a 1850’s style-influenced essay: “Your Cheatin Proposal” or some such.

    – It’s not meeting someone for sincere conversation if you get your shots in, then declare “Let’s talk nice.”

    – Not problem solving if when you start with one particular proposal; not “compromise” when that means “you compromise with me.” (BTW, “compromise” is bad, evil, and wrong; politically, transactionally achieved; “consensus” is the stuff of truth and grace, achieved through learning, understanding, and common values. Saying one when you mean the other is a cheat.)

    – The combination of shots fired then “Can’t we all just get along.” with a proposal aimed right at the preferences of the people who now have to act nice is particularly slimy. “Hey, gunny people, let’s politely find compromise around this proposal to take away your stuff.”

    – The point of the amendment process is as I said: to force us to actually have the conversation, find common ground, and come to consensus.

    – Put the things we know help on the table, too: armed defense stops mass shootings; known whack-jobs do whack-job things, how about we do something about that.

    I gotta crisp this up. The points deserve better presentation.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I gotta crisp this up.”

      How about, “There is no compromise possible between fear and confidence.” “There is no compromise when one side does not trust people, and the other side does.” “There is no compromise when one side argues only from emotion (fear), and the other side argues from logic (confidence)”. “There is no comprise between people who believe “evil” does not exist, and people who know it does.?

      Or…

      “You have a personal right to your opinion. I have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.” There is no compromise between an opinion and a constitutionally protected and enumerated right to own firearms.

      In the 1850s, one group of people (politicians) insisted on using simple legislation to restrict constitutionally protected rights (because the instigators knew they could not succeed in passing a constitutional amendment). The eventual “compromise” was reached through much inconvenience to the nation.

  67. I am truly glɑd to read this website pоsts which carries plenty of helpfսl facts,thanks
    ffor providing these ѕtatisticѕ.

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