200 House Democrats Sign On to Assault Weapons Ban Bill of 2019

Assault weapons ban of 2019

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., center, accompanied by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., left, Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., second from left, Rep. Anthony Brown, D-Md., fourth from left, and others, speaks at a news conference calling for Senate action on H.R. 8 – Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

There are currently 235 Democrats in the US House of Representatives. In light of a report by The Hill today, that raises a question…are the other 35 or so on vacation?

[N]early 200 House Democrats have now signed on to legislation — authored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the head of Democrats’ messaging operation — banning semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines. With 198 co-sponsors, the bill is just 20 votes shy of the number needed to push it through the lower chamber.

The bill in question is HR 1296, also known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. That’s a bill that Cicilline introduced in the House in February. Now, after the El Paso and Dayton shootings and various reports of wobbliness in the Senate and White House, congressional Dems are smelling an opportunity.

The bill would outlaw . . .

  • Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;
  • Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
  • Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;
  • Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;
  • And 205 specifically-named and listed firearms.

Note the use of the singular ‘a’ when referring to “military-style” features. The Clinton 1994 assault weapons ban outlawed firearms with two such features. The latest bill bans guns with only one…meaning millions more firearms would be outlawed than a generation ago.

You can read the full text of the bill here.

What would constitute an “assault weapon” under HR 1269?

The term semiautomatic assault weapon means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(i) A pistol grip.
(ii) A forward grip.
(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
(iv) A grenade launcher.
(v) A barrel shroud.
(vi) A threaded barrel.
(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(i) A threaded barrel.
(ii) A second pistol grip.
(iii) A barrel shroud.
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
(vi) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded.
(vii) A stabilizing brace or similar component.
(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any one of the following:
(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(ii) A pistol grip.
(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
(iv) The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(v) A forward grip.
(vi) A grenade launcher.
(G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:
The bill then goes on to list dozens of specific AR, AK and other firearms…rifles, pistols and shotguns. There’s more, but that’s the gist of it.  Note that, like the ’94 assault weapons ban, the current bill would grandfather currently owned firearms. 
According to The Hill . . .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a staunch Second Amendment advocate, has no intention of bringing the legislation to the floor, and President Trump has said there’s “no political appetite” for such a ban; both men are allies of the National Rifle Association, which is vehemently opposed to any ban or moratorium.
We certainly hope that report is accurate. And this one isn’t:

comments

  1. avatar Mad Max says:

    No RINOs at all?

    1. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

      Surprisingly not one.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Not really, even the squishiest of RINOs is not that stupid. This bill is DOA in the Senate and everyone knows it.

        1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

          Shit it might not pass the house.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sadly, you’re right. Nancy knows better than to throw her slim hold on the House into a political wood chipper this close to an election. Especially for a DOA bill. At this point, she’s doing everything she can not to have a repeat of 1984… and failing. Trump’s favorability rating is almost TWICE what it was in 2016 and her grip on quite a few house districts is is paper thin.

        3. avatar Kip says:

          “Shit it might not pass the house.”

          It will. Cosponship is not the vote. It is essentially promised to vote. Most bulls with this many cosponsors from the party controlling the House this early get passed when they finally reach the floor.. A handful of Dems are holding out to get paid by Bloomberg and/or the DCCC.

        4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Well, it has *this* gem in it –

          “(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.”

          Good-bye every Glock, thanks to the select-fire G-18…

        5. avatar balais says:

          Very true and there have always been political consequences for screwing with gun rights. The AWB of 94 is a perfect example of that. The very modest democrat gains in the house, historically speaking, in 2018 are another.

        6. avatar Chris says:

          What are you guys talking about. The polling and trend numbers show Dems will pick up more in the house in 2020. Sure there are exceptions when those numbers are wrong and but we remember those because they are exceptions. 90% of the time they are accurate predictors.
          Also even Fox News polling shows ungodly high support for an assault rifle ban.
          This is a huge threat and not a negative for the Democrats. It will happen in a second the moment the Republicans lose the presidency.

          Trump’s favorability rating is almost TWICE what it was in 2016
          That is delusional. His unfavorables are running at 56%.

        7. avatar Jimbo says:

          The big lie is that the reason for gun control is to lower crime. Facts show this is false. The real reason is to disarm law abiding citizens. As far as polls showing that 90% want bans, universal background checks , etc…….Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

        8. avatar arc says:

          Yep, don’t care what the house comes up with, they are powerless without the senate and without the POTUS signature. Even Trump has to have enough brain cells to know that an AWB would be the end of his re-election, probably even the end of his effective presidency.

    2. avatar IN Dave says:

      They can’t even get 35 of their own to sign it, why would a RINO put their head on a chopping block. It is surprising that 35 dems haven’t signed it. Apparently 35 dems have read some history and understand it enough to know that the dems in 1994 didn’t fair so well. Nah, 35 probably don’t think this bill goes far enough.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Like it or not, you can thank the NRA’s lobbying for this. Those 35 Democrats undoubtedly understood what having 5 million plus gun owners can do to their election results. All it takes to win many elections are a few hundred or a few thousand votes and, historically, the NRA has delivered votes. Even for Democrats who support gun rights. It’s called “realpolitiks” and it’s something the NRA has done well. Until now.

        1. avatar Rad Man says:

          Not to mention the millions more armchair NRA “members” who neglect to send their annual dues in. They constitute a significant voting block as well, I imagine.

    3. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      Why would they when they’ll have a Trump/NRA approved gun control bill to vote for soon?

      1. avatar kip says:

        Red flag is running at 80-85% approvals. Assault rifle ban running at 65%-70% approvals. Nothing at 80% gets blocked.
        Assault rifle ban, 10 round mags will pass with no grandfathering if Trump loses and one or two Senate seats are lost.

        So stop whining about Trump it just shows your ignorance. One does not have to like red flag to understand it is a freight train.

        Do you know what four years of a Democrat taking the White House will mean for federal judges?

        1. avatar Mark says:

          Pass with no grandfathering eh? And do tell how they plan on getting our 30 million plus rifles back when they don’t know who owns them?

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Do you know what four years of a Democrat taking the White House will mean for federal judges?”

          It looks like you’re the one ignorant here, son.

          Judges come from the Senate, and we hold that handily…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sadly, the President will still have to nominate them and the chances of a Demokkkommie POTUS nominating anybody acceptable are exactly 0. Worse, how long do you think we can hold the Senate if we lose the White House?

        4. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          Background checks have been at 90% approval since like 2012 and still haven’t passed. And most people who support red flag don’t understand the consequences.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And most people who support red flag don’t understand the consequences.”

          Some of the average slubs may not, but the activists certainly do:
          1. stop mass school shootings (guaranteed)
          2. eventually confiscate all privately owned guns.
          3. inadvertent injustice is acceptable price

        6. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Background checks have been at 90% approval since like 2012 and still haven’t passed.”

          It’s a deliberately misleading statistic.

          When it is fully explained what ‘universal background checks’ actually entails, support drops below 50 percent.

          If it truly was 90 percent, it would have happened already…

    4. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

      Still, we should be prepared for when the Dems do manage to regain the Senate.

      One state already has passed a bill that triggers succession if federal gun control is passed. Write your state reps, if we can get 10-20 states on board we can break off a country we can maintain freedom in while the left turns their portion into Venezuela.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        Indeed. Georgia. And I think there’s actually a few others. Secession is still very much a viable tactic these modern days, provided enough states were in on it. For example, if every single red state seceded, that’s the majority mass of the country, it would likely succeed. Also, it’s often thought of as a joke, but there is nothing that says states can’t be kicked out of the Union. Imagine a convention of states where the majority of states removed the few hardcore left wing states from the union.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Imagine a convention of states where the majority of states removed the few hardcore left wing states from the union.”

          That could cut both ways. Fortunately, a CoS does not have power to do that.

      2. avatar Patrick says:

        The last break away by the south wasn’t just over slavery. Taxes mainly, and other subversive issues. Seems that way today. Hopefully I am alive to see it as it will happen. Same old time issues plus second Amendment. Tyrannical government is what we have today. History repeats itself.

    5. avatar Roger Cain says:

      Wretched liberal scum. Tens of millions of law abiding citizens would never comply with these laws and would be felons over night. And right there the bill is worthless because they aren’t about to go door to door to confiscate guns.

  2. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    The second amendment is the greatest political power and check on a government any people have ever held in the history of civilization on this planet.
    THAT needs to be emphasized and leveraged as a rhetorical springboard for laying bare the intentions of those who wish to infringe on it as intending to strip a free people of that very political power.

    1. avatar 41mag says:

      Just look at the pics coming from Hong Kong.

      They’re waving the American flag, wearing the American flag like Shaun White covering the face, and even signs “We need a 2nd Amendment”.

      This is still the symbol of freedom in the world, and the Dems know it and hate it.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yup… If Hong Kong had a 2nd amendment, the PLA would be FUCKED.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          The Chinese will send in the police militia that is gathering across the bay, not the PLA. They are a million strong and they are armed. Then again, Xi is fearful of the effect of another Tienanmen Square, because it would be much worse if the Hong Kong exchange is shut and businesses boycott China for its actions, a real possibility.

        2. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          That is a valid point but I think that in the long run China doesn’t care. The party is all. If they have to suffer some short term problems it is a cost the party is willing to bear. They know that the rest of the world is addicted to their goods. Nothing will happen to them worth the mention.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That is a valid point but I think that in the long run China doesn’t care. ”

          China shrugged off Tienanmen Square, and nobody holds them accountable for that in any meaningful way. Subduing Hong Kong will be an irritant, but a powerful message to Taiwan.

        4. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          Yup. That is why I said that. a minor point for your reply. No one is holding China accountable for Tienamin, at all.

        5. avatar Hank says:

          The Chinese recently herded millions into real concentration camps in its western provinces. They don’t have any care about how the world perceives them. They’re reveling in the opportunity to show off their military power and make an example of Hong Kong.

      2. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

        I hav to wonder if the whole protest movement in Hong Kong was actually started by china in order to justify a complete take over. Plausible if you look at the way the chinese government is responding.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          To be fair, the original cause of the protests would cause an outright armed revolt in the US.

    2. avatar billy-bob says:

      If everything prior to this becoming law is grandfathered, sounds like they’ve all bought stock in gun companies, knowing this would drive a buying spree.

    3. avatar KyKPH says:

      Every privately owned firearm is a small amount of political power in the hands of the people. In the hands of many people, that is a lot of last resort political power. The politicians fear and want control and eliminate that power.

    4. avatar KyKPH says:

      “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.” MAO ZEDONG

      (Does that sound like something a Democrat might say if we were hearing the truth?)

      Mao was #1 on the people killer hit parade of the 20th century, Hitler was just #3! After disarming China post WWII, his policies lead to the deaths of up to 20 million of his fellow countrymen. Beware of politicians that want to take away your last ditch means of resistance to THEIR policies!

    5. avatar Thomas Redwine Hartshorn says:

      That is exactly what these ILLEGAL RED FLAG LAWS do. They violate about 5 of your bill of rights, especially, “Due Process”.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “That is exactly what these ILLEGAL RED FLAG LAWS do. They violate about 5 of your bill of rights, especially, “Due Process”.”

        So far, the courts don’t agree.

        1. avatar NoneYourBusiness says:

          Because the courts that have heard the cases are all left leaning Democrat selected judges from the Obama Era. I honestly believe if it made it to the SCOTUS they would agree with the people.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I honestly believe if it made it to the SCOTUS they would agree with the people.”

          Anything is possible, but Red Flags are not new. Yet where have we read anything about a case proceeding through the courts, bound for SC? It has been nine years since Heller, yet the SC has not provided cert for any 2A cases. Yet, that same SC reviewed three cases in four years concerning whether unions could compel non-members to fund union activities. Just because important constitutional issues are at stake, the SC is not compelled to act.

  3. avatar MB says:

    Sissy Wennie and company are not good for America. Look at the damage he did a mayor of Providence. Rhode Islanders keep re-electing this moron who’s only interested in gay parades, gun control and increase in taxes.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    All you guys talking about not voting or writing in a candidate here’s your future. I live with these rules every day in CA. So if you refuse to do what is essentially a no brainer and insist on voting against your own best interests I say to you: You can just move.

    And let’s put this whole ‘cold dead hands’ trope to rest. Nobody in this overfed first world country is going to war over a 30 round mag or an AR. At the bundy ranch standoff, admittedly a bad reason to rally, you got about 6-700 folks to show up. Out of a nation of 350 million.

    There’s more guys standing around the Home Depot parking lot looking for work than that.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      600-700 is a pretty good showing for a small skirmish.

    2. It’s still more than the alphabet bois brought. It also happened at the drop of a hat, in the middle of the work week, and for questionable reasons. I think Bundy Ranch had a higher turnout than it had any right to have, and I don’t think anything short of literal tanks in streets and door-to-door confiscations will generate better numbers.

    3. avatar Hank says:

      I disagree with your assessment for two reasons. One, they won at the Bundy ranch. They even won in court after, something that shocked everyone. And two, they’re not “just” coming after your guns anymore. 10 years ago, you would’ve been correct. But the left today is a far more dangerous beast then it was then. Things like the serious push for the green new deal, reparations, and real communism, are really going to be pushed for once they’re in power. You’re correct in that most of us won’t fight if they simply ban the further sale of semi autos, but that’s no longer what we’re looking at. We will all be willing to fight when they’re actively confiscating owned guns, but also confiscating your car, taking your retirement fund from you to pay for social programs, taking your social security from you for being white, increasing your taxes 10 fold, outright taking your home and land from you, and openly killing members of your family. That is what the left wants now. If you think those things can’t happen, many of them already happened in Europe.

    4. avatar balais says:

      Youre completely incorrect.

      Most gun owners were antithetical to Bundy (hell, I was. The standoff was idiotic). Gun owners with banned weapons will see legitimacy in resisting (peaceful or otherwise) because the struggle would be far more credible than Bundy’s justifications.

      You would see otherwise moderate or centrist or disinterested gun owners become aligned with a hypothetical pro-gun/liberty identitarian faction overnight.

      Most people don’t understand how ugly this truly get.

  5. avatar 2A says:

    All this while Gun sales pass unprecedented numbers today.

  6. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    is a trigger considered a “military feature?”

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      It’s only a matter of time.

    2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      That it fires a projectile from the expanding gasses of a burning propellant is sufficient “military-like” for the first wave. Remember that the left are not ignorant of art history, etc., so eventually any projectile launched by an elastic reaction will be the next targets. Kiss your longbow, speargun, crossbow, sling shots, etc., goodbye. After that any projectile will be fair game. Kiss spears, rocks and sticks goodbye. All along they will be working on eliminating all sharp objects, knives, scissors, etc. It has already started, Millennials don’t shave why so? So there is no need for razorblades. Seriously, it is sad and scary to see so many use the “it cannot happen” logic. Please, everyone wake up, it is already happening. The NRA is impotent, the POTG don’t vote. Opponents get massive donations and organize rallies and control the media. Wake Up It Is Happening!

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “is a trigger considered a “military feature?””

      In Florida right now, *yes*, thanks to how their bump-stock ban was written :

      “According to Florida Law, the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device. (F.S. 790.222)”

      If they want to be asshol-ish about it, a drop-in trigger like a Timney could be said to increase rate-of-fire by a millisecond, so it could be illegal…

  7. avatar Binder says:

    The really question is it going to help or hurt the Democrats when it fails come election time. There is no way they would try it before the election if it had a chance of passing.

  8. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    I hope that not too many of these Dem SJWs hurt their wrists patting themselves of the back for their inspiring virtue-signaling.

  9. avatar Jaque says:

    Sooner or later these communists will gain total control of the government. And they would be happy to kill everyone who refused to surrender their arms to a Federal KGB. The probability of revolution over such action is very low. I dont think todays Americans have it in them to revolt, as they are weak and have too much to lose. Half of the country wants communism The other half are feckless RINOS. Its going to take a bigger loss of rights to trigger a civil war than gun confiscation.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      I disagree. 1/2 of us are not “feckless RINOs” and the attempt of the “US government” (as it’ll not actually be that when it happens) to confiscate guns is what will finally spark it off. Hard to fight back without firearms ya know……….. Better start hoarding ammo and gun powder. A lot of tannerite might come in handy too…

      1. avatar Jaque says:

        I rounded the numbers. I say feckless RINOS because if they weren’t feckless Republicans then why has their party representatives in Congress been asleep and masterbating when the communists have seized the high ground, captured 99 % of communications, have kept the borders open and the flood of illegals and drugs and bad guys flowing. Hillary has immunity for her crimes and no one paid for Benghazi. Star RINO Trey Gowdy chaired the Benghazi coverup. Obama directs his communist army from home and hasnt paid for his crimes either. Kates law is dead, Americans are dying daily at the hands of illegals, MS-13 is thriving, Trump is surrendering to the Taliban, the US Army War college has surrendered to jihadists, and the Senate has gun control as the top of the agenda. Americans have been losing their constitutional rights for a hundred years or more. Wheres the outrage ? Its not only about putting cammies and face paint on. Its electing strong legislators and holding them accountable. If one cannot hold their lawmakers accountable I doubt they will remain on the firing line fighting communist s when their buddies head explodes and sprays brain matter.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      The people who propose these laws think gun owners are a paper tiger.
      They do not fear gun owners as much as they fear the Left.
      They will keep doing it until there are negative consequences.

  10. avatar TommyGNR says:

    I know most of us hate Wayne and the current NRA, but there Lobbying abilities are the only thing standing in the way of this becoming law. Its a big moment boys. Don’t think for one second the banning will stop at whats mentioned in the article. They have setup the country for mass shootings with there “Gun Free” Zones and will push for more bans every time some criminally insane maniac targets one.

  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    What, in this article, does “outlaw” mean?

    The original term of “outlaw” seems to have been some sort of legal declaration by a jurisdiction that certain persons were put outside the law, meaning there would be no charges against anyone who shot, beat up, hanged, tortured, killed such “outlaw”. “Outlaws” had no legal protections from the rest of the community.

    So, how does “outlaw” play in the identified weapons bill?

  12. avatar Dude says:

    It looks like they’re also trying to ban suppressors since threaded barrels are considered an evil feature.

    “(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.” -At least my Marlin Model 60 is safe.

    So 10 round non-threaded Ruger Mini 14s would be okay until someone used that in a mass shooting and they add it to the list?

    1. avatar Mike says:

      What makes you think the top cover of the mechanism of the Ruger Mini-14 won’t be considered an evil barrel shroud?

      1. avatar Dani in WA says:

        For that matter, they could say a pistol’s slide is a barrel shroud.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “For that matter, they could say a pistol’s slide is a barrel shroud.”

          Remarkable perception. Good on ya’.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Nice one, Dani. I’m going to use that in future conversations with Libtards at the office.

        3. avatar Dani in WA says:

          Well it seems they didn’t:

          (38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
          (A) means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel; and
          (B) does not include—
          (i) a slide that partially or completely encloses the barrel; or
          (ii) an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.

    2. avatar Paul says:

      No, man,…your Mini-14 is specifically listed on the ban list. (xix)Sturm, Ruger & Co. Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M–14/20CF.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      Actually everything you already own would be safe since this just bans new purchases, correct? A confiscation bill would no doubt follow this. Keep in mind this would never pass with a republican senate or president. Remember this when it’s time to vote.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Actually everything you already own would be safe since this just bans new purchases, correct? A confiscation bill would no doubt follow this.”

        “No one is going to take your guns” they will say.

        What they will do is not allow you to transfer them to anyone else, even your heirs. On your death, they will demand they be turned for destruction (except the ones the cops steal for themselves)…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “On your death, they will demand they be turned for destruction (except the ones the cops steal for themselves)…”

          This is how it is done….

          Police monitor death notices in the papers (generally required for probate procedure). Police contact all funeral homes daily. Police monitor ER/ED activities regarding gunshot wounds and result. From these sources, notices are sent to surviving family, or even law practices specializing in probate. The letter demands surrender of all firearms, and a signed certification that all weapons have been surrendered (or that the decedent had no firearms. Or confiscation orders are issued to the local sheriff/constable, who delivers the notice (with a charge to search the premises).

          After every self-defense shooting, police demand the victim provide evidence of where the defender purchased/obtained the weapon used.

          There are anti-gunners more imaginative than I, but you can follow the drift.

  13. avatar Walter Raligh says:

    That would make the Firearms industry shake. But Would not in Anyway stop anything at all as there are already millions of weapons out there. What are they gonna do about that? If 20% of americans own guns and each of them own at least 3, that’s a lot of guns. It will stop production of new weapons, limit new owners choices, restrict Everyone, Endanger the future and also harm innovation.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      “But Would not in Anyway stop anything at all as there are already millions of weapons out there.”

      It wouldn’t even meaningfully affect firearms sales. CA and NY residents have devised numerous legal workarounds for bans such as these.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        This works because the rest of the country is free and our laws are rightfully perceived to be retarded. If this inbred spawn of NY and CA of a law passes retarded will be the norm for gun laws and it will only get worse while being nationwide.

  14. avatar Shire-man says:

    In ’94 these firearms weren’t very popular and portrayed non-stop in the nightly news as the weapons the inner city would use to shove crack down the throats of the white suburban children after mom drops them off for soccer practice.

    Now they’re the most popular firearms in the country and thanks to decades of historically low crime the suburbans don’t necessarily fear for themselves rather they are superficially self-burdened with false guilt over the reported violence others experience.

    2019 is not 1994.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      I think their use in random mass shootings that could take place anywhere at anytime is the current driver of fear.

  15. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    A Ban only increases demand. The black market will take care of this demand, it always has and always will.

    1. avatar Michael says:

      true that

    2. avatar B says:

      Exactly. And the same Demonrats want open borders. More drug trafficking, more human trafficking and more firearm trafficking. Not to mention the arsenal of gear that the cartels have access to, including US military equipment we sell abroad, will all make its way over. Supply and demand.

  16. avatar MGD says:

    Dammit! Now, I have to go buy ANOTHER AR! These morons are going to bankrupt me!

    On another note, the entire demokkkrat party can kiss my ass!

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Good luck leftard’s…and guy’s like Crenshaw or that ILLinois doofus.

  18. avatar John Galt says:

    Buy all the AR’s you can afford.

    Buy one for every possible great grandchild

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Buy one for every possible great grandchild”

      How difficult would it be to include language making illegal the future transfer, for any reason (including repair) of semi-auto guns?

      1. avatar MGD says:

        Oh, I’ve already “sold” mine to them. They have bills of sale though they won’t get the rifles for years to come.

        1. avatar Dene Miller says:

          I lost ALL mine in a horrific canoe accident. Every single one.

        2. avatar Jeffrey A Lubar says:

          That’s hilarious. For years, I have been stating that I have lost all of my guns in a horrific traffic related boating accident somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle. Go Fetch! lol

  19. avatar D says:

    Ciciline has been a piece of shit since the day he got into politics. Seeing his name as the author does not surprise me. He tried the same shit in the RI legislature and failed.

    1. avatar Paul Hill says:

      You are absolutely right ! He is anti labor ,anti anything . A miserable little fairy queen .

  20. avatar MeRp says:

    I sure am glad that currently owned guns would be grandfathered because it would be really hard to explain how I lost all of my guns except my great gandad’s pump-rifle and the old mauser in a boating accident. I’m just certain if they would rake the river they’d surely find millions of various rifles and pistols and shotguns that everyone keeps losing in boating accidents.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      A temporary fix. It’s only a matter of time before the freedom haters go after critical gun parts (mags, etc.) and then ammo. Look for severe purchase restrictions then outright bans. And don’t expect any of it to be grandfathered.

      1. avatar TommyGNR says:

        The bill bans any part that could be used in any of the gun’s that they have listed at banned. Also there is a section that specifies that any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds has to have a serial number. There is also a section about transferring grandfathered in guns. It looks like they are going to make it difficult to leave the guns to your kids.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Time to load up on mags and springs.

        2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

          My son would just come here and take what just i have. No muss no fuss. Who’s going to know

    2. avatar MouseGun says:

      Since all I have is a canoe, and I don’t think I could come up with a convincing story on why I had all my “assault weapons” on it when it tipped, I decided to sell all of them to private buyers at a gun show before the ban date (wink wink).

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        I traded all my guns to an itinerant handy man for some home improvements. Can’t remember the guys name

        1. avatar Chuck says:

          It was Hamid and Mohammed that did some yard work for me. 😂

    3. avatar B says:

      California did this years ago several times. Each ban became more invasive. Anyone who had a “Grandfathered” system was allowed to keep them; as long as they registered them with the Cal DoJ as an AW, paid fees, and in turn received a specific AW Registration Number for that specific firearm by the date specified. Some complied, others said FU. Millions of Cal gun owners that were unaware of the Draconian rule, became overnight criminals.

  21. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    At this point it doesn’t really matter what laws are signed into being I’m figuring.

    Also saw a post on gun feed stating the ATF will determine Braces are the new bump stock in the soon future.

    Lots of people will be mad when it’s their ox being stabbed I’m figuring as well.

  22. avatar Red says:

    What needs to happen if this bill starts making progress is for someone to insert language to eliminate the government/law enforcement exception.

  23. avatar Paul Hill says:

    Someone who knows a lot about firearms assisted Cicilline in creating that list of weapons . Maybe a boyfriend ?

  24. avatar RayS says:

    These dems are the same people that say we need more restrictions on free speech. More facism from the left.
    BTW – I read that the Australian gun ban isnt the success the left keeps protraying – that they estimate only 20% were recovered – same with New Zealand.

  25. avatar Enuf says:

    Yes, while Trump is working hard to unintentionally push left leaning moderates to vote for Democrats, the Democrats are working hard to unintentionally push right right leaning moderates to vote for Republicans.

    Same old, same old, nothing new going on here ……..

  26. avatar CC Ryder says:

    Democrats are the worst assault weapon their is. They are an assault upon common sense.

  27. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “200 House Democrats Sign On to Assault Weapons Ban Bill of 2019”

    Means nothing, they’ll never get it through…
    Saying is one thing, voting is another…talk is cheap, and so are dems, especially when it comes to taking $$$ out of their pocket(s)…

    1. avatar B says:

      True, until some asswipe extreme liberal finally makes it into the White House. Clinton signed his 10 year ban that sunsetted under Bush. But these extremists aren’t looking to do any sunsets in the future. It’s been their plan from the beginning. It’s coming.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Means nothing, they’ll never get it through…”

      Which serves the purpose, just as well: create a voter issue against Republicrats and Trump.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What…???”

          Dimwitocrat campaign message:

          “We, the House of Representatives, heard the cries of America that government take action to end these mass shootings where weapons of war are used. We, the House of Representatives took decisive and direct action to establish laws that will make us all safer, protect our children, and put an end to all this senseless killing in places we should be able to enjoy in peace and safety. We, the House of Representatives, produced a bill rejected by an uncaring Senate controlled by Republican pawns of the murder industry, the firearms special interest groups. Our hopes, your hopes, and dreams for a safer America were destroyed by raw political considerations on the part of the Republican-controlled Senate, and the President. Do you want four more years of this murderous gang of captive and corrupted politicians? Throw them all out. Vote to save our children, and our America.”

          (PS – don’t try writing like this at home)

  28. avatar Logan says:

    Has anyone read the text to see if my gun can have a “shoulder thing that goes up”? Lol

  29. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The Commiecrats goal since back when they were Democrats,their ultimate goal has always been the complete disarmament of “We The People”.

    They left off their list the Thing That Goes Up.

    1. avatar J says:

      You are right. The Democrats fail to ban pistols and semi-auto pistols in the 1970s and 1980s. The Democrats turn to banning semi-auto rifles then since, they perceived semi-auto rifles as softer targets with better messaging in the late 1980s and 1990s. They just want to eliminate our ability to own firearms period. Gun control has been a part of every Democratic policy since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and came to forefront in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Everyone was a sleep at the wheel then to stop it from happening. Will we be able to stop these bills or become felons overnight?

  30. avatar Jeff Mehl says:

    My guess is that if they ever did decide to extend the ban to currently owned weapons, they wouldn’t be going door-to-door to confiscate them. They know that an action like that would very likely start a revolution; given the number of guns in circulation. My bet is that they would be far more subtle:

    1) Make guns and ammunition illegal

    2) Come up with a buy-back strategy that would take a percentage of guns off the street. (Actually, I have a Diamond Back DB9 handgun that’s a piece of shit, so I keep waiting for a buy back in NYS so I can get a few $$ back, but so far it hasn’t happened). But I digress…

    3) Then it would simply be a matter of enforcement:

    – Defend yourself in your home with one of your guns, you get arrested

    – Shooting ranges would probably be out of business, but if you went to a private range (ie: somebody’s wooded area) to practice and got caught, you’d be arrested.

    I fully expect that Cuomo’s next move in NY will be to limit the amount of ammunition that can be purchased. I’m stocking up like mad in anticipation!

    – Etc.

    In other words, we would have guns, but nowhere to use them without being arrested. And those arrests would be done fairly quietly, like most other arrests, so that there wouldn’t be the kind of flashpoint we would expect if they did actual violent raids.

    And since they really don’t care all that much about mass shootings, time is on their side because they’re playing the LONG game: Elmination of all guns within the next 2-3 generations!

    1. avatar B says:

      They’ll trick you and allow “Grandfathered” possession, THEN impose mandatory registion of them with specific details so they know who has what and where. Then they know who to go after first. Big Brother is tightening its grip.

  31. avatar Jonathan says:

    I gave up caring about gun laws after the “bump stock ban” made my brother in law a felon overnight. sooner or later we are all going to have to choose whether we stay law abiding and give up our rights or become a criminal. I have already decided when that day comes its the life of crime for me.

  32. avatar Paul Hill says:

    That’s because Cicilline likes the thing that goes up. That is a fact .

  33. avatar Tom T says:

    Buy your lowers now. Cash from a private seller is best. Or 80% kits if you are comfortable with those. But get that lower now so it is grandfathered in if this (or something similar) passes. You can finish it later with the unregulated parts.

    1. avatar TommyGNR says:

      I don”t think so. Read the bill – it bans parts too.

      1. avatar Tom T says:

        I’ll be damned, it does. You are right, I should have read the entire bill. They are really covering their bases. I knew they were including 80% lowers, but those aren’t traceable by serial. (Disclaimer: I am not promoting illegal activity. Just mak8ng observations) 😁

  34. avatar CCDWGUY says:

    Time to buy gun manufacturer stocks and hope the ammo makers ramp up production. Better stock up on ammo and any guns you might want now.

    Also write your senators to let them know you are opposed to any changes given that the Democrats are showing what they really want so why give them anything like background or ERPO’s.
    I told some friends just last week that McConnell was being smart to let this wait as the Dems would go after more than just the background/ERPO stuff and screw themselves in the process. Let’s hope and work to make sure they get nothing.

    1. avatar Larry says:

      Meh do not stir up the hype and make ammo prices go through the roof. This will NEVER see the light of day in the senate and Trump would drop the veto bomb on it.

      They ONLY way this ever happens is if the dems control the house, senate and whitehouse. Spend you time voting correctly so that does not happen.

      If these morons were smart they would go after one thing at a time. They could seriously make the case if went after one thing like 10 round magazine on all firearms and just that. Doing that, just the single item to ban they would get better traction…and probably still lose but maybe. However they have to list out a bunch of stuff that ensures it never happens.

    2. avatar Hank says:

      The time to buy is over. You should’ve been buying from nov 16 until recently. The new panic has already started. The days of 300$ ARs and cheap bulk ammo will be over soon.

  35. avatar Stan says:

    Fuck you asshole

  36. avatar Redacted says:

    Nah guys they’re right. It’s way easier and more agreeable to violate millions of people’s enumerated rights than to turn soft targets into hard ones. Also let’s only protect children once they’ve left the womb and become serialized tax payers.

  37. avatar former water walker says:

    I’m already spending all my “extra” dough on my AR15. Time to get another lower…😏

  38. avatar GunnyGene says:

    I’m a bit surprised that they didn’t included various “military” optics in their list of evil $#!t. Must have been an oversight, I’m sure they’ll get a round toit soon. 😉

  39. avatar strych9 says:

    Mass political seppuku? What is this, a Keanu Reeves movie?

    Lol.

  40. avatar John Boch says:

    Democrats are evil.

  41. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I for one will start buying lowers again. I don’t trust Trump at all.

  42. avatar Larry says:

    I will never understand the idiocy of going after cosmetic features. How the Ffff does a pistol grip make a semi-auto rifle any better or worse? Is it scary?

    A Browning Bar Mark II chambered in 30-06 is way more powerful than a AR chambered in 5.56. Both have detachable magazines and are semi-autos. But the Browning is not on the list because is does not have a pistol grip? Or because it has some nice wood stocks and blued steel and looks like a “traditional” hunting rifle therefore less scary.

    Trying to ban something and picking moronic aspects of it, like cosmetic features, makes it really hard to take these people serious, especially when you can’t already.

    1. avatar B says:

      They did it in Ca., and they’re spreading their venom.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “How the Ffff does a pistol grip make a semi-auto rifle any better or worse? Is it scary?”

      A pistol grip provides improved control for rapid fire spray and pray shooting.

  43. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Shall we ban knives with sharp points and edges? They want to attempt to ban some things just to prove they want to ban things, things that have never had anything to do with the problems they think they are fixing unless it just to exercise control over people. It is funny that I see nothing of enhanced sentences for those who abuse the 2nd and use firearms in the commission of other crimes. Crimes such as Straw Man purchases should be a minimum of 20 so no girlfriends or wives will by weapons for prohibited persons. If they love somebody enough to risk 20 years that’s their problem. That is the sort of thing that would keep some weapons out of the hands of really nasty miscreants but they and the ACLU will tell you that kind of sentence restricts the “rights” of some clown but they are happy to restrict the rights of millions and millions of law-abiding citizens. And like what’s her face who gave a gun to her crazy son in Sandy Hook, 40 years because she knew he was dangerous.

    1. avatar J says:

      They just banned knives in New York state.

    2. avatar J says:

      She did not give her son any firearms. The firearms she obtained legally were not locked up to keep them from being taken by him. He had access to all the firearms she owned with his mental health problems. She should have known he was a risk to everyone.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        If that’s the case, why did he have to murder her before he went to shoot up the school? Not much good locking up a corpse for 40 years.

  44. avatar The SGM says:

    Just the thought of this Bill being supported by so many Dems in the house it should have been called a jobs creation bill for all the increased sales which will occur.

    This is nothing but a gun control bill; it does not hinder anyone that shouldn’t have a weapon from getting one. those 200 Democrats need to be re-schooled in the history and meaning of liberty, freedom , the common sense practice of enforcing current law before making new laws will just be overlooked by some.

    1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

      Those 200 TRAITORS need to be removed from office one way or the other.

  45. avatar Eric Nix says:

    Did We really need more proof that Democrats are mostly Criminally minded morons?

  46. avatar Shawn says:

    100% chance it passes the house. 80% chance Republicans pass in the Senate. McConnel will bring it up for a vote, I don’t see it not happening.

    1. avatar Kip says:

      I agree it will pass the House. Lacking 35 from Dems at this cosponsorship level means it would likely pass a floor vote when that comes up.
      But I doubt McConnell will bring this up for a vote, it will just hurt at risk GOP Senators’. More likely it will get hung up on 60 vote requirements or have reciprocity used as a poison pill

      They will get red flag that has astounding approvals higher than more than 99% of passed legislation.

  47. avatar Quest says:

    Note well: any type of hand guard will most likely be considered a “barrel shroud.”

    I learned that odd fact during the California assault weapon registration process. That means even the Ares/Fightlite SCR would be an assault weapon…

    1. avatar B says:

      Exactly. Like I said, California started this decades ago and since then, has added more invasive language to its restrictions. They’re just spreading the boundaries to the Federal level. Any “Grandfathered” stuff will eventually require a mandatory registration if you want to keep them, so the Govt knows who has what and who to go after. The lists grow bigger along with the data bases.

  48. avatar Mark N. says:

    I don’t have to write my representative, he is a Republican and a 2A supporter, one of 7 California Republicans in the House. (Which means that there are 43 California House Democrats who will vote for the bill. That is really sick.)

  49. avatar Ross says:

    So correct me if I’m wrong but this is a confiscation bill correct?

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Nor yet. This one grandfathers existing firearms. But wait a little bit, the next one will be.

  50. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Actually, let them try. It would be a great way to vote out the politicians that what to get rid of our rights.

    Does anyone remembers what happened in 1994?

    1. avatar Ross says:

      I don’t believe 1994 will happen again.

  51. avatar Jack Draper says:

    The first step to communism is take the guns away from the people

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The first step to communism is take the guns away from the people”

      I know people like to say that, but look at what we once called Western Europe. No gun rights, no communism. Even Mexico isn’t communist.

  52. avatar Underdog says:

    Ivanka needs to straight up f-off. Her and her husband are liberal as it gets and certainly think they are way smarter than us minions.

    1. avatar Disposable Deplorable says:

      The (nearly!) thrice-divorced (Drooling) Rudy Giuliani said “But men are, you know, disposable. A fine woman like Ivanka , come on.”

  53. avatar J says:

    It really depends on how many Republicans will cross over and support this bill. Other Republicans have supported anti-2nd Amendment bills already. You can count on those Republicans to do the same this time. I have all Democratic Senators and Representatives in my area in commie Illinois. I had already written them to oppose this bill and other proposed gun control legislation. I always check I would like a reply when I write my Congressional representatives. I should post what they say when they reply to me. But, whom on TTAG would I send it to to post it somewhere here. If, you use GOA or NRA written letters they just ignore them. I always email them directly.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      They don’t ignore form letters from GOA and NRA. They count them. If they got a million in their inbox they will pay attention. I send form letters AND personal letters.

      1. avatar Bre says:

        You can count on my email(s) forward from me as well in the coming weeks. I live in rural Mississippi where every house has a gun and every 5th house has one or more “assault weapons” so my representatives are generally pro-2a anyways, but still.

  54. avatar Hammer says:

    Sounds like another revolution is coming!

  55. avatar Underdog says:

    Hammer- you’re not wrong.

  56. avatar J says:

    Let us not forget that South Carolina Senator Graham introduced a red flag bill earlier in 2018. He will probably be the first to help support the Democrats.

  57. avatar 2aguy says:

    I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime….. and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

    This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders…..and those who do will be gone forever……

    Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants……which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years…they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

    You implement this with two other things…

    1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge………it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal….this stops.

    2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in…they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole….when they are released from custody…the same will be read to them again….when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again…..the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable……

    That is how you stop gun crime over night.

    Mass shooters are different….. but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

    The value in my plan……it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people….

    It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns…

    By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection…..

    Also….a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal…..that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals…..and criminals who use guns for actual crime…robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder…..life without parole…

    This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws…we can already do this…..

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Wishful thinking. There are other crimes that carry such long sentences and they are still not eradicated.
      For gangbanger the gun in his pants, aside from its use for crime, is life saving instrument, just like for legal carriers. He just needs it much more often.

  58. avatar J says:

    I do not think most of us pro-2nd Amendment people have the stomach for a revolution. We are too worried about day to day events in our lives to be concerned. Paying the bills and managing our families is more important and that is what the Democrats have bet on. The Democrats have already call our bluff with the phrase used commonly with us pro-2nd Amendment people for years that was used in Charlton Heston’s closing remarks at the 2000 NRA annual meeting in Charlotte North Carolina in support of our 2nd Amendment rights. He said, “From My Cold Dead Hands” to Al Gore and earlier said by another gun rights group, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms became “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” By the time we do really wake up as a larger group to what the Democrats have been doing for almost 100 years with gun control laws, it will be too late.

    https://ammo.com/articles/gun-control-guide-major-federal-acts

    1. avatar J says:

      It is also against the law to revolt against the United States in a law passed after the Patriot Act’s passage but, I can not remember the name of the bill to find it. I wish I could remember the actual name of the bill that was passed because the reading of it was interesting at the time in the early 2000s. Pro-2nd Amendment groups could be considered terrorist by the Democrats if they take have full control with these 2 laws if pro-2nd Amendment groups try to revolt. Democrats have already called members of the NRA terrorist. It is also against the NRA bylaws to revolt against the United States in Article III, Membership, Section 1. Eligibility, paragraph b states, “(b) No individual who is a member of, and no organization composed in whole or in part of individuals who are members of, any organization or group having as its purpose or one of its purposes the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States or any of its political subdivisions shall be eligible for membership.” You would loose your NRA membership.

  59. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    It was reported today more and more Republicans are signing on for a gun ban as they now know if they do nothing there is not an independent voter in the country that will be voting for them in 2020. The NRA is in disarray with infighting and laws suits and without the money for bribes it will lose its Congressional Prostitutes in droves overnight.

    If you think nothing is going to happen this time especially in an election year your living in a fantasy land. Republican and Moderate voters have kids in school as well so think about that and the pressure they are putting on Republican Congressmen including Moscow MItch to do something to stop the maniacs with assault rifles and they want the Republicans to do something and stop all the b.s. that it will just go away.

  60. avatar Truckman says:

    these democrats do this they better be hunting another job because any pro gun republiction runs against them will most likely beat them or at least enough that they will lose control of everything

  61. avatar Van says:

    A friend of mine in the Justice Dept just contacted me and told me about two new BATFE “rulings” that are in the works. One is to reclassify Arm Braces as regular stocks thus making all weapons shorter that 16in with the brace as an SBR and subject to NFA. The other is to classify AR upper receivers (stripped or otherwise) as “firearms” for reporting purposes. He is going to try to get me a draft copy so I have proof that I can pass along. Interesting times friends…

  62. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    Legislation such as this might well break the country. It just bans so many guns and neuters thr Second Amendment, that you might well see a political revolution like none before. No Icam not talking about a revolution involving armed conflict, but rather one where we see a push for a number of states to secede, and where we see a lot of states declare themselves as Second Amendment sanctuary states. Such legislation would be seen as tyranny from Washington and the coastal states.

  63. avatar Patrick says:

    I see it covers the Judge/Governor are impacted as “Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder”.
    Funny, a Walther p22 would be banned due to the threaded barrel but a 500 magnum would not.

    1. avatar Bre says:

      Not necessarily. The Judge and Governor are not shotguns, they are pistols that just so happen to chamber shotgun ammo. In the bill there is not a definition listed for “shotgun” so we have to refer to the usual definition of a shotgun which is from the ever infamous NFA 1934 and says according to the ATF “(t)he term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of anexplosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.” So these pistols are still excused as they are not legally shotguns.

  64. avatar William Flatt says:

    These SOB’s are hell bent on starting CW2… or 2AmRev., take your pick.

  65. avatar Dunc says:

    “(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    (ii) A second pistol grip.”
    What pistol has two pistol grips???

  66. avatar Dexter Winslett says:

    Bring it. When the shooting stops you fools will not try to disarm us again. To prevent tyranny. Water the Tree Of Liberty.

  67. avatar Someone says:

    Propaganda is very powerful tool. Just ask Goebbels.
    Here is how you use your control of media to whip people into frenzy, so they will act against their own interests and support loss of their own rights for imaginary safety:

    -Make regular people feel endangered by firearms. You can’t do it by pointing at overwhelming majority of crimes, since they are one criminal shooting another and regular folks don’t think that’s relevant to them.
    Take statistical outliers, like mass murders, where firearms were used and fill the screens with them 24/7 for months, until new shooting, inspired by your reports materializes. Rinse, repeat.

    -Suppress any news that suggests that firearms are useful, fun and actually save lifes much more often than they harm.

    -Dehumanize your opponents by claim that anyone opposing your gun grabbing schemes doesn’t care about victims and is only driven by greed.

    -Push for laws that make it easier for mass murderers to commit their atrocities, like gun free zones. Remember, unoposed murderers rack up higher body counts, which in turn help you create outrage and make otherwise intelligent people stop using their brains and scream “We have to do SOMETHING!!!”

    -That’s where you step in and propose conveniently prepared gun grabbing bill which would do nothing to prevent the outrage in question, but you say it would and it’s SOMETHING.

    Did I miss anything?

  68. avatar JJ says:

    As far as handguns there goes glocks, cz75’s (and clones), and beretta 92’s because they all have full auto versions and accept a detachable magazine. Not to mention almost all semi auto handguns have the capacity to accept a threaded barrel with just a barrel swap so there goes sigs, 1911’s, and almost everything else that’s semi auto. Oh yeah and a lot of smaller guns can accept the larger capacity mags of their larger counterparts (i.e. Glock 26). They literally want to take us back to just revolvers, .22’s, and muzzleloaders. Then they’ll come for those as well in the future. Making us all more unsafe with the false pretense of safety. Im sure all the criminals are lining up to comply. Or are the real criminals in office already? Politicians have an insatiable hunger for power and control. We all really know where this road leads to as we have seen it throughout history. Once the second amendment is gone or a shadow of what it used to be the dominos will start to fall and all your other freedoms will be attacked.

    1. avatar B says:

      +1. Straight up.

  69. avatar xtphreak says:

    Can someone please explain where, in the Powers Enumerated by The Constitution to Congress, the congress has the power to BAN anything, let alone guns?

    The NFA was a taxation law, not a ban as they wanted, because the attorney General told Congress they had no such power to ban guns.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      In thirties they still remembered that Congress can only do what it was empowered to. Since then, slow but constant power transfer from the people to the government convinced the populace that the government can do anything 50 percent plus one votes for.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Since then, slow but constant power transfer from the people to the government convinced the populace that the government can do anything 50 percent plus one votes for.”

        That outcome has been available since the ratification. There are no internal rules for House/Senate listed in the constitution. All legislation could be passed via 50% + one vote, and not violate the constitution. It is only amendments for which the constitution demands a specific portion of votes.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The beauty of legislation banning anything is that the ban stays in place until adjudicated by courts. Such ban freezes the playing field (and the grabbers have a truck full of friendly judges) until the pro-gun elements give up, or SC refuses to review.

  70. avatar Enuf says:

    There’s a Fox News poll out today that claims 67% of Americans favor a new Assault Weapon Ban. That includes 46% of Republicans are for it and an equal number against it.

    I’ve been saying for many years that we are arguing about the wrong topic. The issue is Human Violence, not guns. By only being active in the gun debate and ignoring the violence problem itself, we encourage the growth of our own opposition.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The issue is Human Violence,…”

      Yes, that is the problem…accelerated, enhanced, exacerbated, caused and spread by the easy presence of guns. Without guns in the hands of private individuals, “human violence” would become a statistical non-entity.

      See how that works?

      Squish the water balloon on one end, the water rushes to the other.

      1. avatar J says:

        Seems like the trolls are here with their anti-2A statements. I do not know what fantasy world you live in to think violence would stop with the elimination of firearms. Firearms have never been the problem. If, just firearms are the cause of the violence then the United Kingdom and Australia would not have any problems with crime at all right now. The United Kingdom and Australia would have zero crime right now by your statements. That is not true. The United Kingdom and Australia banned firearms many years ago, but the violence has not stopped. It has gotten worse in the United Kingdom with use of any tool such as, knives, bats, hammers, fists and etc…. A criminal will use what is available to them. Human violence has not stopped in the United Kingdom and Australia. We know what the root problem of our large cities crime problems are for a long time in the U.S.. It has always been the social-economic disparity of low income neighborhoods and individuals that are the root of our crime problems in our cities. Not firearms. The problem has been around for more than 50 years. You do not see any Democrat wanting to solve this problem in the last 40 years to uplift these high crime areas in our cities to help eliminate crime in those areas. If, you have opportunity you have lower crime and that is what scares Democrats. Democrats would not have a message for gun control and the elimination firearms to stand in the U.S. period.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Seems like the trolls are here with their anti-2A statements.”

          Have another go at it. You are not reading what you are seeing.

  71. avatar chris says:

    Smells like another Patriot Act Law, don’t think the law iis gone, they simply changed the name to the american Freedom act i think…. back door gun grab and destroy the Constitution, just like these red flag laws… they violate your rights as well… Illegal search and seizure and and right to be innocent until proven guilty and a few others.

  72. avatar Geoff says:

    And they still have no idea what a “barrel shroud” is, do they?
    “A barrel shroud is a covering attached to the barrel of a firearm that partially or completely encircles the barrel, which prevents operators from injuring themselves on a hot barrel.” Wikipedia.
    Tell me how a heat shield makes a rifle an “assault weapon” you stupid Democrats.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Tell me how a heat shield makes a rifle an “assault weapon” ”

      Really?

      A heat shield makes it possible to fire at a rapid rate, while protecting the shooter from the danger of being burned by a hot barrel that otherwise would have limited the rate of fire, and the length of time a shooter could continuously shoot. If the shooter can be injured (burned hands), that will lessen the number of people shot, and maybe even dissuade the shooter from rapid fire shooting in the first place; fewer deaths and injuries.

  73. avatar TyreByter says:

    Now our First Amendment rights are in peril as we have to watch what we say so we don’t run afoul of #DemonRat Fascist “Red Flag Laws”.

  74. avatar KGM says:

    These same ASSHATS would sign on to the elimination of our BILL of Rights. After all, control of the servants is the real goal. WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA! Tyranny is knocking at YOUR door.

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