Waxman Introduces Massive Firearms Ban Bill in House

Henry Waxman courtesy slate.com

Let me start with this: there’s no chance in hell that this bill will pass. H.R. 2910 is a House bill, meaning that the Republican controlled legislative body would need to approve it before it gets its day in the Senate (full text here). And the only way that would happen is if almost every House Republican found themselves incapacitated simultaneously. Somehow. Nevertheless, it’s some scary stuff, and exactly what you’d expect from a California Democrat making a grandstand play . . .

Here are the highlights:

  • “Assault weapons” receivers would be labeled as “hazardous products”
  • Non-complete lower receivers (blanks, sheets, 80% lowers and the like) for “assault weapons” would be banned from sale
  • ANY INDIVIDUAL PARTS for an AR-15 would be BANNED from sale, including upper receiver groups, bolt carrier groups, and the like.
  • Uses a “single feature” test for defining “assault weapons”
  • Eliminates the ban on using federal funds for gun control advocacy

The biggest thing here is that the bill seeks to make it illegal to sell any parts (single parts or kits, either one) that can be used to construct an “assault weapon.” That means upper receiver groups would be illegal without a registered lower receiver attached and logged in the bound books of manufacturers and subject to ATF inspection. Good times.


  1. avatar Rob says:


    And not one cent for improving our nation’s mental health infrastructure.

    Or even how about making it mandatory to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if you use a gun in a crime? I would have no problem with locking away the violent criminal elements of our society. That’s tax dollars well-spent in my view.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Yeah, sounds good. Until the next round of legislation is used to “deem” anyone who owns a gun mentally ill, thereby making you the criminal. And, since the “crime” is committed using a gun, you become the one locked away from society.

      BTW, big improvement today on the site redesign. I’d leave it as is.

    2. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

      Not everyone who “uses a gun during a crime” is a violent criminal. Even possessing a firearm during a completely peaceful drug deal, if the drugs are among those prohibited, might be reckoned as “using a gun during a crime.”

      1. avatar Jeremy says:

        Taken to its logical extreme, it could even be construed as having a gun in your car while speeding.

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        I have seen drug bust “trophy” shots where they listed the “firearms enhancement” among the charges and the only gun in the picture was a bolt action deer gun that was probably in the guy’s closet or hanging on a gun rack next to a set of antlers.

    3. avatar JusBill says:

      “And not one cent for improving our nation’s mental health infrastructure.” He’s afraid they would start with him and Feinstein.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “Or even how about making it mandatory to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if you use a gun in are convicted of a violent crime?”

      There, fixed that for you. It doesn’t matter what weapon (which includes brute strength and fists) a criminal uses during a violent crime. Whatever weapon they use this time, it could be something else next time. The biggest problem is our revolving door joke that we call our criminal justice system. How many times have we heard about police capturing and the courts convicting a violent criminal whose criminal record is a mile long? Answer: tens of thousands of times … and one time is too many.

  2. avatar Gyufygy says:

    Appropriate that they jump the shark during Shark Week.

  3. avatar Tim says:

    What’s with that guy’s frickin nose?

    1. avatar Keith M says:

      What’s wrong with the people of California that keep electing people such as this?

      1. avatar rosignol says:


        Youtube. South Park clip. This concludes the official warning, click ‘play’ at your own risk.

        1. avatar TheDabbo says:

          Ha! Love that episode. I’ve seen someone rolling around Nashville in a Prius, and the vanity plate said “SMUG.” Great sense of humor!

      2. avatar tom walsh says:

        I live in ca and for the life of me I cant figure out ca voters,never have voted for a left leaning politico.and they just keep winning look at our state legislature,very scary…

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      That’s actually not the least flattering photo I’ve ever seen of this guy.

    3. avatar Clff H says:

      “Politics is show business for ugly people.” – Rush Limbaugh

    4. avatar On the other hand says:

      This is an example of an ad hominem attack – full of fury, signifying nothing.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        …but entertaining, nonetheless

    5. avatar ready,fire ,aim says:

      tim said: What’s with that guy’s frickin nose?

      thats what happens when obama comes to a sudden stop

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Just want to point out that the world didn’t begin with Obama. When has looked like that for a long time, and he’s been in Congress longer than I’ve been alive. Obama was 14 when Waxman began his tenure of inflicting his own particular brand of stupidity on this country in Washington, in 1975.

    6. avatar The Blue Angel says:

      All hail the Great ‘Nostrilitus!’

    7. avatar Don says:

      It’s in my business.

    8. avatar Colt Magnum says:

      He’s the rat from “Ratatouille”.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        New keyboard. He’s actually Bat Boy from the GLOBE covers!

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Iowahawk is a national treasure

    9. avatar doesky2 says:

      Malformed from being wedged in Obama’s azz?

    10. avatar Pat says:

      Ugly, dumb, commie libtard (democrat) piggy. Let us all worship the statist ‘Big Gov’, in the name of the children.

    11. avatar ensitue says:

      Waxman was called Gopherman when he was in school, giving a speech, last week.

  4. This guy is such a rat bastard that he actually resembles a rat bastard.

    1. avatar KAT says:

      “This guy is such a rat bastard that he actually resembles a rat bastard” Have not heard that term since the late 60’s Well done, Sir!

      1. avatar On the other hand says:

        Pathetic comments.

        1. avatar Hobbez says:

          Why yes, Waxman’s comments are pathetic. Thank you on the other hand.

        2. Yeah, yours have been real gems thus far as well. I know you’re just trolling, but you’re the pot calling the kettle black with your oh so witty comments.

        3. avatar Pat says:

          Sometimes, simpler is better. Are you a libtard?

  5. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Waxman is a well known loon. Not worth getting upset over.

  6. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I just threw up a little..

  7. avatar Alex Peters says:

    And somewhere the voices that say, “they don’t want to take your guns” grow fainter and fainter…

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Stupid azz bills like this probably help our case because you’re able to pull them out as examples of what the grabbers true intentions are.

  8. avatar Ross says:

    What a total tool.

    1. avatar On the other hand says:


      1. avatar Hobbez says:

        Yes, I agree with you On the other hand, Waxman’s attempts at civil disarmament are very boring.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Regarding the bill Waxman proposed, there is simply nothing more to be said. All of these measures have been so thoroughly debunked as ways to reduce violent crime, and so thoroughly called out as infringements on citizen freedom, that we might as well have fun ridiculing Waxman’s nostrils. If Waxman had anything new, there would be plenty of substantive discussion. Now let us get back to our Monday fun.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Though I hope you’re right, I feel like I should point out that schools reopen most places in about three weeks. Remember that first-day-of-school hostage crisis and mass murder in the Caucasus about a decade ago? Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania. September 1, 2004. 385+ dead.

  9. avatar Billy says:

    Waxman’s brain slid out of his nose a long time ago.

    1. avatar On the other hand says:

      This is the best you got? Hopeless.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        I see you commenting on others’ comments, but not offering anything yourself in support of this legislative action. Do you have something to say, or are you just going to take potshots from the treeline?

        1. avatar Bob says:

          …and what did you just do?

        2. avatar On the other hand says:

          I am not offering an opinion on Waxman’s proposal only saying that ad hominem attacks do not constitute an argument. Please grow up.

        3. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Bob says: …and what did you just do?

          Oh, I’m well known for my potshots from the treeline. But I like to think I’m also known for my reasoned commentary. This… thing that Waxman has promulgated is so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned response. Thus, I make comments about his stupid nose.

          On the other hand says: I am not offering an opinion on Waxman’s proposal only saying that ad hominem attacks do not constitute an argument. Please grow up.

          The arguments are being offered by others, who are doing a fine (and completely unnecessary, because I think the stupidity is self-evident) job of pointing out the stupidity of this Bill. That leaves the rest of us free to make silly comments. I think it’s amusing that you don’t think enough of the proposal to offer a substantive opinion, but you’re irritated enough by the ad homs to respond individually to each of them. Priorities, yo.

      2. avatar Billy says:

        On the other hand–Actually, the best you gun grabbers got is to troll. That’s what’s really pathetic.

      3. avatar Hobbez says:

        I am also curious why you are here. I don’t go to the Huffington Post and isnult you guys when you call us Nazis, zealots and child murderers.

        1. avatar On the other hand says:

          I am not a gun grabber. I am quite the opposite. I just prefer to discuss these subjects like an adult. Much of the comment here is quite simply juvenile.

      4. avatar kalel666 says:

        Rule 5, from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

        1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
        2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
        3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
        4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
        5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
        6; “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
        7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
        8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
        9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
        10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
        11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
        12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
        13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

      5. avatar Fred says:

        Get better at trolling, you’re not even entertaining.

        1. avatar LongBeach says:

          +1. You have failed in your pursuit of failure.

  10. avatar DC Dalton says:

    Everyone does realize this is a resolution right? Not a bill?

    Resolutions don’t mean squat even if they are passed, they are nothing more than a piece of paper saying ‘some people think this’ …. totally meaningless.

    1. avatar Pro-Liberty says:

      You are wrong. This is a bill. Look at it. You are probably mistakenly assuming that “H.R.” stands for “House Resolution.” It doesn’t. The abbreviation for House Resolution would be “H.Res.” In this case, the “H.R.” stands for “House of Representatives.” This is a substantive bill that would affect our rights.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        I’m pretty certain it’s a bill also.

    2. There should be some kind of penalty that comes with the effort to write and vote on these “strongly worded letters”. I think if you can get through with standing on broken glass whilst being pepper sprayed while reading your “resolution”, then you can proceed with presenting it to the floor. Yup, that would work.

      EDIT: My comment still stands even though it may not be a resolution. They are as useful as teats on a bull.

      1. avatar Clff H says:

        There should be some sort of ethics penalty for Representatives that vote in favor of ANYTHING that is so obviously unconstitutional.

        1. avatar Chip says:

          No, keep some sense of fairness in the system. When a legislator tries to pass any legislation that fails, or is later overturned, they get one strike. When they get three strikes they are removed from office. No do-overs and no best out of five.

        2. avatar JusBill says:

          Ethics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – that’s a good one.

  11. avatar Frank says:

    I think it is a perfectly reasonable idea. There is NO legitimate purpose for an assault rifle. Deer can’t shoot back, so why would you need 30 round clips either. I love guns just as much as the rest of us, but a nice bolt action and a over under is all you need.

    1. avatar Pro-Liberty says:


    2. avatar mike says:

      Guess what, some of us like to shoot guns and dont hunt. I guess you think only hunters deserve guns.

    3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      FYI….no one makes 30 round clips.
      If you’re going to troll, at least make an effort to sound reasonably intelligent.

    4. avatar Rob1285 says:

      I don’t need 30 round clips. I have a nice thick patch of rouch skin on my thumb so I don’t mind loading thirty rounders by hand…

    5. avatar Clff H says:

      Exactly what portion Second Amendment addresses shooting at deer? I believe it discusses “The security of a free state…” as its basic reason for existence, not getting dinner.

    6. avatar DJ says:

      Be vewwwy, vewwwy quiet. Frank’s hunting deer.

      (with a shotgun, I assume)

    7. avatar Fred says:

      First of all, you are technically correct, there is no reason for civilians to have assault rifles, which is why we don’t have assault rifles. We have civilian semi-automatic rifles. Educate yourself on the difference.

      Hog hunting, competitive shooting, target shooting, varmint hunting are popular uses of the civilian semi-automatic. What you meant to say is you think you don’t need a civilian semi-automatic rifle at this time. Good for you, I don’t make choices for you kindly stop trying to make decisions for all of us.

      And just to cover all the bases; troll on somewhere else.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        “you are technically correct, there is no reason for civilians to have assault rifles, which is why we don’t have assault rifles.”

        Fred, you make good points, but I just want to say this about the sentence above: Not having a reason is not a good reason to restrict them. It may not be the way you meant it, but your statement seemed to imply that the restriction of automatic weapons was acceptable because we couldn’t provide a reason. I don’t believe that to be the case, and I wanted that to be clear.

        1. avatar Blue says:

          Actually, people can still get NFA items that are fully automatic that were made prior to the 1986 law. However, it makes these weapons extremely expensive. For example, a Rockola M1 Carbine from WWII may set you back $900 whereas the M2 version of the Rockola will set you back $7,000 plus the $200 federal stamp. That is assuming you aren’t in a crap-hole state like NJ, CA etc.

      2. avatar doesky2 says:

        “you are technically correct, there is no reason for civilians to have assault rifles, which is why we don’t have assault rifles.”

        What if my reason for a full automatic is that I LIKE and ENJOY shooting 30 rounds in a few seconds. Who made you the freeking fun police?

      3. avatar Michael Daudert says:

        Your right Fred ( AKA: Billy Bob) We all need Semi-Autos. But its the government we have to worry about…NO. Its the uneducated red neck Hill Billys that think there Governments out to get them. And even more then that, the Christian Religion as a whole whose responsible for more deaths then anyone or anything there ever was or will be. Hitler was a saint compared to you stupid uneducated son of a bitches. That’s the real war. So have another Billy Beer and clean your guns ignorance and paranoia are your real enemy. Just because you live a life of fear. The rest of us that actually went to school want to enjoy our lives , help our brother and love our children with the Christian poison you spread around. Stop being a pussy and think for yourself. Its called evolution,and the worlds not flat… STUPID

        1. avatar Blue says:

          I just looked at my 3 science degrees including a Ph.D. and realized you are clueless. Or, the logical explanation . . . say hello to Mayor Bloomer for us.

        2. avatar Ryan says:

          LMFAO at this well constructed diatribe that you vomited out on this thread!

          So by loving guns and owning semi-automatic rifles I am automatically a red neck hillbilly! LOL!

          “I’ll take ‘False Dichotomies’ for $100 Alex!”

          First of all, your logical fallacies serve only to display your abysmal level of ignorance, rather than formulating a constructive argument. Secondly, I can GUARANTEE that most of the gun owners you are so quick to shoot down (no pun intended) are probably 10 times the person YOU are. Both as human beings and hard workers. While you sit atop your throne acting like you somehow have the moral high ground, you do nothing but spew out ad homenim attacks, unfair assumptions, and blatant ignorance toward the situation we face in this country.

          Let me tell you something. I am an IT professional with two college degrees and five certifications in my field. I manage IT operations for a $64 million dollar project at my place of work, I am VERY good at what I do, and I am willing to bet that I probably make DOUBLE your salary. I am NOT religious and do not follow Christianity or any other faith. I have no criminal record, I have never taken a DIME of welfare or entitlements, and I am an educated and responsible member of society…and I am a gun owner. And that includes semi-automatic rifles. I have never committed a crime, I have never hurt anyone, I have never threatened to hurt anyone.

          And guess what? I DO believe our government is out of control AND is acting against the best interests of the American people. This is no longer some crazy conspiracy. If you think that this government isn’t out of control and is working toward YOUR best interest then you are ignorant beyond redemption. Keep telling yourself that you are so high and mighty and better than everyone else. Most of you people are some of the biggest douche bags and hypocrites known to mankind. You bash others for being religious and asserting their constitutional rights, and yet you display the same ill character that you accuse them of possessing. So you sir can go and fornicate yourself.

    8. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      The. Second. Amendment. is. not. about. hunting.

    9. avatar Mick says:

      If you don’t take this as an assault by the gun grabbers you’ll find that you will have your wish, they will be “over” and you will be “under” all right………their thumb and we will all be “bolting”for the hills!!!

      1. “I think it is a perfectly reasonable idea. There is NO legitimate purpose for an assault rifle. Deer can’t shoot back, so why would you need 30 round clips either. I love guns just as much as the rest of us, but a nice bolt action and a over under is all you need.”

        Firstly — I do not believe the above comes from a private individual just voicing an (ignorant) opinion. Secondly — hunting is for the most part a giant non-issue in the US firearms debate. Even people in the UK-AU-NZ can hunt — (of course you get the noose for defending yourself). Whenever a debater brings in the word NEED — then that is the big clue that one is dealing with a scoundrel — as we humans NEED very little — it’s an anti-concept.

        The question: “why does someone need a 20-30 round firearm” — misses the point — a question from a thoughtful person who understand how laws work in this country would ask: “what will be the result of passing a law that turns hundreds of millions of pieces of (mostly unlabeled) hardware into contraband?” And BTW — how long do you wish people spend in prison for having these contraband items? These are not hunting laws — with a $50 fine for breaking the rules of the game — the current crop of firearms legislation is like the original Rockefeller Drug Laws — viscous, merciless,, draconian. Has our visitor READ the new [2013] NY/NJ/CT laws — in their entirety? How can one have an opinion (on either side) about firearms legislation when you have not read said legislation and are not aware of the specifics, penalties, etc.

        Also — we have “single feature” “Assault Rifle” definitions — meaning that a thumb-hole stock or threaded barrel could eland one in prison.

        Please read my article linked off my name. Note that I think that Americans should be armed as a bulwark against a (future?) Police State and Fascism. I am not afraid of my fellow armed civilians. US civilians are the only major population on earth that cannot be ruled by force. THAT — and just generally not being helpless and defenseless is what “all this” is about — not Bambi.

        Personally — I don’t hunt and I don’t worry about crime where I live — I am concerned about systemic risks — that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

        BTW: The “I love guns as much as the next guy but” line is a dead giveaway.

    10. avatar William Burke says:

      The two of you came in together, I’m supposing? Holding hands and all.

    11. avatar Robert Fitzhugh says:

      I see you’re constitutionally illiterate. The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with deer hunting. Read the 2nd Amendment Primer and you won’t have to ask such foolish questions, such as why any one needs a 30 round clip or semiautomatic rifle.

  12. avatar Jim Barrett says:

    There should be some rules against wasting time introducing bills like this that have no chance at all of passage.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Deep down inside, Waxman KNOWS this bill has no chance of getting out of committee, let alone passage on the floor. He’s using it for fodder for his and other D’s campaign: “Once again the ee-ville Republicans, under the thumb of the NRA have refused to pass REASONABLE COMMONSENSE GUN SAFETY legislation, placing our CHILDREN in extreme danger from shootouts with these freely-available semi-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE MACHINE GUNS.” (I think I got all the buzzwords in there.)

      1. avatar JusBill says:

        …using the DEADLY 100 ROUND CLIP MAGAZINES. You forgot those.

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          And heaven forbid it has the shoulder thing that goes up…

        2. avatar Ryan says:

          And also, don’t forget about that thingy that flips up and makes it full auto semi! ::Trollface::

    2. avatar Rob says:

      I think you might be on to something, but make it an electoral penalty, for every bill a senator/Representative introduces the percentage they need to win goes up by .1%. if they introduce 20 bills instead of needing 50%+1 votes to win they would need 52%+1 votes to win. Same goes for the president, every time they sign a bill they need one more electoral vote to win re-election.

      1. avatar mark_anthony_78 says:

        Or another simple way – each representative is only allowed to author X number of bills per year, and sponsor Y number of bills per year (with X and Y being reasonable numbers that can be accommodated within the Senates/HR’s calendar to allow for debate). Make them choose wisely on the issues that they propose or support.

        1. avatar JusBill says:

          Now THAT makes a lot of sense. So it will never happen. Between special interest pork and sponsor bills and “naming stuff after dead campaign contributors” bills, there may be one or two bills left for actual legislation.

    3. avatar William Burke says:

      Sometimes things are a given at a particular place and time. But they are never a given beyond that. I’m saying one enormous school shootup, and it’s a brand new ballgame. And the ball is theirs.

  13. avatar Willyv says:

    @DCDalton: No, a resolution would be titled H.Res., not H.R.

  14. avatar JRP says:

    I can’t believe that they”re still taking time to work on anything that has to do with Gun Control.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      He should be taking some flak for this from the Dem party that stated there was to be no more gun grabbing work this year. He might just pull a few of them down with himself.

    2. avatar Xbonesrider says:

      Not really. Ratface’s district is Malibu. He has little to lose by putting forth such tripe. And of course we know the rich and powerful are always exempt from gun laws anyway

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        They can afford professionals, true.

        But hey, MALIBU? Do they allow him on the beach without a burkha?

  15. avatar JSIII says:

    Keep harping on gun control dems and watch the Senate slip away. As long as the GOP can post up some strong pro gun candidates to paint a start contrast against these anti gunners it should be a cake walk.

    1. avatar zora says:

      Hey I just thought, why do we call them anti-gun when anti-freedom would work much better? I mean buzzwords work for the anti-freedomers right.

      1. avatar Xbonesrider says:

        I agree. I dislike they term “anti gun”. They are very much in favor of guns so long as they are under their power and control. What they oppose is YOU owning a gun.

    2. avatar JusBill says:

      And I still think “the Infringement Lobby” has a nice ring to it.

  16. avatar Jason says:

    Wouldn’t this ban spare parts as well? Firing pins, screws etc? Would definitely make regular maintenance of your weapons more difficult.

    1. avatar Clff H says:

      As useless as this legislation is, and as foolish as Waxman is, I can’t help thinking that someone smarter than him had that very purpose in mind when they wrote this bill for him to present.

    2. avatar Fred says:

      The common strategy is to “dry up supply” so they want to ban the sale of all the parts, ammo, and services as possible so they can throw in some obsolescence. Once something breaks you have to buy another $1000 rifle instead of $10 part. It would cut some people out of positive gun culture, namely those just getting started. It’s like the anti-tabacco campaigns to get young people to quit early or avoid smoking, focusing on immediate harm instead of the long-term issues.

      They have a few tactics to ban but not ban guns, like waiting times, fees, tons of hoops to jump though, limit availability, limit parts, limit ammo, mag capacity limit. If they don’t outright ban guns they want to make it as onerous and socially despised as possible to keep people from buying and owning guns. They’re using the same plays out of the anti-tabacco campaign, treating gun ownership like a disease or addiction. Sad to see people consider the right to defend yourself a disease or addiction.

  17. avatar Lou says:

    Figures that rat faced idiot would push a bill. Haven’t seen anything from this scumbag in a while. He is another typical liberal. He doesn’t hate guns; he hates gun owners. All liberals do. They hate the idea of armed and free citizens not relying on the government for everything. They have no issue being armed nor having armed agents that are ready to do violence on their behalf but they hate the idea of the “lowly serf” to be able to defend one’s self.

    1. avatar Hobbez says:

      So goes Kalifornia, so goes the country they say? Hopefully the next “go” for Kali is right into the ocean.

      1. avatar zora says:

        HEY!! I live in Kali and that comment is 50% offensive and 50% logical, depending on how many of our senators can’t swim.

  18. I wonder if there is any line items in there for Waxman to get that massive honker of his fixed. Dude needs some serious rhinoplasty!

  19. avatar Conrad says:

    So, if I’m a skilled machinist who owns a mill, this square block of aluminum sitting here would be illegal, just because I COULD make an AR out of it?

    Or all of the bolts and screws at Home Depot would be illegal because they COULD be used to build a gun?

    Nails could be firing pins. I could make a magazine out of duct tape and cardboard, so duck tape is illegal?

    How do you define what is and what isn’t illegal?

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Got an empty wine bottle, some lawnmower gas and cleaning rags around your house?

      A-Hah! Constructive Possession of a Fire Bomb!

    2. avatar Julian says:

      I was pretty much thinking the same thing… no more sheet metal, someone might bend it into an AK receiver. Oh, and no more shovels, cause that’s really just another piece of sheet metal.

    3. avatar Matt in FL says:

      It’s like p0rnography. You know it when you see it.

    4. avatar Fred says:

      It most likely means parts produced and marketed specifically as gun parts.

  20. avatar mediocrates says:

    can we sponsor a bill to revoke his citizenship? and the cauldron of witches from California as well?

  21. avatar DaveL says:

    Non-complete lower receivers (blanks, sheets, 80% lowers and the like) for “assault weapons” would be banned from sale

    Here’s the actual section of the bill:

    (a) BANNED HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS.—Notwithstanding section 3(a)(5)(E) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(A)(5)(E)), a firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank that—

    (1) at the point of sale does not meet the definition of a firearm in section 921(a) of title 18,United States Code, and

    (2) after purchase by a consumer, can be completed by the consumer to the point at which such casting or blank functions as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machine gun,

    shall be considered a banned hazardous product under section 8 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2057).

    But how do you know if it’s a firearm receiver blank or casting? I mean, wouldn’t a “0%” blank be, essentially, a simple billet of metal? How would we know which chunks of metal are “0%” receivers and which are “0%” brake master cylinders?

    1. avatar On the other hand says:

      This is an actual argument, not a meaningless insult. See the difference?

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      “How would we know which chunks of metal are “0%” receivers and which are “0%” brake master cylinders?”

      I’ve often heard sculptors saying things like, “The sculpture was in the stone all along. I just let it out.”

      Maybe we just need sculptors to tell us?

      1. avatar Blue says:

        I don’t need a civil engineer to tell me Henry Wax-man is full of crap and that SoCal should be charging him a sewer bill and fining him for illegal emissions. His mom really pooped a master piece when he was born.

  22. avatar PhoenixNFA says:

    Guys, it’s for the children.

    Would 80% receivers for over under guns be illegal as well?

  23. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    So Waxman is proposing banning the sale of roll pins?

    Every year, they just give us more evidence that there is no lower bound to their stupidity.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      That was my first thought, too.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      Just keep on thinkin’ they’re stupid; THAT’S the ticket. No matter that it’s totally inaccurate. If it feels good for your ego, do it.

  24. Just skim-read the bill. It is mostly about “better mental health treatment” — that will likely end up causing MORE crazy-ass mass shooters. WHY? See the below:


  25. avatar Lance says:

    Glad you agree with me Nick this bill is DOA before it was filed. Shows the dumb mindset of fascist gungrabbers.

  26. avatar Joseph says:

    Waxman has got to be the ugliest sombitch alive.Add his lunatic legislation, albeit hopeless, to the mix and you’ve got a natural born statist.

  27. avatar Pencotron says:

    Anyone ever notice that Waxman looks like a cross between a human and a rat?

    1. avatar On the other hand says:

      You are destoying the credibility of this site with this pathetic insult-hurling. Let’s hear arguments not schoolyard name-calling.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        You are a colossal concern troll.

        1. avatar William Burke says:


      2. avatar brian says:

        I have a better idea. How’s about you stop whining about how juvenile we are. We’re insulting Henry Waxman – a man with a sub-room-temperature IQ. He doesn’t deserve to be debated in a respectful manner, he deserves to be treated like the impudent child that he is and sent to bed without supper.

      3. avatar Herb says:

        Comments about Waxman’s appearance are not inappropriate & can serve as the basis for psychological analysis of his motives. He is, after all, a senior member of the House and his legislative intentions even if unlikely to become law still have the potential to affect all our lives.

        That said, ol’ Nostrilitis has to be the ultimate example of the nerd’s revenge. “Laughed at me in school, did you? Let’s see who’s laughing now, I’m a member of Congress and you’re not!!”

        Of course, Waxman’s sheer overreach is the undoing of his own agenda.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Recall the Twilight Zone (“The Eye of the Beholder”) where the “normal” were all pigface and the deviant was a beautiful human girl. Have long thought THAT Waxman was an alien from planet pigface.


      According to widipedia the actress was Maxine Stuart who died June6 at age 94

    3. avatar JusBill says:

      Stop insulting the rats!

  28. avatar Mark N. says:

    I’m surprised that no one so far has commented about the “hazardous product” part of the bill. It is my guess that it is an attempt to impose strict liability on gun owners for any injury arising out of the use of such a weapon, without necessity of proof of negligence. Kind of like what they tried to do with imposing strict liability on manufacturers of firearms for any harms arising from the use of a gun.

    P.S. I liked the brown background a lot more. This gray is kind of cold and uninviting.

  29. avatar loub says:

    I’ve always thought Waxman looked like Bat Boy. He used to freak me out when I saw him on TV as a kid.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Bat Boy was never on TV; he was repeatedly on the front cover of THE GLOBE.

      1. avatar loub says:

        He reminded me of tabloid covers I saw waiting to checkout with my mom. So when I would see him on the news I would get spooked, he did not look like a real human to me!

  30. avatar dph says:

    First line, “It’s for the children”.

  31. avatar JusBill says:

    Would this not also criminalize sales to police armorers? Sorta like the NYS SAFE fiasco?

  32. avatar Daniel says:

    Nobody with a nose straight out of a Twilight Zone episode should be allowed to serve in Congress.

  33. avatar NWBob says:

    I was wondering where this moron was hiding. I remember his anti smoking bullshit too. The poster boy of the nanny state. What an ugly petty little dick. Can we balance the budget, seal the borders or investigate Benghazi first?

  34. avatar abel says:

    come to California, were we ban everything!

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Except pot.

      How can tey simultaneously get things so right and so new-ranked leftwrong?

      Glad I escaped when I did; after a quarter century, I knw it’s not my fault…

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Except pot.

      How can they simultaneously get things so right and so new-fangled leftwrong?

      Glad I escaped when I did; after a quarter century, I knw it’s not my fault…

  35. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Hmmm… From the above, methinks the board needeth more tweaking.

    O Sir Moderator, pray rendest unto me the favour of banishing or or t’other of the unfortunate twins above?

    1. avatar Rambeast says:

      If you are posting from a mobile device and you get a “post failed” message, refresh the page, you’re post likely went through.

  36. avatar AaronW says:

    Waxman, you’re also an a-hole for leading the Senate investigations into steroids. I don’t give shit one about baseball, but I hate it when time and resources are being spent on nonsense when there are more important things for the Senate to tackle.

  37. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Waxman the West Coast joke I see is at it again………
    He’s good for a 1 line laugh in the papers every now and then.
    The guy is from Mars for sure.
    I don’t know anyone who ever pays him any attention.

  38. avatar niceguns says:

    What is it with these Jews, something in the gefilte fish?

    1. avatar Pat says:

      Secular worship of statism (Big Gov) as primary force for humanity (humanism).

    2. What do we suppose is the proportion of Jews publishing, reading and writing in this “pro-gun” journal?

      I’ll bet it is disproportionate positive.

      It is like that bromide that Jews are “liberal/left” — really? Read National Review much? Founders of the Libertarian movement? Murray Rothbard? (nominally Jewish) Ayn Rand?

      Anyway — if you are a Jew — you should own a gun!

  39. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    If you look at the district that Waxman represents, he is the near perfect representative for his constituents. Santa Monica, Venice Beach, Beverly Hills, etc. He has spent most of his adult life in one of the epicenters of liberal fantasy, irrationality, supreme vanity, willful ignorance, mindless conformity/trendiness/hipsterism and a culture of elitism and political correctness that may well not have an analogous counterpart anywhere else on the planet. Here’s a man who is so insulated from the majority of his fellow citizens, so deeply ensconced in the bubble of the New Deal, the Great Society and faux Progressivism, that there is no hope whatsoever that he he could behave and react to a problem anyway other than the way he does.

    How can we, the ignorant, benighted ruffians that we are, ever hope to comprehend the grand vision of our betters? It matters little that such foolishness, such counterproductive pap, such pure, blind, unconstitutional nonsense is given the light of day, let alone being given legitimacy and being debated in the “Greatest Deliberational Body” the world has ever known. Being the eternal optimist that I am, I hope and pray that this is merely a temporary delay in the Enlightenment that our species has fought for, for so long and so very hard. On the other hand, can the “Endarkenment” be very far behind?

    Speaking of On The Other Hand, dude, are you serious? Are you truly all butt hurt that the A.I., et al, are making nasty ad hominem attacks against the illustrious Rep. Waxman? The man, if you can call him that with a straight face, is a pathetic specimen of a human being, let alone an American. He and his ilk need to be mocked, ridiculed, marginalized and crushed, for no other reasons than it’s the right thing to do, it’s fun, it’s our right, and they deserve to get everything they’ve got coming to them, good and hard. OTOH, grow a pair, put some steel in your spine, take a deep breath and lighten up.

    1. avatar askeptic says:

      Well Said!

  40. avatar E. Jones says:

    What does he hope to accomplish with this? He has to know it won’t pass. Bolstering his image with the folks back home, now that Feinstein’s shut her yap and his voice won’t get lost in the general tumult?

  41. avatar dan says:

    Please dear Lord remove these evil people from our nation….amen

  42. avatar Mark says:

    What this country really needs is a ban on the likes of Waxman et al. He is an “assault weapon” on the Constitution.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Wax-Man is the male version of Stretch Pelosi.

  43. avatar askeptic says:

    Remember, this is the idiot that when he was a Cmte Chairman (1/07 – 1/11) gave us the Compact Florescent Lamp, and many other memorable and completely POS legislation.

  44. avatar smitch says:

    It is quite clear the man suffers for a medical problem…I am not a doctor however as a simple person, his head is stuck in his backside! Or maybe he has mastered yoga!

  45. avatar smitch says:

    Just to show support I will buy another 5 each stripped lowers! I have found them for $100.00 each. I am sure Waxoff will like another new 100 round surefire I just bought because of this artical!

  46. avatar Tony Ruiz says:

    He’s every bit as dumb as he looks

  47. avatar Tony lucido says:

    What next are they going to ban trucks that killed more people than guns at one time

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