To those who said they weren't coming after our guns....

[TSA]

Will this hypocritical CCW having old bitch just die already.


http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload.

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.
The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.
The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.
The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.
Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.
Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.
So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.
Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.
Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.
The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.
This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.
Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.
Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.
Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon
Assault weapon bans have been proven to be effective

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons.

A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.
Source: Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” (March 1997).
The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
Source: Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004), University of Pennsylvania, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
Source: David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, “In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204046.html
When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
Source: Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997.
37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired.
Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact (May 2010).  
List of firearms prohibited by name

Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI.

Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12.

Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

[ChumpDumper]

So we were right.

[ElNono]

What was the roll call?

[FromWayDowntown]

tl;dr

except for:


The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.

So, by letting us keep the guns we already have, the government is really coming after our guns. I guess.

[TSA]

tl;dr

except for:



So, by letting us keep the guns we already have, the government is really coming after our guns. I guess.did you miss where you couldn't sell or transfer said guns? If passed, the people will eventually only be able to purchase what the government deems a sporting or hunting firearm. Where in the second amendment does it mention the right to bear arms is limited to sporting and hunting?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://static.squarespace.com/static/50578791e4b093884ee9a6db/t/50d3728ee4b097d67489f49f/1356034703327/guncrontroladvocates.jpg?format=750w

[DMC]

Since they aren't registered, who's to stop you from selling it?

This generally means they will stop the manufacture of said weapons, par per what I said a month ago.

[mavs>spurs]

Civil war looms. Actually probably not, this bitch is a joke and nobody cares about her lame bill it won't pass.

[DMC]

My belt feds aren't semiauto so I don't have anything to worry about.

[Th'Pusher]

did you miss where you couldn't sell or transfer said guns? If passed, the people will eventually only be able to purchase what the government deems a sporting or hunting firearm. Where in the second amendment does it mention the right to bear arms is limited to sporting and hunting?

Where in the second amendment does it mention the right to bear arms is not limited to a mentally deranged person with a violent criminal history? It doesn't. In fact, it says that his right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You cool with that?

[TSA]

Where in the second amendment does it mention the right to bear arms is not limited to a mentally deranged person with a violent criminal history? It doesn't. In fact, it says that his right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You cool with that?
That's an aggressively gay question.

[Drachen]

That's an aggressively gay question.

It has the same validity of your question.

Also, even not being able to sell your gun doesn't make it "they are coming for my guns". In fact it makes it so that "no one can come for your guns" including those with cash.

[ElNono]

What was the roll call?

[ElNono]

did you miss where you couldn't sell or transfer said guns? If passed, the people will eventually only be able to purchase what the government deems a sporting or hunting firearm. Where in the second amendment does it mention the right to bear arms is limited to sporting and hunting?

so they're coming after the guns you didn't purchase yet... ie: not your guns...

[TSA]

It has the same validity of your question.

Also, even not being able to sell your gun doesn't make it "they are coming for my guns". In fact it makes it so that "no one can come for your guns" including those with cash.
Where did i pose a question?

So you agree with me not being able to sell my own property?

[Drachen]

So you agree with me not being able to sell my own property?

I said that they aren't coming for your guns.

[TSA]

I said that they aren't coming for your guns.Well I consider future purchases to be "my guns".

[Drachen]

Well I consider future purchases to be "my guns".

Ok, you may consider that. It's not true though. Those future guns belong to the person whose land the metal will come out of to make them at this moment in time.

[Th'Pusher]

That's an aggressively gay question.
Still, would you mind answering it?

[TSA]

I can't believe some of you do not see the slippery slope here. The government is slowly trying to disarm its population. When the next mass killer sits up in a wooded hilltop plucking off kids one by one with a long range bolt action deer rifle are those firearms next? After that, it will be another firearm used. Eventually we'll only be allowed to have flintlock pistols, besides the criminals of course.

[TSA]

Still, would you mind answering it?Don't need to, I've already made it clear I'm for more thorough background checks. I like to work with this thing called common sense.

[ElNono]

FWIW, government banning sales isn't even new... not that it matters in this case because the law has zero chance of passing... but there's ample precedent, including drugs, patents, prohibition, etc...

[ElNono]

I can't believe some of you do not see the slippery slope here. The government is slowly trying to disarm its population.

There's no slippery slope because that law has zero chance of passing, thus the government isn't slowly disarming anybody.

[ElNono]

Heck, the fact that the law has zero chance of passing it's a clear indicator the government has zero interest in disarming the population.

[Th'Pusher]

Don't need to, I've already made it clear I'm for more thorough background checks. I like to work with this thing called common sense.
So in other words you are for some gun control and in essence infringing on some person's right to bear arms. Now it's just a matter of degree. You have your opinion and can vote for representatives that support your view and others can vote for representatives that support views that differ from yours.

And as has been pointed out multiple times there is nothing in the Feinstein bill that confiscates or requires compulsory buy-back. So no, no one is coming for your guns.

[TSA]

So in other words you are for some gun control and in essence infringing on some person's right to bear arms. Now it's just a matter of degree. You have your opinion and can vote for representatives that support your view and others can vote for representatives that support views that differ from yours.
Very true. Now find me a single person who believes the mentally ill should have the right to bear arms. What a stupid fucking question.

[TSA]

And as has been pointed out multiple times there is nothing in the Feinstein bill that confiscates or requires compulsory buy-back. So no, no one is coming for your guns.As I previously said, I consider future purchases being limited as infringing. What have I, a law abiding citizen, done to deserve such treatment?

[mavs>spurs]

It has the same validity of your question.

Also, even not being able to sell your gun doesn't make it "they are coming for my guns". In fact it makes it so that "no one can come for your guns" including those with cash.

so...if they're non transferrable, waht happens in 50 years when all the owners of these guns die and they are unable to pass them on, and there are no new ones being produced? yep, in 50 years they will have castrated the 2nd amendment, this is why NO restrictions are to be passed, it isn't ANYONE'S business how big of a gun i own, if you want to take the guns from law abiding gun owners or even our GRANDCHILDREN you're going to have to fight us, plain and simple.

[Th'Pusher]

Very true. Now find me a single person who believes the mentally ill should have the right to bear arms. What a stupid fucking question.
I was simply establishing the fact that you support federal gun control. An now it is a matter of degree. You think gun control should go no further than background checks - only infringing on the rights of the mentally ill and felons to keep and bear arms. Others disagree and think more drastic steps can be taken to reduce gun crime. What we know is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but as you appear to agree that right is not unlimited.

[ChumpDumper]

Is it tiring being fake outraged by so many imaginary things that don't happen?

[ChumpDumper]

And why would anyone from stormfront follow the NBA in any way?

[Th'Pusher]

As I previously said, I consider future purchases being limited as infringing. What have I, a law abiding citizen, done to deserve such treatment?

What has the law abiding mentally ill person done to have his rights infringed upon?

It's really a moot point since you have already agreed that the federal government has the right to infringe on the right to bear arms by denying some people the right to own a gun via a background check. If congress passes a law preventing the sale of a certain gun (it won't), it is your responsibility to follow that law.

[Drachen]

so...if they're non transferrable, waht happens in 50 years when all the owners of these guns die and they are unable to pass them on, and there are no new ones being produced? yep, in 50 years they will have castrated the 2nd amendment, this is why NO restrictions are to be passed, it isn't ANYONE'S business how big of a gun i own, if you want to take the guns from law abiding gun owners or even our GRANDCHILDREN you're going to have to fight us, plain and simple.

So they are STILL not coming for your guns. You are running away anyway so I don't think that you will have 2nd amendment protections in costa rica or canada or wherever you are running to.

I also haven't seen you getting so angry about the fact that they Westboro baptist church has to get city permits to protest... They have first amendment rights!

[mavs>spurs]

yes slowly taking away our 2nd amendment through attrition while not as radical is still considered infringing on our 2nd amendment rights

[TSA]

What has the law abiding mentally ill person done to have his rights infringed upon?

It's really a moot point since you have already agreed that the federal government has the right to infringe on the right to bear arms by denying some people the right to own a gun via a background check. If congress passes a law preventing the sale of a certain gun (it won't), it is your responsibility to follow that law.

What has the law abiding mentally ill person done to be denied the right to drive?.....oh yeah, pass a test.


And if congress does pass such a law, consider me a criminal, along with tens of millions more.

[Th'Pusher]

What has the law abiding mentally ill person done to be denied the right to drive?.....oh yeah, pass a test.

Not quite sure where you're going with this. Would you be ok with gun regulation requiring potential gun owners to take a test show they are capable of handling a firearm?


And if congress does pass such a law, consider me a criminal, along with tens of millions more.

So you would buy a banned gun? Why haven't you gone out an purchased fully automatic assault rifle?

[TSA]

Does a drivers license make you a safe driver?

I can't afford a fully auto at the moment.

[Th'Pusher]

Does a drivers license make you a safe driver?

Not necessarily, but I am glad that it is a requirement.


I can't afford a fully auto at the moment.

Why do you think fully automatic weapons are as expensive as they are? The technology is not complicated.

[Drachen]

Does a drivers license make you a safe driver?

I can't afford a fully auto at the moment.

why don't you modify your semis

[TSA]

why don't you modify your semisI can't afford or even find the ammo to make that happen. Besides, I don't find fully automatic weapons useful or practical.

[TSA]

Pusher......are you afraid of guns?

[Winehole23]

TSA......are you hypervigilant?

[Winehole23]

no one's coming for your guns, yet.

[TSA]

It makes for good discussion.

[TSA]

And I really enjoy shooting guns.

[Wild Cobra]

So...

What is the bill number? It would be nice to read this for ourselves.

[Th'Pusher]

Pusher......are you afraid of guns?
No. You're the paranoid one. Not me. They're coming to get my guns! I gotta get more guns to protect myself! Obama has a laser sight trained on my liberty! FUCK!

[TSA]

No. You're the paranoid one. Not me. They're coming to get my guns! I gotta get more guns to protect myself! Obama has a laser sight trained on my liberty! FUCK!

If I was as paranoid as you think I am, why would sell an AR15?

[boutons_deux]

If I was as paranoid as you think I am, why would sell an AR15?

because you exploit the paranoia of other paranoid dumbfucks to make a few $$

[TSA]

because you exploit the paranoia of other paranoid dumbfucks to make a few $$

Then I'm obviously not paranoid.

[Th'Pusher]

^ what he said. And did you not use that money to go out and by some more guns? You're a hyper emotional paranoid person.

[TSA]

I like guns, how does that make me paranoid?

[Th'Pusher]

I like guns, how does that make me paranoid?
Cool. You're not paranoid. You're super rational and smart.

[TSA]

I knew you'd come around.

[TSA]

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate
By Heidi Przybyla and Julie Hirschfeld Davis
January 25, 2013 3:31 PM EST
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Queue

A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.
At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.
A ban on the military-style weapons is among the legislative goals President Barack Obama outlined in his recommendations to Congress on curbing gun violence after the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut. Vice President Joe Biden said today it will take “persuasion and information” to garner the necessary support in Congress to enact the White House package.
Related:
“We have an obligation to act -- not wait,” Biden told reporters after a more than two-hour roundtable at Virginia Commonwealth University to discuss the administration’s push for new gun-safety measures.
Yesterday, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced legislation to outlaw sales of assault- style weapons during a news conference where survivors of past shootings, some of them with bullets still lodged in their bodies, urged its passage.
Slideshow: Gun Culture in America
At that event, Feinstein said it’s unclear whether the fight is winnable. “We don’t know, it’s so uphill,” she said. “It depends on the courage of Americans.”
The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have recently expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who is caucusing with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.
Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
The 1994 assault weapons ban, signed by President Bill Clinton, expired in 2004 and, until the school shooting in Newtown, there’s been little effort in Congress to renew it.
The new legislation prohibits the sale or transfer of 158 of the most commonly owned military-style assault weapons. It exempts all assault weapons legally possessed prior to passage of the law and excludes more than 2,200 hunting and sporting rifles.
Baucus, in a Jan. 16 statement, said that “before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of a one-size-fits-all directive from Washington.”
“The answer isn’t simply in limiting guns,” said Andrea Helling, a spokeswoman for Tester. The senator also told the Missoulian newspaper that an assault weapons ban wouldn’t have stopped the shootings in Newtown.
Begich said he was “not interested” in a ban, during a Jan. 10 conference call with reporters.
“I don’t believe that we need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems,” he said. Manchin told CNN on Jan. 13 that the debate can’t be “about guns and guns only and a “stand-alone ban” will “not go anywhere.”
Two freshmen also expressed skepticism about an assault weapons ban.
“There isn’t any amount of gun regulation or gun executive orders that will solve the problem of identifying people who could potentially do this and making sure they get the help and their families get the help so they don’t do this,” Heitkamp told North Dakota’s KXMB-TV and KXMC-TV Jan. 15.
Scott Ogden, a spokesman for King, said the senator “remains skeptical” about an assault weapons ban, though he was waiting for more details. And Collins is concerned that the proposed legislation is “far broader in the kinds of rifles that would be banned than was the case in the law in effect between 1994 and 2004,” said her spokesman, Kevin Kelley.
Further dimming prospects for the assault weapon ban, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, both Democrats, voted against extending a previous ban in 2004. Neither has made any public statements since Newtown indicating that they will change their positions.
Feinstein is hoping survivor testimonials, along with the images of the slain Sandy Hook students, most of them 6-year- olds, will push these Democrats to reconsider their opposition.
“The message to Democrats is, ‘See what your silence does?’ There will be more of these. These won’t end,” Feinstein told reporters.
“If just reading the list of beautiful names and looking into the eyes of some of the pictures of the children slain doesn’t do something to the conscience of America, nothing I can say or do will,” she said.
The vote shortage may prompt Democrats to focus on another major goal: banning high-capacity magazines that have been used in many of the shooting massacres over the past decade to fire off numerous bullets in a matter of seconds.
Feinstein’s legislation also includes a large magazine sales ban, and Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, introduced legislation on Jan. 22 to ban the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
In the Tucson, Arizona, shooting two years ago that severely injured former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, of Arizona, Jared Lee Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds from a Glock 19 pistol. He was tackled while reloading. Shooter James Holmes used a 100-round magazine to kill 12 and wound 58 in July 2012 at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.
Some of these lawmakers did express support for a ban on high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and increased background checks.
“Congress must act to implement magazine capacity restrictions,” King spokesman Ogden said in a statement.
King is also “generally supportive of expanded background checks,” he added. Collins “supports a reasonable limitation on the number of rounds of ammunition in a magazine,” spokesman Kelley said.
Biden, who Obama tapped to develop recommendations for action after the Connecticut shooting, said there would be more trips outside of Washington to discuss the issue. He called Newtown “a national tragedy and a window into a vulnerability people feel about their safety and the safety of their children.”
The White House’s campaign-style effort is designed to build political pressure on Congress to take action.
“I have no illusions about what needs to be done and how difficult it will be,” Biden said in an e-mail today to Obama’s supporters. “Each one of us needs to speak up and demand action,” he wrote, concluding: “Let’s get this done.”
The private roundtable included cabinet officials, Democratic lawmakers, and members of the state-appointed review board that investigated the 2007 shooting that killed 33 people at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, known as Virginia Tech, in the deadliest gun massacre in U.S. history.
That incident prompted enactment in early 2008 of a law improving state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, aimed at barring criminals or mentally ill individuals from obtaining guns.
Biden said the group discussed the need for strengthening that system and implementing universal background checks with better and more timely information from states. He said they also talked about the “woefully inadequate” number of trained mental health professionals available around the country.
Manchin told a West Virginia radio interviewer Jan. 24 that he also is working with senators of both parties to require most gun purchasers, including those at gun shows, to undergo checks.
“If you’re going to be a gun owner, you should have a background check and be able to pass a background check,” he said. Exceptions should be made in cases where a gun is transferred from one family member to another, and when the owner is getting a gun to use at a sporting event.
Manchin said private sellers at gun shows have an “unfair advantage” because they don’t have to perform background checks while a licensed dealer does.



Bolded for what a kunt she is

[ElNono]

Hypocrite pushing a political agenda behind dead children... where I've seen that one before...

[Blake]

ElDrono

[mavs>spurs]

Hypocrite pushing a political agenda behind dead children... where I've seen that one before...

GET DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWN antichrist obama

[Wild Cobra]

I still want to see the Bill. Not something that is on the bitch's web site.

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html
From Thomas dot com:

The text of S.150 has not yet been received from GPO
At least they list the bill. They didn't yesterday. Don't expect the propaganda on Feinbitches site to reflect the actual text.

[Wild Cobra]

COSPONSORS(17), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 1/24/2013
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] - 1/24/2013
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 1/24/2013
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 1/24/2013
Sen Murphy, Christopher S. [CT] - 1/24/2013
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schatz, Brian [HI] - 1/24/2013
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 1/24/2013
Sen Warren, Elizabeth [MA] - 1/24/2013
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 1/24/2013

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

11 of the 18 sponsors are Jews and Jews only make up 2% of the entire U.S. population, that should tell you something. Hey remember det one time when the Bolshevik Jews disarmed the Russians? The Russian people sure were a lot better off after that.

[spursncowboys]

Why not just make a cartman troll, coward?

[TSA]

When she gives up her CCW I'll consider listening to anything she says. FBHO.

[ChumpDumper]

Why not just make a cartman troll, coward?Nah, he's a real stormfront-y kind of guy.

I wouldn't worry; will probably be banned soon.

[ChumpDumper]

Back on topic -- bill we said wouldn't pass won't pass.

Wow.

[spursncowboys]

Nah, he's a real stormfront-y kind of guy.

I wouldn't worry; will probably be banned soon.
People get banned here?

[Winehole23]

more for vulgarity than opinion, as far as I can tell. this forum is very lightly moderated, if at all.

who's the mod?

[ElNono]

more for vulgarity than opinion, as far as I can tell. this forum is very lightly moderated, if at all.

who's the mod?

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/images/robocop-statue_0.jpg

[mavs>spurs]

Nah, he's a real stormfront-y kind of guy.

I wouldn't worry; will probably be banned soon.

Lol you liberals crack me up, you're all closet racists and feel guilty so you take solace in "at least i'm not as racist as that guy!" because you have to put down someone to prop yourself up and in your warped mind only other white people are fair game. Psychology 101 tbh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why not just make a cartman troll, coward?

Believe it or not he's a legit poster who's been banned before. As a Jew I find him hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

Lol you liberals crack me up, you're all closet racists and feel guilty so you take solace in "at least i'm not as racist as that guy!" because you have to put down someone to prop yourself up and in your warped mind only other white people are fair game. Psychology 101 tbh.No, he actually posted stuff straight from stormfront.

I know he's your ideological brother. You have every right to stick up for him.

[mavs>spurs]

yeah but nonetheless closet racists shouldn't be throwing around the race card, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house

[ChumpDumper]

yeah but nonetheless closet racists shouldn't be throwing around the race card, don't throw stones if you live in a glass houseSo you're complaining that I'm not a racist like you are a racist?

Owning a gun doesn't make you a forum cop.

[mavs>spurs]

.....

[ChumpDumper]

Don't cry.

[mavs>spurs]

that's telling me

[Wild Cobra]

Still:


The text of S.150 has not yet been received from GPO

Is this another bill they have to vote on to know what's actually in it?

[ChumpDumper]

that's telling meYes, that's me telling you not to cry.

I didn't think it would actually stop you from crying.

[mavs>spurs]

settle down comrade

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've been thinking of making a troll. Perhaps someone even more militantly leftist than bouties.

[Wild Cobra]

I've been thinking of making a troll. Perhaps someone even more militantly leftist than bouties.
LOL...

A troll making a troll...


LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[mavs>spurs]

[QUOTE=FuzzyLumpkins;6321811I've been thinking of making a troll. Perhaps someone even more militantly leftist than bouties.[/QUOTE]
you mean just like your fuzzylumpkins troll?

[Slutter McGee]

Stop being a bunch of stupid fuckers. The threat is at the state level. NY is trying to make all legal gun owners register all their guns. If you can't see that the reason is for future confiscation after another tragedy then you are a moron.

Slutter McGee

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stop being a bunch of stupid fuckers. The threat is at the state level. NY is trying to make all legal gun owners register all their guns. If you can't see that the reason is for future confiscation after another tragedy then you are a moron.

Slutter McGee

The reason why they want to register guns is so they can track them and do studies about the effects of gun ownership as well as help in criminal and similar types of investigations. One of the main issues that are prohibiting studies regarding guns is that there is no way to know what guns are where and thus determine the truth of things such as the deterrence assertion that gun enthusiasts claim as well as issues of public safety.

You register your car and they have no interest in taking that and SCOTUS was very explicit in saying that gun confiscation is unconstitutional. I am not calling you a moron but I will say that you are ignorant and poorly informed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

A troll making a troll...


LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

So whose troll does your dumbass think I am? Agloco, TSA, EN? Continue to make a fool of yourself by your guessing games by all means.

[ChumpDumper]

settle down comradeThat's telling me.

[boutons_deux]

:lo l:lol :lol

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/gun-show-banner-e1357921363869.jpg


For The Sixth Time In One Week, Man Shot At Gun Show

On Friday afternoon, an Iowa gun dealer closed out the week by becoming the sixth person shot at a gun show. The man claims he was “showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded when he slid the action of the gun.” The gun was not unloaded, and a bullet went through his left palm.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/26/1500431/for-the-sixth-time-in-one-week-man-shot-at-gun-show/

[boutons_deux]

When Did We Become ‘Dickless Armchair Warriors’?

Bill Maher (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Bill+Maher) closed out his show by declaring that America needs to stop saying it’s the home of the brave and start acting like it. He cited the nation’s huge defense budget and compared the United States to a paranoid crazy man who keeps spending money on alarms and guns and cameras but doesn’t have enough left over to take care of his house or send his kids to college. Maher asked, “would you call him brave?” before comparing the nation’ emphasis on defense to American manhood.

Maher bemoaned how the United States now seems to be full of “dickless armchair warriors,” starting with Manti Te’o. He joked that despite Te’o's numerous head injuries, he still answeredKatie Couric (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Katie+Couric)‘s questions better than Sarah Palin (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Sarah+Palin). :lol :lol

But Maher mostly saw Te’o as a symbol of American manhood, that this big football player never had sex with his “girlfriend” and they instead played out an entire “relationship” online.

Maher said that Te’o's attachment to this fake girlfriend is just as “weird” as the attachment football fans have to their favorite players, suggestively insinuating there is something creepy and obsessive about it. Maher highlighted how there are now pills to deal with low testosterone, declaring that “men are in trouble when you have to juice like Lance Armstrong just to get through your anniversary.”

Maher said that all the hunting and gathering is now done by the women, and “the most masculine thing we doo all day is pee standing up.” Maher brought it right back to the Pentagon, saying it has more weapons than it need, but not more than it wants.

And as Maher asked, when you own that much weaponry, aren’t you trying to compensate for something?

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-likens-defense-spending-to-declining-manhood-when-did-we-become-dickless-armchair-warriors/

[TSA]

When Did We Become ‘Dickless Armchair Warriors’?

Bill Maher (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Bill+Maher) closed out his show by declaring that America needs to stop saying it’s the home of the brave and start acting like it. He cited the nation’s huge defense budget and compared the United States to a paranoid crazy man who keeps spending money on alarms and guns and cameras but doesn’t have enough left over to take care of his house or send his kids to college. Maher asked, “would you call him brave?” before comparing the nation’ emphasis on defense to American manhood.

Maher bemoaned how the United States now seems to be full of “dickless armchair warriors,” starting with Manti Te’o. He joked that despite Te’o's numerous head injuries, he still answeredKatie Couric (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Katie+Couric)‘s questions better than Sarah Palin (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Sarah+Palin). :lol :lol

But Maher mostly saw Te’o as a symbol of American manhood, that this big football player never had sex with his “girlfriend” and they instead played out an entire “relationship” online.

Maher said that Te’o's attachment to this fake girlfriend is just as “weird” as the attachment football fans have to their favorite players, suggestively insinuating there is something creepy and obsessive about it. Maher highlighted how there are now pills to deal with low testosterone, declaring that “men are in trouble when you have to juice like Lance Armstrong just to get through your anniversary.”

Maher said that all the hunting and gathering is now done by the women, and “the most masculine thing we doo all day is pee standing up.” Maher brought it right back to the Pentagon, saying it has more weapons than it need, but not more than it wants.

And as Maher asked, when you own that much weaponry, aren’t you trying to compensate for something?

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-likens-defense-spending-to-declining-manhood-when-did-we-become-dickless-armchair-warriors/
Is this even in the right thread?

[TSA]

Stop being a bunch of stupid fuckers. The threat is at the state level. NY is trying to make all legal gun owners register all their guns. If you can't see that the reason is for future confiscation after another tragedy then you are a moron.

Slutter McGeeAnd I'm glad New Yorkers aren't rolling over. I'm reading that New York is about to see it's largest act of civil disobedience ever. Good for them.

[TSA]

One of the main issues that are prohibiting studies regarding guns is that there is no way to know what guns are where and thus determine the truth of things such as the deterrence assertion that gun enthusiasts claim as well as issues of public safety.Thanks for proving all your quoted studies are shit.


I am not calling you a moron but I will say that you are ignorant and poorly informed.

[boutons_deux]

Is this even in the right thread?

Dear Gun Fellator, dicklessness and guns ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE go together like gun fellators, stupidity, ignorance.

[Slutter McGee]

You register your car and they have no interest in taking that and SCOTUS was very explicit in saying that gun confiscation is unconstitutional. I am not calling you a moron but I will say that you are ignorant and poorly informed.

I register my car because I use public roads. If I want to carry my gun into public facilities, I must also register it. I have no problem with this, but your analogy is shit.

Slutter McGee

[DMC]

The reason why they want to register guns is so they can track them and do studies about the effects of gun ownership as well as help in criminal and similar types of investigations. One of the main issues that are prohibiting studies regarding guns is that there is no way to know what guns are where and thus determine the truth of things such as the deterrence assertion that gun enthusiasts claim as well as issues of public safety.

You register your car and they have no interest in taking that and SCOTUS was very explicit in saying that gun confiscation is unconstitutional. I am not calling you a moron but I will say that you are ignorant and poorly informed.
Same reason they want your DNA on a national database, so they can track you. I don't want to be tracked. They don't track guns, they track people who own them since there's no way they can just find the gun using the SN. They can find the owner however. They need to learn how to track illegals entering the country first, and they cannot even do that. Guns don't get old and die, so there's no way to know how many guns are out there and who owns them, so then how do you track them? You don't, you create a law that says everyone must register their firearms prior to getting a license (new requirement) and only track the law abiding.

So how much do you want to spend each year on your new gun registrations and inspections? Oh look at that, you've got an old gun that doesn't meet current standards. You must render it inoperable and pay a 500 dollar tax stamp to own it, after registering it of course.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thanks for proving all your quoted studies are shit.

There is a reason why I don't cite US studies. Critical thinking. Try harder.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I register my car because I use public roads. If I want to carry my gun into public facilities, I must also register it. I have no problem with this, but your analogy is shit.

Slutter McGee

That just says the analogy is not perfect. You are misrepresenting an analogy with conflation. I see this quite often: "there are differences so your analogy is shit." At the end of the day there are all manner of things that all levels of government monitor and comtrol even within a private dwelling.

The bottom line is that registration of guns is not allowed by our court system to be used to confiscate your guns. In fact, you have to be doing something illegal for them to take your guns. Look up 'Heller Supreme Court' and the decision handed down is very clear.

I get that you don't want this to happen on privacy grounds and I respect that but using fear mongering confiscation stupidity to justify your position is unfounded.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Same reason they want your DNA on a national database, so they can track you. I don't want to be tracked. They don't track guns, they track people who own them since there's no way they can just find the gun using the SN. They can find the owner however. They need to learn how to track illegals entering the country first, and they cannot even do that. Guns don't get old and die, so there's no way to know how many guns are out there and who owns them, so then how do you track them? You don't, you create a law that says everyone must register their firearms prior to getting a license (new requirement) and only track the law abiding.

So how much do you want to spend each year on your new gun registrations and inspections? Oh look at that, you've got an old gun that doesn't meet current standards. You must render it inoperable and pay a 500 dollar tax stamp to own it, after registering it of course.

Yay, more making up shit and acting like that is the policy intent. Why not ramp up the police state slippery slope fear mongering while your at it?

And immigration is a separate issue. If you think it should be a higher priority then perhaps you might start another thread on the topic.

You certainly love skirting around an issue. Dance, monkey, dance.

[SA210]

I read this somewhere. I wonder if there is any truth to it?



Want to stop gun violence? Don’t arm Democrats:

Ft Hood shooter: Registered Democrat.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats.
Virginia Tech: Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat

[mavs>spurs]

:lmao true liberals are always seething with hate and racism

[ElNono]

I read this somewhere. I wonder if there is any truth to it?



Want to stop gun violence? Don’t arm Democrats:

Ft Hood shooter: Registered Democrat.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats.
Virginia Tech: Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat


:lol still hiding behind dead children to push the political agenda...

[TSA]

There is a reason why I don't cite US studies. Critical thinking. Try harder.
Are these the same reasons that keep you from answering questions from law abiding message board posting American citizens?

[TSA]

You certainly love skirting around an issue.:lmao the irony!

[Clipper Nation]

I read this somewhere. I wonder if there is any truth to it?



Want to stop gun violence? Don’t arm Democrats:

Ft Hood shooter: Registered Democrat.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats.
Virginia Tech: Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat

:cheer Rah Rah Rah! Go Team Red! :cheer

[mavs>spurs]

Lol leftist masquerading as a libertarian

[Blake]

I haven't really read all the tldrs.

Are they coming after your guns or not?

if so, when?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DERP!! Waaah Fuzzy ignores my questions so I must follow him around and pretend like I matter. Waaaahh!!


I ignore you because you are a putz that doesn't merit my time. For a troll you complain quite a bit. Critical thinking and maybe you can get whats going on eventually

[Clipper Nation]

Lol leftist masquerading as a libertarian

Who, me? No, I just don't play the idiotic partisan game, tbh...

[Wild Cobra]

I read this somewhere. I wonder if there is any truth to it?



Want to stop gun violence? Don’t arm Democrats:

Ft Hood shooter: Registered Democrat.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats.
Virginia Tech: Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat
Why doesn't that surprise me?

[Wild Cobra]

I ignore you because you are a putz that doesn't merit my time. For a troll you complain quite a bit. Critical thinking and maybe you can get whats going on eventually
I though it was because he owns you...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I though it was because he owns you...

What you think is meaningless to me. All he does is ask me questions about my personal life which is none of his business. He like you is reluctant to read academic articles and seem to think academics are to be dismissed. This is especially true when they disagree with your GOP centered positions.

As for you, you need to realize that no one takes you seriously. Not even TSA and DMC who have called you on your wiki based posturing of knowledge. If anyone has been owned it been you and that is by basically everyone on this forum. You are the village idiot and a glutton for punishment so posture away and have not a one taking you seriously.

[Wild Cobra]

What you think is meaningless to me.
Ditto.

So why did you have to use so many words?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I read this somewhere. I wonder if there is any truth to it?



Want to stop gun violence? Don’t arm Democrats:

Ft Hood shooter: Registered Democrat.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats.
Virginia Tech: Registered Democrat.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat
So you're admitting Lanza was the Sandy Hook shooter?

:lol exposing yourself as a Republican again
:lol sanctimoniously saying you hate Bush so you don't appear to be a partisan hack

[Blake]

Ditto.

So why did you have to use so many words?

true. ”you're the biggest idiot here” would have sufficed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are the village idiot and a glutton for punishment so posture away and have not a one taking you seriously.


Ditto.

So why did you have to use so many words?


true. ”you're the biggest idiot here” would have sufficed.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

I have never seen it take so long for anyone to give the Library of Congress a copy of a newly introduced bill.

The text of S.150 has not yet been received from GPO

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

[TSA]

All he does is ask me questions about my personal life which is none of his business. When you propose we should follow Australia's lead and disarm, and I pose a question why you yourself haven't disarmed that is me getting into your personal business? You're a more thin skinned hypocritical pussy than I thought.

[Th'Pusher]

When you propose we should follow Australia's lead and disarm, and I pose a question why you yourself haven't disarmed that is me getting into your personal business? You're a more thin skinned hypocritical pussy than I thought.
That's like saying if you think the government should raise taxes, then you should pay more than you owe in taxes. The reality is, these types of solutions do not work unless they're codified into law and enforced.

Btw- have they taken your guns yet? Did they at least leave you with the pistols, or did they clean you out completely?

[boutons_deux]

anybody's guns been confiscated, yet? ever?

[TSA]

That's like saying if you think the government should raise taxes, then you should pay more than you owe in taxes. The reality is, these types of solutions do not work unless they're codified into law and enforced.

Btw- have they taken your guns yet? Did they at least leave you with the pistols, or did they clean you out completely?

You're missing the point. He wants the US to disarm, yet won't disarm himself.

[boutons_deux]

You're missing the point. He wants the US to disarm, yet won't disarm himself.

:lol link?

[TSA]

Did you miss all of his we need to model ourselves after Australia talk?

[boutons_deux]

And in Last Week's Gun News ...

Monday, Jan. 21:

Eleaquin Temblador had plans. He was working to earn his high school diploma and wanted to join the U.S. Marine Corps and marry his girlfriend. ... Instead, family members are planning Temblador's funeral. For reasons no one can explain, gunmen in a light-colored, older-model vehicle gunned down the 18-year-old ... as he rode his bicycle home from his girlfriend's house.

- Dailybreeze.com, Los Angeles

Relatives of a teen who was shot while playing basketball at a local park said the 16-year-old is now paralyzed from the waist down. ... Police said the shooter, a 17-year-old boy, had a gun stuck in his waistband. While he was playing basketball, someone bumped into him and the gun went off. ...

- Click Orlando.com

Tuesday, Jan. 22:

A Baton Rouge man who authorities said was playing with a gun was booked ... in the accidental shooting of his 2-year-old brother. ... [The man's uncle] said the teen had armed himself due to "environmental pressure" from neighborhood friends.

- The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La.

The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause "mass destruction." ... Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old son of an Albuquerque pastor ... "stated he wanted to shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement," the [police] report said.

- ABC News

Wednesday, Jan. 23:

Kansas City police arrested a 16-year-old Ruskin High School student accused of shooting at a school bus after the driver refused to allow him to board on Wednesday.

- The Kansas City Star

A 4-year-old boy has died after being shot in the head Wednesday. ... The deputy [sheriff] located the child's body inside of a Ford Taurus. There was a bullet hole in the roof of the car. ... "Jamarcus loved Batman, Spider-Man and football and was looking forward to starting kindergarten," [his mother] said.

- Newsnet5.com, Akron, Ohio

Thursday, Jan. 24:

The estranged husband of a woman found dead in her Madison apartment Thursday was found dead in his home ... of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. ... "We can't really believe it; I mean, these things happen on TV, they don't happen to us," [her stepmother] said. "We're middle class, normal Americans, and she was a nice girl."

- WISC-TV, Madison, Wis.

Police said an 11-year-old girl is in critical condition after being shot in the face by her father in a New Jersey home on Thursday night. Investigators said 27-year-old Byaer Johnson apparently entered the home to visit his young daughter. ... He was asked to leave, then picked up a handgun and shot his daughter.

- CBS News

Friday, Jan. 25:

An Oakland police officer was shot and wounded Friday evening, the second officer in the city to be injured by gunfire this week. ... The shooting happened after a man in a car ran a stop sign, crashed into another car ... and ran off. Shortly thereafter, an uncle and his nephew reported that they were shot a block away by a man who tried to steal the uncle's bicycle.

- SFGate.com

A man has been charged with murder for fatally shooting his brother during a "domestic" dispute outside a South Side Englewood home Friday afternoon. ...

- Chicago.CBSlocal.com

Saturday, Jan. 26:

A party in Salem that spilled outdoors ended in drive-by gunfire that hit at least two people and riddled a car and nearby homes. ...

- KOINlocal6, Salem, Ore.

A 55-year-old man has been released from custody after allegedly shooting and killing his own dog. Police say Gordon Lagstrom was drunk Saturday night when he pulled a .38 caliber handgun and shot to death his 4-year-old Australian terrier, Lena.

- Boston.CBSlocal.com

The city broke a nine-day murder-free streak last night when a man was found dead in the basement of a Queens apartment complex, police said. The 20-year-old victim, whose name was not released, had been shot in the head.

- New York Post

Among those killed Saturday was a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Police say Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a car. Police say two separate double-homicide shootings also occurred Saturday about 12 hours apart. ... Chicago's homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=1021398&f=28&sub=Columnist

you gun-fellators and NRA dupes happy what your anti-gun-regulation has delivered?

[TSA]

How are those of us who are pro 2A responsible for any of these crimes mentioned?

[TSA]

5 hours and not a single linked rebuttal from Bouts? Amazing.

[Wild Cobra]

5 hours and not a single linked rebuttal from Bouts? Amazing.
Does ShazBot say anything meaningful?

[ElNono]

^ do you?

[boutons_deux]

How are those of us who are pro 2A responsible for any of these crimes mentioned?

The gun/ammo corporations and their marketing org NRA have installed dozens of regulations to promote their business and block law enforcement from keeping guns from The Bad Guys (right winger lover Baby Talk).

Repugs use guns as a polarizing issue, the Repugs as the party of UNREGULATED gun business, to sucker bubba sheeple into voting Repug. So there is an ethic now, a value system created, that says I'm not a Real Man, I'm not a Real Patriotic American unless I have a gun. What a fucked up civilization. And you gun-fellators insisting on deregulating guns has led to 100M guns, 1M semi-automatic guns, polluting America with 10s of 1000s owned by your Bad Guys and sickos.

[boutons_deux]

N.R.A. Defends Right to Own Politicians

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/lapierre-nra-boro.jpg


In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”

“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

In addition to limiting the sale of politicians, Ms. Foyler said, it is time for society to take a look at the “sheer number” of politicians in the U.S.: “There’s no doubt that we would be safer if there were fewer of them.”

For his part, the N.R.A. leader ended his testimony by serving notice that he would “resist any attempt” to take away the hundreds of elected officials he says are legally his.

As if to illustrate that point, he clutched Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) close to his chest and bellowed, “From my cold, dead hands.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/nra-defends-right-to-own-politicians.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%2875%29

[Blake]

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

If any one is interested, S. 134 and S 150 were introduced last week. Here is the text of the congressional record:


[Page: S287]


By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. COBURN, Mr. JOHANNS, and Mr. HELLER):

S. 134. A bill to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent video games and violent video programming on children; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I still well up with deep emotion when I see Newtown parents remembering their lost children, recalling what they wore to school that day or their last sweet words before boarding the school bus. The memory of that horrifying day, and of those children and their teachers, has not waned, nor should it ever. It should be an enduring call to action to do everything we can to save innocent lives.

That is why I have championed a comprehensive approach to combating gun violence, and support the President's plan to protect the Nation's citizens. West Virginians have a proud tradition of hunting and understand the importance of the Second Amendment. I know we can protect those traditions and rights as we look at ways to prevent senseless acts of violence.

One piece of this comprehensive examination concerns violent content, including video games and video programming. I have long had concerns about how the violent content that kids see and interact with every day affects their wellbeing. This is a very important issue, and one that deserves further research, as even the President recognized. That is why, as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am introducing today the Violent Content Research Act of 2013. Under this legislation, the National Academy of Sciences would conduct a comprehensive study on the connection between exposure to violent video games and video programming and harmful effects on children.

Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it. They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.

These court decisions show we need to conduct additional groundwork on this issue. This report would be a critical resource in this process. It could inform research by other organizations, including the Centers for Disease Control, and provide guidance to lawmakers. I call on my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation quickly.

Separately, I will be calling on the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to expand their work in this area. The FTC has reviewed the effectiveness of the video game ratings system. The FCC has looked at the impact of violent programming on children. Changes in technology now allow kids to access violent content on-line and increasingly from mobile platforms with less parental involvement. It is time for these two agencies to take a fresh look at these issues.

Major corporations, including the video game industry, make billions on marketing and selling violent content to children. They have a responsibility to protect our children. If they do not, you can count on the Congress to take a more aggressive role.


[Page: S288]



Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 134

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Content Research Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. STUDY; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Health and Human Services, jointly, shall undertake to enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study and investigation of--

(1) whether there is a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children; and

(2) whether there is a connection between exposure to violent video programming and harmful effects on children.

(b) Contents of Study and Investigation.--

(1) VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES.--The study and investigation under subsection (a) shall include--

(A) whether the exposure listed under subsection (a)(1)--

(i) causes children to act aggressively or causes other measurable harm to children;

(ii) has a disproportionately harmful effect on children already prone to aggressive behavior or on other identifiable groups of children; and

(iii) has a harmful effect that is distinguishable from any negative effects produced by other types of media;

(B) whether any harm identified under subparagraph (A)(i) has a direct and long-lasting impact on a child's well-being; and

(C) whether current or emerging characteristics of video games have a unique impact on children, considering in particular video games' interactive nature and the extraordinarily personal and vivid way violence might be portrayed in such video games.

(2) VIOLENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING.--The study and investigation under subsection (a) shall include--

(A) whether the exposure listed under subsection (a)(2)--

(i) causes children to act aggressively or causes other measurable harm to children;

(ii) has a disproportionately harmful effect on children already prone to aggressive behavior or on other identifiable groups of children; and

(iii) has a harmful effect that is distinguishable from any negative effects produced by other types of media; and

(B) whether any harm identified under subparagraph (A)(i) has a direct and long-lasting impact on a child's well-being.

(3) FUTURE RESEARCH.--The study and investigation under subsection (a) shall identify gaps in the current state of research which, if closed, could provide additional information regarding any causal connection--

(A) between exposure to violent video games and behavior; and

(B) between exposure to violent video programming and behavior.

(c) Report.--In entering into any arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences for conducting the study and investigation under this section, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Health and Human Services shall request the National Academy of Sciences to submit, not later than 15 months after the date on which such arrangements are completed, a report on the results of the study and investigation to--

(1) Congress;

(2) the Federal Trade Commission;

(3) the Federal Communications Commission; and

(4) the Department of Health and Human Services.

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. BLUNT):

S. 141. A bill to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, last year the U.S. experienced the most severe and extensive drought in at least 25 years.

While the impacts of the drought affected both crop and livestock sectors, our commodity farmers have had some protection under crop insurance. With the House not passing a 5 year reauthorization of the Farm Bill last year, we have left one sector of agriculture to fend for themselves.

Our ranchers across the country and in my home State of Montana have experienced the most extensive drought since the 1950. About 80 percent of agricultural land experienced drought in 2012.

As last year came and went, a drought stretched across the United States.

Wheat and corn fields dried up. Without enough forage, ranchers faced the decision to either to sell their herds or purchase extra feed, cutting into their thin margins.

As of this week, over 2,000 counties have been designated as drought disaster areas by the USDA.

In my state of Montana, 36 counties, or well over half of our State, are in disaster. Compound that with one of the worst droughts in recent history and our cattle and sheep producers are hanging on by a thread.

Where our corn, wheat, and soybean farmers have crop insurance as a backstop, we have left our ranchers without any assistance.

Pastureland last year was scarce and the cost of feed, when it was even available, was often unaffordable. Many ranchers are responding by culling their herds.

That is why I have introduced the supplemental agricultural disaster assistance. This bill takes the three livestock disaster program I created in the 2008 Farm Bill and extends them for 2012 and 2013 losses.

Covering losses from 2012 and 2013 will give our livestock producers some assistance through one of the worst droughts anyone in this chamber can remember. It will also cover our ranchers until the House and Senate can complete the 2013 Farm Bill.

These livestock disaster programs expired in September 2011, leaving our livestock producers with no safety net. For over a year and a half, through one of the worst droughts in recent memory, our producers have been left to fend for themselves.

Congress must make the responsible decision and pass this standalone bill I introduce today with Senator Debbie Stabenow, Chairwomen of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Senator Roy Blunt.

We must do our jobs and pass this basic safety net for ranchers.

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. CARDIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. CARPER):

S. 150. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.

Imagine that you receive a call from your child's school that there has been a shooting. How would you feel? Panicked? Terror-stricken? Helpless? Those were the feelings experienced by hundreds of parents whose children attend Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

Now imagine that, after rushing to the school, you receive the terrible news that your child is not coming back. On December 14, 20 sets of parents heard those devastating words. Their lives will never be the same.

I remain horrified by the mass murders that were committed that day in Newtown. But I am even more incensed that our weak gun laws allow mass killings to be carried out again and again in our country. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United States. Even worse, the rate of these shootings has been accelerating: Twenty-five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 took place in 2012.

These massacres don't stop--they just continue on and on. They have become tragically common in our society.

For each shooting that occurs, there are parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles who have forever lost someone special in their lives: In Newtown, 26 families will never hear the laughter of their son or daughter again. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people who attended a movie on a July night will never be able to enjoy another night out. At Virginia Tech, 32 families will never see their son or daughter again. In Tucson, AZ, 6 people

[Wild Cobra]

continued:

[Page: S289]




never returned home from meeting their Congresswoman one Saturday morning 2 years ago. My friend, Gabby Giffords, will never be the same.

The one common thread running through all of these shootings is that the gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine or drum.

These military-style weapons have but one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Since the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, over 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. Over 450 have been injured.

I do not intend to sit by while these killings continue. That is why today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Lautenberg, Menendez, Cardin, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.

As the members of this body know, we had an assault weapons ban in place from 1994-2004. I was the author of that ban in the Senate, and Senator Schumer carried that ban as the then-Chairman of the House Crime Subcommittee.

The 1994 law was not perfect, but it was working when it expired in 2004. The supply of assault weapons was drying up, and crime committed with those weapons was decreasing. Don't take my word for it; scientific studies bear this about.

The 1994 law required the Justice Department to study and report on its effectiveness. That study, completed in 1997, found that the ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal.

The Justice Department sponsored a subsequent follow-on study in 2004, as the law was getting ready to expire. That study, carried out by the University of Pennsylvania, found that by about 9 years after the law took effect, the use of assault weapons in crime had declined by more than 2/3--70 percent.

The Washington Post found that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.

The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals' use of assault weapons since the ban expired.

Studies of state-level assault weapons bans also show that these bans DO work. A study of Maryland's State ban on assault pistols found that in the first six months after the ban was enacted, ``the Baltimore City Police Department recovered 55 percent fewer assault pistols than would have been expected had there been no ban.''

Let me just address for a moment the arguments of some of the opponent of this legislation. They point to overall crime rates, and say the 1994 ban did not affect them. But that overstates the purpose of the ban. It was never intended to reduce all crime. It was intended to reduce gun murders, and specifically mass shootings. And the research found that it did just that.

A 6.7 percent decrease is not a complete solution. But if one of the lives saved was your child, your husband, your sister, your parent, it makes all the difference in the world. As President Obama has said, if we can save even one life, then we must try. And a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders--that is a lot more than one life.

Our police officers, the men and women who pledge their lives to protect us, are particularly at risk from assault weapons. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

Recognizing this, I am proud to have the support of the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association and several other organizations representing law enforcement. Every day, they must stare down ever-more-powerful military-style assault weapons.

The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the 1994 law, allowing it to be even more effective:

The 1994 law prohibited semiautomatic weapons that could accept a detachable magazine, and had at least two military characteristics. The bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism of the 1994 law was that its ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy to ``work around'': a manufacture could simply remove one of the characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today will be much more difficult to work around.

The bill also accounts for specific ``work-arounds'' that the gun industry developed to avoid the 1994 law and similar State bans.

The bill prohibits ``thumbhole stocks'', which manufacturers developed to allow a stock to function like a pistol grip, which is a standard military feature in State bans and the expired Federal ban.

It also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain manufacturers developed to evade state restrictions on detachable ammunition magazines. Some state laws describe a ``detachable magazine'' as one that can be removed without the use of a tool. So these gun manufacturers developed so-called ``bullet buttons'' that allow magazines to be removed with the use of the simplest of tools, such as a key, another bullet, or even a magnet. With these ``bullet buttons'', what is supposed to be a fixed magazine becomes in practical application a detachable magazine. Our bill contains tight language to close this loophole.

Other changes to the bill include updating the list of specifically-named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new models that have been developed since 1994. We now prohibit 158 weapons by name.

The bill prohibits semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

The bill adds a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines; and eliminates the 10-year sunset that allowed the original law to expire.

Like the 1994 law, our legislation will prohibit large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. These large magazines and drums are so dangerous because they allow a shooter to fire 15, 30, even 100 rounds without having to reload.

Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects legitimate hunters by protecting 2,258 specifically-named firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes, and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Let me be clear: the bill will not take away weapons you currently own. Anybody who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you. Instead, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.

An important change from the 1994 law is that we address the millions of assault weapons that currently exist. While, as in 1994, they would remain legal after our bill takes effect, any future sale or transfer of such a weapon would require a background check to be conducted of the purchaser or recipient. We do have an exception for intra-family transfers. Keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of known criminals and people with adjudicated mental problems is a no-brainer.

The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be prohibited from possessing them.

While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.

Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing Federal Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected by the Second Amendment. I recognize that the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is an individual right to possess firearms that is protected by



[Page: S290]



the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and I respect that right.

However, the Supreme Court was also very clear that, like other rights protected by other amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is not an unlimited right. For instance, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not allow someone to falsely yell ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said this plainly: ``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

Justice Scalia, no flaming liberal he, went on to say: ``We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.' ''

The muskets of the 18th Century bear little resemblance to the rapid-fire military-style assault weapons today, and their single-shot weapons are a far cry from the 100-round ammunition drum that was used to inflict such carnage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. These are particularly dangerous weapons, which the Government is well within its rights to regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. The Second Amendment protects an individual's ability to own a weapon; it does not protect their ability to own any weapon. Any reasonable person would recognize limitations on this right: an individual should not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and they should not own a military-style assault weapon.

Let me conclude with these thoughts:

The most important duty that government has to its citizens is to provide for their safety.

When 20 kindergarteners are slaughtered by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

When 12 people are gunned down in a movie theater by an assault weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.

The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. They are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. We should be outraged by how easy it is for the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons.

Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our workplaces.

We know the common denominator in these deadly massacres and these daily shootings: easy access to killing machines designed for the battlefield. The circumstances may differ, but the one constant is always the guns.

These weapons not only take away the lives of our loved ones. They also take away our freedom--our freedom to live without fear.

When a child is fearful of walking down the street outside his home, he has lost his freedom.

When Americans wonder whether the next massacre with an assault weapon will take place in their town, they have lost their freedom.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this fight.

Join with our chiefs of police who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with teachers from across our nation who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the emergency room doctors and medical professionals from every corner of our country who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with clergy from all denominations who say ``no'' to assault weapons.

Join with the 58 percent of Americans who support an Assault Weapons Ban.

I am proud that the bill we are introducing has been endorsed by so many organizations and public officials:

Law Enforcement: International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association; National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence; Police Foundation; Women in Federal Law Enforcement; Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Scott Knight, Chief of Police, Chaska Police Department (MN), and former chair, Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police; and Bill Lansdowne, Police Chief, San Diego;

Localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors; Boston City Council; City of Stockton (CA); County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Ventura County Board of Supervisors (CA); Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, CA; Mayor Emmett O'Donnell, Tiburon, CA; Mayor Jill Hunter, Saratoga, CA; Mayor Hilary Bryant, Santa Cruz, CA; Mayor Bob Filner, San Diego, CA; Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach, CA; Mayor Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill, CA; Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento, CA; Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San Francisco, CA; Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland, CA; Mayor Chuck Reed, San Jose, CA; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, CA; Superintendent Anthony Smith, Oakland Unified School District; Mayor Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, CA; City of Lemon Grove; Mayor Cheryl Cox, Chula Vista, CA; San Diego Unified School District; City of Calabasas; City of Ventura; City of Los Angeles; City of West Hollywood; Mayor Rob Schroder, Martinez, CA; and Mayor Amanda Gilmore, Alameda, CA;

Gun Safety: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Mayors Against Illegal Guns; Violence Policy Center; and Washington CeaseFire;

Education/Child Welfare: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Federation of Teachers; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Child Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Every Child Matters; Moms Rising; National Association of Social Workers; National PTA; National Education Association; and 20 Children;

Religious Community: African Methodist Episcopal Church; Alliance of Baptists; American Baptist Churches of the South; American Baptist Home Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America; Camp Brotherhood; Catholic Charities USA; Catholic Health Association; Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United; Church of the Brethren; Church Women United, Inc.; Conference of Major Superiors of Men; Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Dominican Sisters of Peace; FaithsAgainstGunViolence.org; Franciscan Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Health Ministries Association; Heeding God's Call; Hindu American Foundation; Interfaith Alliance of Idaho; Islamic Society of North America; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Movement; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Episcopal Health Ministries; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax Christi USA; PICO Network Lifelines to Healing; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Progressive National Baptist Convention; Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; San Francisco Interfaith Council; Sikh Council on Religion and Education, USA; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Sojourners; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; United Methodist Women; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Washington National Cathedral; and Women of Reform Judaism;

Medical Community: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of Surgeons; American Public Health Association; Doctors for America; and National Association of School Nurses;

Other Organizations: Alliance for Business Leadership; American Bar Association; Black American Political Association of California; Grandmothers for Peace International; National Parks Conservation Association; Sierra Club; TASH; Viet Nam Veterans in the Media; VoteVets.org; and Washington Office on Latin America.

But we should have no illusions. This will be a big fight.



[Page: S291]


It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.

But we need to ask ourselves:

Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop the carnage?

Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls, their workplaces and their businesses?

This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our streets.

Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.

So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay involved.

The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If the American people rise up and demand action from their elected officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.

Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.

By Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BENNET, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. REED, Mr. BLUNT, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, and Mr. COONS):

S. 153. A bill to amend section 520J of the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants for mental health first aid training programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

MR. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a very important piece of legislation--the Mental Health First Aid Act of 2013. The bill authorizes grants for mental health first aid, similar to the first aid training offered by Red Cross chapters across the United States.

I introduced this bill last Congress and focused on higher education because many common mental illnesses happen at late adolescence or young adulthood. However, as the recent tragedy in Newtown reminded us in horrific detail, violence is not limited to college campuses.

My colleague on the House side, Rep. RON BARBER of Arizona, has already introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. As you know, he was critically wounded in a tragic shooting 2 years ago with then Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Mental health first aid teaches the warning signs and risk factors for schizophrenia, major clinical depression, panic attacks, anxiety disorders, trauma, and other common mental disorders, crisis de-escalation techniques and equips college and university staff with a five-step action plan to help individuals in psychiatric crisis connect to professional mental health care.

One in four adults and 10 percent of children in the United States will suffer from a mental illness this year. We know what to do if someone has a heart attack, but how do we react to someone having a panic disorder? Why do we wait for a tragic event to take notice and then bring out emergency measures?

When I was Mayor of Anchorage, we worked with local mental health organizations to train our police in Crisis Intervention Teams, a great improvement for police officers responding to a crisis. But now we need to go further.

You have heard me say this before, and it is not something to be proud of: In Alaska we have one of the highest suicide prevalence rates in the country. Further, we are a very rural State, where access to mental health care and medical services is often very difficult.

Even today, it is not widely known that fully 2/3 of Alaska can only be accessed by airplane. By educating the general public about the warning signs of common mental disorders, we can intervene early, facilitate access to care, improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs, and maybe save lives.

Mental disorders are more common than heart disease and cancer combined and a recent Governing magazine article reports that many States and localities are moving ahead--teaching their employees how to recognize the signs of mental health problems and how to help. Wouldn't you run to perform the Heimlich maneuver if a person was choking in a restaurant? Of course. We should all learn how to intervene with someone who is having a mental health crisis.

In the Alaska tradition, I seek to work across the aisle and believe this legislation merits bipartisan support. I am honored to be joined by my cosponsors on this bill, Senators BLUMENTHAL, BENNETT, AYOTTE, RUBIO, SHAHEEN, BLUNT, STABENOW and JACK REED. I invite you and all of our colleagues to join me in supporting this vital program. My great hope is it will avert suffering, prevent violence and ultimately save lives.

[SA210]

Americans being conditioned to live in a police state.

Abby Martin talks about recent military exercises in Miami and Houston that have left residents terrified, what could these exercises be preparing for?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndMNiciuXi0

[ElNono]

Drones, probably.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm starting to think SA210 is a Russian drone tbh.

[spursncowboys]

I'm starting to think SA210 is a Russian drone tbh.
Coming from the robot

[ChumpDumper]

Coming from the robotHuh?

[Winehole23]

imagination getting into the resentment. people hate you for some reason, CD.

[Winehole23]

I know you probably don't take it personal, but I think the hate is earnestly intended.

[ElNono]

I know you probably don't take it personal, but I think the hate is earnestly intended.

watch out, you're gonna be labeled a liberal... or worse, a libtard!

[ChumpDumper]

Well, sure -- I just didn't get the actual metaphor in this case.

[boutons_deux]

Jon CRUSHES the gun fellating assholes AGAIN

watch video.
Jon Stewart Eviscerates Republicans' Logic During Gun Violence HearingsRepublicans invoked all kinds of insane logic during the Senate hearing on gun violence Wednesday. For Jon Stewart, the four-hour carnival was a gold mine for conservative contradictions. Wayne LaPierre invoked both governmental "tyranny" and "abandonment" as strong cases for second amendment rights, two scenarios completely at odds with one another. As Stewart put it, our government seems to be on "the verge of both fascism and impotence."

Stewart also took on Gayle Trotter, of the Independent Woman's Forum, who hilariously claimed that "the AR-15 is women's weapon of choice." Trotter used an anecdote about a young women who protected herself from intruders with a gun she kept at home. What she failed to mention was that her weapon, a Remington shotgun, would not be banned under the proposed gun control statute.



http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/jon-stewart-eviscerates-republicans-logic-during-gun-violence-hearings

[TSA]

Jon CRUSHES the gun fellating assholes AGAIN

watch video.
Jon Stewart Eviscerates Republicans' Logic During Gun Violence HearingsRepublicans invoked all kinds of insane logic during the Senate hearing on gun violence Wednesday. For Jon Stewart, the four-hour carnival was a gold mine for conservative contradictions. Wayne LaPierre invoked both governmental "tyranny" and "abandonment" as strong cases for second amendment rights, two scenarios completely at odds with one another. As Stewart put it, our government seems to be on "the verge of both fascism and impotence."

Stewart also took on Gayle Trotter, of the Independent Woman's Forum, who hilariously claimed that "the AR-15 is women's weapon of choice." Trotter used an anecdote about a young women who protected herself from intruders with a gun she kept at home. What she failed to mention was that her weapon, a Remington shotgun, would not be banned under the proposed gun control statute.



http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/jon-stewart-eviscerates-republicans-logic-during-gun-violence-hearingsbottom line bubba, gun control does not apply to criminals.

[boutons_deux]

bottom line bubba, gun control does not apply to criminals.

no gun control allows all criminals to obtain guns EASILY

[TSA]

no gun control allows all criminals to obtain guns EASILY

We already have gun control, hasn't stopped criminals from obtaining guns now has it. What makes you think more gun control will?

[boutons_deux]

We already have gun control

You Lie

[ChumpDumper]

We already have gun control, hasn't stopped criminals from obtaining guns now has it. What makes you think more gun control will?Well, I'm certainly glad Adam Lanza couldn't just buy guns from a dealer -- he did try.

I also recall a domestic murder committed with legally purchased guns in Colorado after that state dropped its background check system and just went with the federal system. Could he have gotten the weapons by other means? Of course, but why make it convenient as possible for him?

[Winehole23]

watch out, you're gonna be labeled a liberal... or worse, a libtard!already happened, many times. occupational hazard of disagreeing with soi disant board conservatives. liberals are dismissed with a wave of the hand, but criticism from the right is earnestly loathed.

[Wild Cobra]

already happened, many times. occupational hazard of disagreeing with soi disant board conservatives. liberals are dismissed with a wave of the hand, but criticism from the right is earnestly loathed.
What do you really think?

Come on, let it go... don't hold back...

[Winehole23]

um, I wasn't holding back.

[Winehole23]

people like you think disagreement with you means support for the other party. you'd be wrong about that.

[Wild Cobra]

people like you think disagreement with you means support for the other party. you'd be wrong about that.
No, that's a wrong read on me. I have expressed my dislike for both parties myself.

[Winehole23]

you've called me a libtard many times for merely having a different opinion.

you do it to a lot of people. often times without much justice. it's your way of saying, i disagree.

[Wild Cobra]

you've called me a libtard many times for merely having a different opinion.

you do it to a lot of people. often times without much justice. it's your way of saying, i disagree.
LOL...

If I did, it wasn't because your opinion was one I didn't agree with, but because I thought the opinion was retarded.

At least get the finer points correct please. When you do, I won't disagree.

Have an example by chance? I honestly don't recall calling you a libtard, but I do use the term rather frequently.

[Wild Cobra]

you've called me a libtard many times for merely having a different opinion.

you do it to a lot of people. often times without much justice. it's your way of saying, i disagree.
This had me concerned. You are actually one of the few non-conservative voices I have respected in these forums. I searched back to June of last year, for ever time I used "libtard." I would have gone farther back if that search wasn't exhausting in itself. Anyway, if I called you a libtard, it was either before June of last year, or I missed it.

If I did, I'm sorry. I consider you one of the more fair minded and intelligent voices here, except when you seem to have imbibed a bit much.

[Blake]

You do an exhaustive search over that?

Next time save the exhaustive search for when you are asked to back up the shit you fling throughout this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

You do an exhaustive search over that?
Yes. For WH, Yes.

Next time save the exhaustive search for when you are asked to back up the shit you fling throughout this forum.
I do, any time I come across someone asking who I respect.

With you? Zero respect.

[Blake]

I do, any time I come across someone asking who I respect.

With you? Zero respect.

what a wonderful reason not to back your shit up.

[Wild Cobra]

what a wonderful reason not to back your shit up.
Why should I? You are going to assume and say what ever you want anyway...

Tell me I'm wrong...

[Blake]

Why should I? You are going to assume and say what ever you want anyway...

Tell me I'm wrong...

If you can back up a claim with a sound source, nobody has any room to say anything, including me.

it's pretty simple.

[Wild Cobra]

If you can back up a claim with a sound source, nobody has any room to say anything, including me.

it's pretty simple.
How am I to prove a negative?

[Winehole23]

This had me concerned. You are actually one of the few non-conservative voices I have respected in these forums.what a coincidence -- I consider you non-conservative as well.



I searched back to June of last year, for ever time I used "libtard." I would have gone farther back if that search wasn't exhausting in itself. Anyway, if I called you a libtard, it was either before June of last year, or I missed it.you do it far less frequently as when I joined the board in late 2008, true, but it happened more than a handful of times.


If I did, I'm sorry. I consider you one of the more fair minded and intelligent voices here, except when you seem to have imbibed a bit much.thanks, but the apology is misplaced: the term makes you look silly.

[Blake]

How am I to prove a negative?

You're saying your claims are negative?

You're not making any sense per par old usual

[Wild Cobra]

you do it far less frequently as when I joined the board in late 2008, true, but it happened more than a handful of times.

Can you recall which thread by chance? Are you possible wrong?

Love to see it!

Do we have to go back five years for an example?

[DMX7]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oX9G8d_ytEiqkKr6odmWAw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTM1MTtjcj0xO2N3PTIwMjc7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/979ef815ff2e6003280f6a70670079ee.jpg

[Drachen]

You're saying your claims are negative?

You're not making any sense per par old usual

He is saying that it is impossible to prove a negative (his claim that he did NOT call WH a libtard)

I told him that this is different than the usual Proving a negative (like proving god DOESNT exist) because there are only a finite number of possibilities to examine (currently 34,166).

[Blake]

He is saying that it is impossible to prove a negative (his claim that he did NOT call WH a libtard)

yeah, I guess me going off on a sidebar was too much for him to keep up with.

[boutons_deux]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oX9G8d_ytEiqkKr6odmWAw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTM1MTtjcj0xO2N3PTIwMjc7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/979ef815ff2e6003280f6a70670079ee.jpg


Gun Sales Soar on Photo of Armed Obama

The White House’s attempt to portray President Obama as a gun user may have had unintended consequences today, as a newly released photo of Mr. Obama firing a rifle at Camp David set off a panic of gun buying across the US.

Right-wing opponents of Mr. Obama were behind the frenzied gun sales, saying that they were terrified by the image of an armed and shooting President.

“I don’t want to sound paranoid or anything, but now everything Obama has been doing makes sense,” said Harland Dorrinson, who was waiting on a blocks-long line outside a West Virginia Wal-Mart. “He wants to take away all our guns and then he’s going to come shoot us.”

Learning that Mr. Obama only uses his rifle for skeet-shooting did little to calm Mr. Dorrinson: “Somebody owning a gun just for sporting purposes? Yeah, right.”

In an effort to stem the panic, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters today that skeet-shooting took up relatively little of the President’s time at Camp David, and that his favorite leisure activities were “actually badminton and frisbee.”

The White House later released a photo of Mr. Obama putting away his gun and never using it again.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/02/gun-sales-soar-on-photo-of-armed-obama.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%2876%29

[TSA]

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/oX9G8d_ytEiqkKr6odmWAw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MTM1MTtjcj0xO2N3PTIwMjc7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTQyMDtxPTg1O3c9NjMw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/979ef815ff2e6003280f6a70670079ee.jpg

:lmao is this supposed to show he is pro 2a? :lmao
:lol photo op
:lol what skeet is he actually shooting at
:lol how he's holding and shouldering that shotgun
:lol cropping out his legs so we can't see the fear piss running down them
:lol the White House warning people not to alter the photo
:lol the awesome photoshops done within minutes

[DMX7]

:lmao is this supposed to show he is pro 2a? :lmao
:lol photo op
:lol what skeet is he actually shooting at
:lol how he's holding and shouldering that shotgun
:lol cropping out his legs so we can't see the fear piss running down them
:lol the White House warning people not to alter the photo
:lol the awesome photoshops done within minutes

:cry

[TSA]

:cry

Seriously, what was your point of posting the picture?

[Juggity]

:lmao is this supposed to show he is pro 2a? :lmao
:lol photo op
:lol what skeet is he actually shooting at
:lol how he's holding and shouldering that shotgun
:lol cropping out his legs so we can't see the fear piss running down them
:lol the White House warning people not to alter the photo
:lol the awesome photoshops done within minutes

My fervent hope is that this photo exists solely to lull gun nuts into a false sense of security at which point all guns will be summarily confiscated and the second amendment consigned to the trash bin of history.

[DMX7]

My fervent hope is that this photo exists solely to lull gun nuts into a false sense of security at which point all guns will be summarily confiscated and the second amendment consigned to the trash bin of history.

I used to support the second amendment, but I'm becoming increasingly less supportive... of at least its current interpretation.

[TSA]

My fervent hope is that this photo exists solely to lull gun nuts into a false sense of security at which point all guns will be summarily confiscated and the second amendment consigned to the trash bin of history.
This photo did quite the opposite as gun buyers went on another insane buying panic after it was released.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/966_0.png

[Blake]

:lol

[spursncowboys]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-CxNaLevyo_IuHgc9iUML3MAof2tXeh6In9W_jMBTxeU4EYUudA

[spursncowboys]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRUnMlWL1kJTM3dYeSVgq6nPJCbB7F2 9Zg5KSbyoJXiEdx8c6Rtg

[spursncowboys]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz229KtA1bA-vOJYUIPn7irPk5DO4rZYcbgm4zeAiOy0mXSQWcfw

[spursncowboys]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9b-6i-8zRrOw0tqE91chIWmK48uHvGZee9Tn8Q7kU9e-dRVIUGA

[ChumpDumper]

We have a new memeboy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9b-6i-8zRrOw0tqE91chIWmK48uHvGZee9Tn8Q7kU9e-dRVIUGA

You really should look up your history and consider what that crowd would have done had they guns. Ann Coulter typically is using hyperbole about Jacobin mobs but that does not mean there are not examples in history.

[spursncowboys]

Dude it's photoshopping. Lighten up

[spursncowboys]

We have a new memeboy. Very funny Mr Celebrity
http://i.imgur.com/1ZLK88C.jpg

[SA210]

Boom


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU

[ChumpDumper]

Very funny Mr CelebrityWhat does that mean?

[Wild Cobra]

What does that mean?
That this is you:

http://gifs.gifbin.com/062010/1275556406_cement-prank.gif

[ChumpDumper]

Now I want to know what two things mean.

You guys are getting worse.

[TSA]

Wow. They really were talking confiscation.


Video here: http://www.examiner.com/video/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public
Recently, the state of New York passed one of the toughest gun control laws in the country, but according to GOP Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, Democrats wanted to confiscate guns and magazines. Worse yet, one Democrat pleaded with McLaughlin to keep the proposals from the public, the Commentator reported on Sunday.

"Here it is," McLaughlin wrote on his Facebook page. "This is the video where I was asked to keep the Democrat proposals for the NY SAFE Act away from the public. This list was given to me by a colleague and it is not confidential."

"And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it really has the capacity to dampen the enthusiasm for compromise," a Democratic legislator said on the video.

"Well, it sure does when we talk about confiscation of assault weapons," McLaughlin said in response.

McLaughlin described the list of rejected proposals as "an attack on the 2nd amendment" and said Democrats "clearly wanted to dismantle the work of the Founding Fathers."

"None of these amendments were included in the final bill thanks to us fighting back. I will not stand silent while these unpatriotic proposals are pathetically thrown at us [at] 11 o’clock at night," he added.

Continue reading

[TSA]

McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

Confiscation of "assault weapons."
Confiscation of ten round clips.
Statewide database for all guns.
Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
State issued pistol permits.
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
Mandatory locking of guns at home.
Fee for licensing, registering weapons.
In late December, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, said that confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens "could be an option."

[Blake]

:cry not my assault weapon :cry

[TSA]

:cry not my wife :cry

[Th'Pusher]

Wow. They really were talking confiscation.


Video here: http://www.examiner.com/video/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public

http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-democrat-begs-republican-to-keep-gun-confiscation-proposal-from-public
Recently, the state of New York passed one of the toughest gun control laws in the country, but according to GOP Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, Democrats wanted to confiscate guns and magazines. Worse yet, one Democrat pleaded with McLaughlin to keep the proposals from the public, the Commentator reported on Sunday.

"Here it is," McLaughlin wrote on his Facebook page. "This is the video where I was asked to keep the Democrat proposals for the NY SAFE Act away from the public. This list was given to me by a colleague and it is not confidential."

"And by the way, I would recommend not to have that list shared because it really has the capacity to dampen the enthusiasm for compromise," a Democratic legislator said on the video.

"Well, it sure does when we talk about confiscation of assault weapons," McLaughlin said in response.

McLaughlin described the list of rejected proposals as "an attack on the 2nd amendment" and said Democrats "clearly wanted to dismantle the work of the Founding Fathers."

"None of these amendments were included in the final bill thanks to us fighting back. I will not stand silent while these unpatriotic proposals are pathetically thrown at us [at] 11 o’clock at night," he added.

Continue reading

Why are you now conflating state and federal law?

[Winehole23]

don't think TSA was. the indefinite pronoun reference is contextually clear in the post.

[Blake]

:cry not my wife :cry

Mine wasn't confiscated. In fact, it was rather costly to get rid of her.

[Th'Pusher]

don't think TSA was. the indefinite pronoun reference is contextually clear in the post.
As it relates to the OP, which was an inaccurate knee jerk reaction to the Feinstein bill, he is conflating state and federal law.

[Clipper Nation]

:cry not my wife :cry
:lol

[TSA]

As it relates to the OP, which was an inaccurate knee jerk reaction to the Feinstein bill, he is conflating state and federal law.

I'm not at all. I didn't feel the need to start a new thread and felt it appropriate here since this is about confiscation. I don't give a shit if it's state or federal, here's the fucking proof for those who said over and over they'd never try to confiscate.

[TSA]

:cry Mine was confiscated and I had to pay an expensive fine :cry

[HI-FI]

:cry not my wife :cry

:rollin damn

[Blake]

lets make this about Blake

I couldn't be happier without mine.

Keep crying about yours that they haven't taken yet.

[TSA]

I couldn't be happier without mine.

Keep crying about yours that they haven't taken yet.
Crying? We talking bout crying? crying? Do you really want the cuckold thread re-posted here?
How bout we get back to the actual discussion at hand. I'll continue purchasing firearms and pointing out the threat of confiscation, you continue life as a marked cuckold.

[ChumpDumper]

So they're still not coming for any guns.

[TeyshaBlue]

Mine wasn't confiscated. In fact, it was rather costly to get rid of her.

If only you had a gun.....

[TSA]

So they're still not coming for any guns.

Spare me. You are refusing to admit they are trying? I consider trying as coming after.

[Blake]

If only you had a gun.....

Who should I have shot?

[TeyshaBlue]

Who should I have shot?

Take your pick.:p:

[Blake]

How bout we get back to the actual discussion at hand.

how many of your guns that you currently possess would this bill take from you?

[Blake]

Take your pick.:p:

yeah, murder and/or suicide just ain't my thing.

[TeyshaBlue]

pardon moi.

[TSA]

how many of your guns that you currently possess would this bill take from you?
The bill proposed I just posted today from New York (if I lived there) would have made most of my guns illegal, meaning confiscation. The rest that were legal would be useless since all of the magazines would also be illegal, meaning confiscation.

[Blake]

The bill proposed I just posted today from New York (if I lived there) would have made most of my guns illegal, meaning confiscation. The rest that were legal would be useless since all of the magazines would also be illegal, meaning confiscation.

And you should have a right to own assault weapons because.....?

[TSA]

Any weapon could be used for assault so I find the question silly. But to humor you, I have the right to own an assault weapon because it was granted to by the country's founding fathers. Why are such a bitch when it comes to firearms? Did Daryl hold a gun to your head and make watch Jamal plow your wife? People need to stop projecting their fear of guns on to others and instead start holding those accountable that are committing the crimes, leave the law abiding citizens alone.

[Blake]

Any weapon could be used for assault so I find the question silly.

” Assault weapons” was on the top of the list that you posted.


But to humor you, I have the right to own an assault weapon because it was granted to by the country's founding fathers. Why are such a bitch when it comes to firearms? Did Daryl hold a gun to your head and make watch Jamal plow your wife? People need to stop projecting their fear of guns on to others and instead start holding those accountable that are committing the crimes, leave the law abiding citizens alone.

why are you making this about me? Not my fault your thread is failing miserably.

Do I have the right to bear nuclear arms?

[TSA]

” Assault weapons” was on the top of the list that you posted.



why are you making this about me? Not my fault your thread is failing miserably.

did you even read the rest of what was proposed in New York? Not only would my rifles have been illegal, my shotguns would have been as well. My handguns would be useless since the magazine size is too big. What's the point of a gun with no magazine? Do you think 5 round magazines are available for my handguns? And how so is my thread failing miserably? I just posted proof they were trying to confiscate, weren't you and chump running around constantly saying they'll never try and confiscate?

[ChumpDumper]

Spare me. You are refusing to admit they are trying? I consider trying as coming after.Spare me, You are refusing to admit you are moving the goalposts again? I consider citing some yahoo in upstate New York as moving the goalposts.

[SA210]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw&feature=youtu.be

[TSA]

Spare me, You are refusing to admit you are moving the goalposts again? I consider citing some yahoo in upstate New York as moving the goalposts.

Thread: "to those who say they weren't coming after our guns"
Legislator: "we want to confiscate guns"
TSA: kicks, and its good.

[ElNono]

The bill proposed I just posted today from New York (if I lived there) would have made most of my guns illegal, meaning confiscation. The rest that were legal would be useless since all of the magazines would also be illegal, meaning confiscation.

That law didn't pass. And it's debatable it would've survived SCOTUS scrutiny. That's most likely the reason it didn't even get to a vote either. Same reason Feinstein proposed law won't pass.

Some people just want to be scared, I guess.

[ElNono]

Thread: "to those who say they weren't coming after our guns"
Legislator: "we want to confiscate guns"
TSA: kicks, and its good.

So 'they' are not coming for your guns...

[ChumpDumper]

lol "if I lived there"

If you lived there they still wouldn't be coming after your guns.

[Blake]

did you even read the rest of what was proposed in New York? Not only would my rifles have been illegal, my shotguns would have been as well. My handguns would be useless since the magazine size is too big. What's the point of a gun with no magazine? Do you think 5 round magazines are available for my handguns? And how so is my thread failing miserably? I just posted proof they were trying to confiscate, weren't you and chump running around constantly saying they'll never try and confiscate?

Meh.

Even if they were really coming to confiscate your weapons, why should john q citizen give a shit about you and your guns?

[TSA]

Meh.

Even if they were really coming to confiscate your weapons, why should john q citizen give a shit about you and your guns?
Because if they start taking away guns (rights), what's to stop them from taking other rights that john q citizen cares about?

[TSA]

john q citizen should move to gun free Chicago and tell me how a gun free city really is.

[ChumpDumper]

john q citizen should move to gun free Chicago and tell me how a gun free city really is.Well, there are a couple million there. You could probably ask around.

[Blake]

Because if they start taking away guns (rights), what's to stop them from taking other rights that john q citizen cares about?

nothing!

since all my constitutional rights are intact, I can still bear nuclear arms?

[Blake]

For someone who cries like a little girl when someone doesn't answer her question, you sure seem to like to avoid the ones asked to you.

[Winehole23]

meh

[TSA]

For someone who cries like a little girl when someone doesn't answer her question, you sure seem to like to avoid the ones asked to you.
Sorry Blake, I'm not on here 24/7, I do this thing called sleeping. If you take the 2nd to mean you can bear nuclear arms, fine. I have common sense and choose not to read and understand it that way.

[Blake]

Sorry Blake, I'm not on here 24/7, I do this thing called sleeping. If you take the 2nd to mean you can bear nuclear arms, fine. I have common sense and choose not to read and understand it that way.

You actually quoted my question and responded with a paragraph that didn't contain an answer. You can claim you were sloppy and missed it, but you can't claim sleep got in the way.

And sorry but you also can't claim common sense when it is convenient for you. You're either all in on the 2nd Amendment or you're not in at all.

[Winehole23]

You're either all in on the 2nd Amendment or you're not in at all.false dilemma.

nothing requires TSA, or anyone else, to hold absolutist views on the 2nd Amendment. your reductio ad absurdum falls on its face.

[DisAsTerBot]

You're either all in on the 2nd Amendment or you're not in at all.

:rollin

[Blake]

false dilemma.

nothing requires TSA, or anyone else, to hold absolutist views on the 2nd Amendment. your reductio ad absurdum falls on its face.

I think TSA has made his view of the 2nd Amendment clear enough. When I say all in, I mean he needs to go all in on his view.

The Constitution does not specifically define arms.

Therefore, if TSA says I cannot bear nuclear arms, I require him to explain who the fuck he thinks he is to proclaim his common sense is better than mine.

[Winehole23]

arms have been regulated from the beginning. were denied to free blacks and those unwilling to swear loyalty to the USA, for example.

clearly the founders didn't hold the absolutist view you derive from your facetious gloss of the 2nd.

[Winehole23]

if you could show there has been an unrestricted right of private citizens to own artillery, you might have a leg to stand on.

[Winehole23]

or, TSA might have a leg to stand on, since you're essentially lampooning his view that his rights are impinged by the regulation of war armaments.

[Blake]

I'm not the one crying that they are coming for my guns that the founding fathers said I could have.

your officiating does nobody any favors if you can't keep up.

[Winehole23]

online discussion threads can be tricky and posters difficult to read. you're certainly no exception to the latter, and no one to the former. everyone gets lost from time to time.

[Blake]

I think I'm pretty good about verifying someone's idiocy before declaring them an idiot.

[boutons_deux]

2nd Amendment! :lol

Home Defense! :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I think I'm pretty good about verifying someone's idiocy before declaring them an idiot.

2nd Amendment! :lol

Home Defense! :lol

lol serendipity.

[TSA]

I think TSA has made his view of the 2nd Amendment clear enough. When I say all in, I mean he needs to go all in on his view.

The Constitution does not specifically define arms.

Therefore, if TSA says I cannot bear nuclear arms, I require him to explain who the fuck he thinks he is to proclaim his common sense is better than mine.Where did I say YOU cannot bear nuclear arms, I said if that is how you read the 2nd amendment then fine. I don't read it that way

[Blake]

lol serendipity.

lol

[Blake]

Where did I say YOU cannot bear nuclear arms, I said if that is how you read the 2nd amendment then fine. I don't read it that way

I can't bear them according to your ” common sense”.

Or can I?

If we agree that arms can and should be regulated, then please justifying your crying. Thanks.

[boutons_deux]

There was actually a Repug asshole (sorry for redundancy) who said last week 2nd Amendment was about muskets for "well constipated" militia then, so 2nd Amendment means "militia" assholes can RIGHTS to ALL military arms now.

Freedom! :lol

2nd Amendment! :lol

Water the Tree! :lol

Home Defense! :lol

Gun industry profits! BINGO!

[TSA]

So 'they' are not coming for your guns...

Yes, they are coming for my guns.
OPjkLTtJ8qE

Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony.
Possession of more than 500 rounds of ammo a felony.
6 round magazine limit
ALL magazines must be fixed to the gun (can not be removed without the use of a tool)
100% prohibition of all magazines greater than 10 rounds. All previous grandfathered magazines become illegal. Felony if you keep one.
Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal.
Bullet Buttons will become illegal -- All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess.
All gun owners now must be licensed like drivers.
All gun owners must carry gun liability insurance
Basically they have just proposed to make all semi-automatic weapons, as well as most shotguns, illegal.


And this shit will probably pass due to the makeup of the legislature. Looks like I'm going to be a felon, on multiple counts. Fuck this shit. They're coming for my guns.

[ElNono]

so 'they' are not coming for your guns...

Let me know when they get them, and we'll resume this conversation... until then, it's all :blah

[TSA]

I know you know CA has a super majority, so I don't see how you think it's just all talk now. If this does go through they've effectively disarmed the entire state and made anyone who keeps their guns a felon. Shits about to hit the fan. Can't believe you all keep saying its just talk.

[Blake]

And if they do take your guns, the rest of us should be upset because.......