Skip to main content

Dianne Feinstein at Jan. 24, 2013, press conference on assault weapons ban
Dianne Feinstein introduces her Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 legislation Thursday morning on Capitol Hill.
At an emotionally charged 75-minute press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday morning, flanked by senators, representatives, mayors, police chiefs, gun-control advocates and victims of gun violence, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced her new assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban to replace the 1994 ban that expired nine years ago. She was instrumental in getting that previous ban passed and has been working ever since it expired to have it reinstated.

Feinstein (and many others who spoke at the press conference) conceded that passing the ban would require a hard battle, an "uphill fight," in her words, but, "we can win this." Said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who worked with Feinstein in getting the previous ban passed, "We owe it to our constituents and our country."

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said that if the proposed ban had been in place already, the Newtown elementary school massacre in December would not have occurred. That's because the shooter's mother would not have been able to buy the semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle and 30-round magazines he used to kill 20 children and six adults. Murphy said that, contrary to some claims, the 1994 gun ban—though weaker than what Feinstein has proposed—worked to reduce gun violence. The newly proposed ban would save lives, he said. To his left was a pegboard where more than 20 of the firearms that would be prohibited were hanging.

The details of what would be banned from sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing:

• 158 specifically named military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons.

• 2,200 specifically named hunting and sporting firearms would be exempted from the ban. (In '93, that number was 375.)

• Other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with one characteristic of military assault rifles (such as pistol grips and telescoping or folding stocks) and detachable magazines. (The earlier ban required a firearm to have at least two such features to be proscribed.)

• Magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds

• "Slide stops" that can transform a semi-automatic AR-15 and its clones into a rifle that fires rounds almost at the speed of an automatic

• Firearms with fixed magazines containing more than 10 rounds

• Firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons.” (These features were added by manufacturers to get around the 1994 ban.)

• Unlike the expired ban, Feinstein's has no sunset provision.

(Read more about the Democratic strategy behind the proposed ban and other gun legislation ...)

Feinstein noted that the proposed ban meets criticisms of 1994 ban by making it much more difficult for manufacturers to make small design changes to comply with the law without changing the basic functionality of their firearms.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, labeled the firearms slated for prohibition as "weapons of mass destruction." Since the Newtown massacre, Nutter said, 210 mayors have signed a letter asking for immediate action on gun control. At the top of their list is a ban on assault weapons.

The ban is one of three main pieces of legislation that Democrats have introduced or will introduce. These are universal background checks, tougher sanctions on gun trafficking (a bill introduced Tuesday by Sen. Patrick Leahy) and the assault weapons ban. Democratic strategists must decide which order to present these. They are pondering whether to start first with a law to require background checks for the sale of all firearms whoever is buying and selling, a measure that has widespread support across the spectrum as a means of building support for the other proposed laws.

But, as they say, the assault weapons ban won't be an easy sell. Numerous Democratic senators, particularly in red states and with good ratings from the National Rifle Association, have previously expressed opposition to most tougher gun restrictions, especially bans such as Feinstein is proposing.

Among them are Max Baucus of Montana, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Mark Begich of Alaska. But even senators like Al Franken of Minnesota and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire are not sure votes for the ban. All told, as many as a dozen Democratic senators could decide to oppose the bill.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:56 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Congress should start with universal (27+ / 0-)

    background checks, including private sales, and improving the background check data base. It seems as though this has the broadest appeal and would be the easiest to pass.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:05:32 AM PST

    •  I suspect that is what Democratic strategists... (18+ / 0-)

      ...are planning. They know that starting with the proposed ban could poison the waters for other legislation since it is clearly the most disputed. Perhaps 20% or more of Democratic senators may oppose the AWB.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:08:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is logical that she'd go for it now (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        homo neurotic, lyvwyr101, Tim D M

        that there is a different perspective on this issue for the first time in 20 years, but I think they should focus on the background checks and the magazine sizes - neither of which can be used to make the claim that Obama (or any other Democrat) is going to go door-to-door to seize "YOUR" guns!

        I have some otherwise not idiot friends who are totally convinced that their guns will be confiscated, any minute.  Dianne's sandwich board display today is going to haunt my FB page which sort of makes me pissed off at her.  Not being a gun expert, they look just as scary to me as any gun does - so she's not educating people like me about how much "worse" these are as opposed to any others - and for those who do know - that imagery becomes a flag to waive in the name of "freedom".

        Just my 2 cents.

      •  I suspect the well is already poisoned (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros

        Even if Mark Begich, for example, votes no should a bill actually make it to the floor, he will be tarred and feathered by this partisan policy objective and the current Democratic majority will suffer for it.

        Those opposed here at DK to any effort toward these prohibitory bans have been arguing this point persistently ... and to little evident effect.

    •  We should do background checks on members (5+ / 0-)

      of Congress who are against the assault weapons ban.

      You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

      by shoeless on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:57:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, because it would prevent 0.6% of all gun (14+ / 0-)

        related murders.

        Damn those Congress-critters who think logically and know this is all for show.

        God forbid they should want to concentrate on something that might actually reduce crime!

        •  in other words (6+ / 0-)

          it's not worth saving even 0.6% of the people killed by guns?

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:11:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because those violent offenders who used one of (9+ / 0-)

            these weapons would have been stymied by the absence of an "assault weapon", and wouldn't think to grab, oh, say, a pistol instead, like the overwhelming majority of violent offenders do.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:24:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  and if they did (7+ / 0-)

              the mass killers would not be able to kill the number of people they do. or are you trying to make the case for a handgun ban, too?

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A DOJ report on the expired ban certainly (13+ / 0-)

                found no evidence to support your claim, either for the weapons or the magazines.

                http://www.sas.upenn.edu/...

                Most of the magazines used in VT and by Harris in Columbine appear to have been of the 10-round capacity.

                So your assertion has little beyond assumptions and emotions to support it.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:34:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  um (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus, crankypatriot, Laconic Lib

                  you do realize that this ban will address holes in the previous ban, right? and "most of"? and the other magazines? and the rest of the mass killings? like, you know, the recent ones?

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:39:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  When a guy carries a backpack full of 19 10-round (12+ / 0-)

                    magazines, and uses 17 of them in a shooting, as Cho appears to have done, is he really limited by the capacity of the individual magazines?

                    I'll tell you who's limited by 10 rounds - the guy who isn't planning for a fight, but has to grab a weapon in haste when one starts.

                    Certainly not the psychos who bring backpacks full of magazines.

                    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                    by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:43:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  try to focus (6+ / 0-)

                      not on your cherry-picked examples, but on the broad swath of examples. because in other cases, lives would have been saved. and cho would have been stopped if there had been limits on how much can be bought over a period of time. but again- there have been other mass killings, where this ban would have stopped or limited the carnage. some of us think it's worth limiting such carnage.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:52:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Mass shootings *are* cherry-picked examples (10+ / 0-)

                        by their very nature. They're incredibly rare (0.006 per 100,000 population, down ~30% in the last 30 years). The big public ones even more so. Every single one will be contingent on specifics of the event.

                        Your claim that "lives would have been saved" simply is not borne out by any reliable facts. It's a bare assertion, disputed by the report for the DoJ cited above.

                        Hell, I even know which shootings you're going to cite (Aurora & the attack on Giffords), and those don't even help your case - those appear to be instances of magazines that were so large they failed to feed into the chamber properly (typical for 100 round drums) or jammed in the magazine well in loading (not uncommon in ~30-round pistol magazines that are longer than the magazine well of the gun; I've experienced it myself at the range). There's no reason to believe that standard capacity magazines (15 for full-frame pistol, 30 for semi-auto rifle) would have experienced either failure mode those shooters suffered, nor would obligate 10-rounders that had comparable form factors.

                        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                        by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:42:56 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  While it's quite true that mass shootings at... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tytalus

                          ...a tiny fraction of the total, they are NOT down 30% in the past 30 years. Based on four or more victims per incident, the graph charts incidents catalogued by the FBI since 1980:

                          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:17:53 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You are misreading me. I did not say the total (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            OMwordTHRUdaFOG

                            number of mass shooting incidents was down 30% in the last 3 decades. I said the rate per 100,000 population is down 30%. I'm quite familiar with that particular chart.

                            Total incidents have hovered steady at ~20 per year. In that time, the US population has increased 35% (from 232 million in 1982 to 314 million in 2012). This translates into a decline in per 100,000 population incidents of about 28%.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:29:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right. I misread. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Robobagpiper

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:01:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But thanks for posting the chart. It's a good one. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            OMwordTHRUdaFOG

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:01:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  There will not be an absence of assault weapons (5+ / 0-)

              on the streets.  Do you really believe that once this passes, they will just turn them in?

              •  Some will, if they can get enough cash (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sukeyna

                for them.

                You forget - most criminals don't care about anything but getting money. If they could get enough, they'd sell their Mom, their kid, their dog (and some have, especially the kids and dogs). They wouldn't have any hesitation about turning in their gun.

                Hell, they'd likely steal some just to turn them in for more money.

              •  It was a gedanken experiment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OMwordTHRUdaFOG

                If all assault weapons disappeared magically today, how many fewer homicides would we have tomorrow?

                There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the number will differ in any statistically insignificant way from "zero".

                Hell, a detailed study on shootings in Jersey City over 5 years (referenced in my cite above) found that only 2.5%-3%  of all shootings involved 11+ shots fired, and of those it's not clear that any of that small number would have been affected by a magazine capacity limit.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:03:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Not in this way...there are other ways that would (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VectorScalar, fuzzyguy, Bon Temps, ancblu

            be better and be more focused on weeding out the criminals that commit the murders and not law abiding gun owners.

            Remember the only ones effected by any new gun ban will be those who care about a new law, and that's the law abiding gun owners.

            This will never eliminate the millions of weapons on the streets and the criminals will always still be able to buy them on the streets....just as they do now. They don't give a crap about the laws now, why would you think they will care any other law that comes along, hence the reason the first AWB was such failure.

            Want to get the criminals?  Background checks across the board.  Incredibly stiff, mandatory sentences for felons caught with a gun.  Crimes committed with a gun also have incredibly stiff, mandatory, long prison sentences.

            Go after the bad guys who commit crimes....leave my rights and my gun alone.  

            •  how many (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus

              of the recent mass killings were committed by people with criminal records? thanks.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:07:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And this bill being proposed would stop them how?? (5+ / 0-)

                The guns they had access to, would just disappear on the day of signing?  Or would the people who owned them  just walk over to the nearest police department and turn them in?

                They wouldn't have been able to buy them off the streets, or a friend or whomever?  Use another gun? Use a bomb? Whatever.

                You WILL NOT prevent mass murders in this way.  It won't happen.  If someone is set on committing this type of crime of this magnitude, your silly ban will never stop them.  Columbine happened during the last AWB....they got theirs illegally.

                All this will do is make guns illegal for law abiding gun owners, and yet will not remove the ones that exist off of the streets.   Thousands of exemptions, and no way to enforce it...until another crime is committed.

                Oh yeah...thanks.

                •  i see (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101

                  so because it wouldn't work on day one, let's just not bother. too bad australia didn't think of that!

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:29:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It won't work, period. Australia is a completely (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy, ancblu

                    different situation than ours.

                    Number one...they never had a Constitutional right to own firearms, like our country, so the people never felt such a sentimental ownership value as they do here...and the anger that will be felt here if the 2A is touched in any real way will be much stronger.

                    Number two....Australia had very strict gun laws prior to any ban, so the ban wasn't such a shock nor where there any where near the amount of weapons on the streets. ...nor did they have any where near the amount of gun  owners as we have.  This country has 120 TIMES the amount of weapons within our borders as they did at the time of the ban.

                    Number three...the buy back program they initiated did not cost a fraction of the amount of money we would have to have to even get a small amount of guns off of our streets.  We have 120 times more weapons, we have a population who 1/2 owns at least one gun (that we know of...probably much higher) and who value that right and thus will make guns and illegal purchasing a valuable commodity on the streets.  It would take an astronomical amount of money to do that...not even considering the political battle and public uproar that would ensue the moment it was considered.

                    •  yes (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      snowwoman, sukeyna, lyvwyr101

                      because it will be difficult and imperfect, we may as well not try.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Right...exactly. Do something real like stiffer (5+ / 0-)

                        penalties from gun crimes, background checks across the board, mental health funding, and leave law abiding gun owners with their Constitutional rights.

                        •  yes (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          snowwoman, sukeyna

                          none of which would have stopped newtown and clackamas. and please try to keep in mind that some of us don't agree with decisions made by this wingnut supreme court. and that the court rulings did not rule out regulation.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49:09 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You cannot stop Newtown anyway (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bailey2001, dewley notid, ancblu

                            You don't seem to be listening.

                            The Newtown killer had a semi-automatic pistol with lots of clips and all were legal even under a new ban.  He could have just as easily killed the same number of people with just a few clips.

                            Insane people don't care about bans.

                            If you really cared about gun deaths, you would follow the advice in comments above.  Give gun crimes mandatory stiff sentences - did you know the gun crimes are often plea bargained down - sometimes to misdemeanors?

                            Make background checks universal on any gun sale.

                            Or.. you can go ahead and push for this inane worthless assault gun ban that will likely cost some Dem Senators and a number of Dem Congressmen their seats in 2014.

                          •  once again (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus, snowwoman, sukeyna

                            you're making the case for stiffer gun bans. but clackamas would not have happened if ar-15s were banned. and did you know that almost none of these mass shooters had criminal records? so how would stiffer sentences have stopped them?

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It wouldn't. That's the point! (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bailey2001, VClib, dewley notid, ancblu

                            You will not stop the very rare mass killings.  Never. Ever.

                            So expend your political capital preventing tens of thousands of gun deaths rather than wasting time trying to prevent a handful of unpreventable deaths.

                          •  Ever....correct. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu
                          •  Indeed... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bon Temps

                            ...perhaps the most onerous part of the proposed ban is the 10 round mag limit.

                            This will not stop mass killings, although I will acknowledge it might prevent or delay a few of them -- them being a tiny number in the first place and the few that are delayed or stopped being an even tinier number.

                            But, if passed, it will cost Democrats dearly in two and four years. Many solid Democrats have >10 round magazines for their handguns (perhaps just a standard magazine that came with their Glock handgun). When they realize that the new AWB made it impossible to get (at least at a reasonable price) a replacement and that the AWB was supported by their Senator or Representative, they will either pick a more conservative candidate in the primaries or vote for the Republican, or just not vote, in the general election.

                            This is not a path to get more Progressives into office - it's a way to get Republicans into office. And, all for no benefit except to make those who fear firearms in law abiding hands feel a false sense of security.

                            Anyway, this has no chance of getting through both the Senate and the House, so it's mostly a waste of time posturing. I suppose it benefits Diane Feinstein by keeping her in the media -- but I doubt she would be doing this if she really thought it would pass because it's doubtful she wants to be in the minority party in the Senate.

                          •  It won't stop them anymore than this ban will but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu

                            it will punish those who abuse their rights without taking away mine.

                          •  It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the 2A, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu

                            I do, thus, it's my right that can't be taken away, until such time as it is repealed with 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states.  

                            When cities burned down to the ground because of protests and people died because of the same....would you have been just as content with "trying" a ban on protests, just to see if it might work in hopes of preventing more deaths?  

                            Would you have been just as content with a ban on the 1A even though it was a right you valued?

                          •  actually (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus, snowwoman

                            what matters is the law. for now, thanks to an extremist right wing court, the law is on your side. unfortunately for you, we will not always have extremist right wing courts. and to repeat: even this court did not close the door on regulation.

                            and you do realize that there are restraints on 1a, right? try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and then try to explain how you were just expressing your liberties.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:11:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yep, you yell "fire" and you go to jail prompty! (0+ / 0-)

                            However, protests are never banned because fools yelled "fire" or used a bomb or burnt down a city.

                          •  and no one will ever ban (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lyvwyr101

                            well-regulated militias.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:37:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just to dismiss the premise you are alluding to:

                            Jefferson wrote and debated publicly many, many times on the 2A and every thing he said or suggested not just implied but directly explained that the citizens should be armed....period.  

                            IF the 2A was meant to only arm those in the militias....then why didn't that law/rule apply from the day it was created.  The founding fathers didn't fall over dead the day it was written and leave it all up to third interpretation from that moment on....and yet through out our entire history, guns have not been banned from  the free populace unless one was in a militia.  

                            No one posted signs around the towns of America, after the creation of the Bill of Rights that read, "Bill of Rights was created last night...don't leave your guns with your wives or sons...it is now illegal unless you are in the militia!"  

                            During the Oregon Train, a family was not allowed to sign up to enter a group of travelers unless they had arms and 6 months of ammo....single women had to join a family and provide their own gun.  No one was prosecuted for advertising an illegal activity by requiring non-militia people to own and carry a weapon.

                            During the Civil War, women and young children protected their farms from invaders and continues to harvest animals with guns to feed their families.  No one rounded them up because they had illegal guns in their home.

                            If they only meant the militia...don't you think we would have had one single arrest (of free persons, I can add) from the day the Bill of Rights was created on to suggest that a week later, a month later, a year later, a decade later or a century later that only the militia were supposed to have gun.   Yet, no such arrest exists.....no militia storehouses exist....no sign ups for militia volunteerism and gun handouts....not then and not now.  Why? because it was not illegal to own guns then and they never meant only the militia.

                            At the time of the Bill of Rights, almost every home, that had a free family living in it,  had a gun....for mere survival, if for nothing else.   Every free man owned one.  Even my ancestors, who weren't free, had guns...but they were just hidden in barns and hay lofts or under mattresses so we weren't murdered for having them.

                            Again, not one arrest  from the time of the Bill of Rights being created related to this "new Law" our founding fathers made that day about guns being only for the militia.  Not a day later, a year later and so on.  Matter of fact, try to find a law from the latter 1700's or 1800's in Anytown, USA that states, "No individual can own or possess a weapon unless they are actively enlisted in the state militia"  Any law....anywhere.

                             Why?  They never meant only the militia, and if you think about it....could you imagine the chaos the day after creating the Bill of Rights and the newly formed government running around collecting guns from farmers and ranchers and men who traveled on horseback etc.  Do you think for a second the people at that time, who used guns in everyday life just to eat, would have allowed that? No way.  They never meant just the militia....it was not a matter of third party interpretation then as it is now...and Jefferson and others were extremely vocal in protecting the rights of the people to be armed.  

                            Now that my people are free and are able to enjoy the same rights as others have had since the Bill of Rights was created, I intend to keep that right.  

                          •  jefferson wanted to avoid having a standing army (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            snowwoman, tytalus

                            he also was a raging bigot. the founders lived in just a slightly different world.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:53:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not the point....the 2A is not about keeping guns (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            away from the citizens as you implied.  It never was.

                            This is fact not interpretation....history proves that.

                          •  actually (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            snowwoman, tytalus, lyvwyr101

                            the individual right interpretation is very new, and in legal terms was very fringe until scalia and friends. that's actual history. and however you want to interpret it, the second is as bizarre and anomalous as some other sections of the constitution, which were chucked as the nation, and human beings, evolved.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:05:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The "new interpretation" are on the premise that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            the meaning implied by the founding fathers was that guns were only for those persons in a active militia.  History proves this to be false...in multiple, multiple ways.   I could write 10 pages of facts and quotes to prove this.

                            Morally, if you disagree with gun ownership etc, you have a case.  Speak your case, defend your case, bring light to your case...just don't try to rewrite history and say that the founding father meant something that we know they didn't.  It makes your case faulty from the onset when you do this.

                          •  heller (0+ / 0-)

                            was unique in judicial history. otherwise, it wouldn't have been needed.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:28:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It was needed because of attempted "new (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            interpretations".  

                            Again, prove me wrong.  Show me some precedence from the time of the Bill of Rights that proves the founding fathers meant only the militia.  Show me new laws created at the time, that took guns away from those who were not in the militia.  Show me quotes in which they "clarified" they meant only the militia...instead of the actual quotes where they defended citizen ownership over and over again. Show me a time in our history in which free persons couldn't own guns on any real large scale except if they were actively in a militia.

                          •  i suggest you read stevens (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            you know, one of the court liberals, as opposed to the right wing extremists who made you so happy.

                            "a strained and unpersuasive reading"

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:39:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Prove me wrong with real history, not anyone's (0+ / 0-)

                            interpretation of it.

                          •  um (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            i'll just stick with stevens. you stick with scalia. i think most democrats, liberals, progressives, and thinking people can figure out the rest.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:00:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            for proving my point.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:06:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have read it and prepared lessons on it. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  I can't wait---either-- (0+ / 0-)

                            until this current looney tunes high court takes the friggin' fabled hike into retirement.

                            The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

                            by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:06:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bailey2001

                            ...an amendment. It takes 2/3 of the Congress to propose it. (That's a slight simplification though).

                          •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...meant to respond to Baily2001's comment.

                          •  DK is broken... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...when posting deeply nested comments via Firefox (who knows where THIS one will end up!)

                          •  ...or maybe just... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the 'auto update' is broken when the indenting stops due to nesting depth. A full refresh seems to fix it.

                          •  Thank you and you are correct. (0+ / 0-)
                        •  Or how about actually enforcing the laws (5+ / 0-)

                          on the books now?

                          In 2011, 71,000+ reported 'straw purchases' were accepted by the FBI for review.  77 resulted in any charges being levied.  Every one of the 71,00+ were FELONIES.

                          But yeah, making it so that any firearms that I own that are on her list either get registered by me to me and get destroyed when I die or else make me a criminal if I do not.  

                          Since I am an able-bodied man under the age of 45, I am a member of the VERY regulated Irregular Militia (Dick Act 1903) I should be able to ignore the illegal order to register my 'assault weapons' as there is no designation of such firearms aside from what Josh Sugarmann might think.

                          Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
                          Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
                          Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

                          by ErikO on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:56:21 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Inaccurate regarding the prosecutions... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            ...the FBI reported in 2009, not 2011, that 71,000 people had lied on their background checks when they tried to buy guns, but only 77 were prosecuted. Not the same as people who tried to engage in straw purchases.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:31:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, so that would be the same timeframe (0+ / 0-)

                            as when firearms were illegally sent across the boarder in the failed attempt of a single-sided Lineback-ertype operation called Fast and Furious?

                            Sorry I had the details wrong, glad I had the number correct.  Lying on a 4473 is a felony, only 77 were pursued.  Still a huge black eye for the agency that is responsible for going after felonies committed as part of filing federal forms.

                            Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
                            Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
                            Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

                            by ErikO on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:22:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I would guess (0+ / 0-)

                    the opposing strategy is to discourage---hoping we'll all give up-----and head for the next fabled shiny object.

                    I'm wondering if nationwide protests similar to the anti-war protests of the 1960's would prove a point?

                    The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

                    by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:58:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  You keep presuming the outcome ... (0+ / 0-)

            of "saving" the number of people killed by tactical carbines ... but without any supporting data or consideration that alternatives are and would be available.  EXhibit A -- Virginia Tech.

            And, you also persist in ignoring any political consequence that will undoubtedly undermine Democratic electoral efforts in red, purple and even some blue states.  Yes ... even the staunchest of liberals, Al Franken, being more careful and insightful than you are on this point.

          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

            why  do I think we are being discouraged from doing anything?

            That's a real shame because that won't be happening.

            I've been looking over all the old protest strategies the anti-war movement used during the 1960's when they helped to shut down the Vietnam war.

            Provides quite the template.

            Nothing succeed like success.

            The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

            by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:50:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  It wouldn't even prevent those. (8+ / 0-)

          It's not like alternative, and vastly-preferred, weapons aren't available.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:11:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Im pretty sure i just heard (0+ / 0-)

          John King, on CNN say
          350 murders & 450 woundings with these type of weapons since the 94 ban had expired ?

          Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

          by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:37:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  How about IQ tests, too? eom (0+ / 0-)

        Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

        by DRo on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:20:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And regulate the dealers (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu

      put some teeth, and some enforcement, into the laws. The dealers have to be licensed. There's lot of room for regulating them pretty tightly.

      •  This is a much more effective (0+ / 0-)

        and politically acceptable area of focus than a new AWB -- reduction of illegal trafficking through better dealer inventory controls is one of the elements of Senator Gillibrand's recent bill.

      •  Gun dealers are already licensed. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:33:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know (0+ / 0-)

          That's why regulating them would be easier. They're already in the system, they collect the data, they do the checks.

          They should be required to keep records of the serial nos of the guns they sell, if they don't now. I'm sure they keep customer records as well. I'd bet most dealers could tell you what guns they sold to who.

          If a gun they sold was used in a crime, the cops should be able to easily find out when the gun was sold, and to who.

    •  Also prosecution of criminals and others caught (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bailey2001, WillR

      by the background check trying to purchase firearms.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:16:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope they use an attempt at an AWB... (16+ / 0-)

    to trade it away for meaningful reforms that would get illegal guns off the streets and better secured at home, and a lot more mental health spending.  

    If they try and stay firm on an assault weapons ban, we're getting nothing.  But allow the pro-gun Dems to grandstand by blocking it, but compromising to agree to other measures that would actually do something.  

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:07:27 AM PST

    •  Well...... (9+ / 0-)

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:21:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree entirely (10+ / 0-)

      The problem isn't primarily the nature of the weapons - it's the people weilding the weapons that cause the problems.

      Keep in mind that while Newtown was a tragedy, the number of people killed there is far smaller than the number killed one at a time by guns since then, virtually none of which would count as assault rifles. So, in exchange for MAYBE reducing the number of mass killings you are giving up your focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people.

      If we increased the penalties (and probabilities of facing them) associated with using ANY firearm to commit a felony we would go a long way towards reducing the crime rate. Except for suicidal people that you have to prevent from getting guns, most criminal gun violence would be reduced if the perpetrators spent more time in jail once convicted. If any felony with a gun gets you a 5 year, no parole, sentence, and a 25-year penalty for second offenses, there would be fewer first-time offenders due to deterrence and far fewer repeat offenders due to them being incarcerated.

      How many people hold up a gas station or liquor store with an AR-15? How much safer would you feel being mugged by somebody carrying a .45 semi-auto with only 9 rounds in it rather than 15 rounds? Focusing on the hardware didn't work the first time around and I don't think it's the way to make progress now either.

      •  Um... (11+ / 0-)

        Bans are bad (so you say) because this...

        ...in exchange for MAYBE reducing the number of mass killings you are giving up your focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people.
        and so alternatively you propose...
        If any felony with a gun gets you a 5 year, no parole, sentence, and a 25-year penalty for second offenses, there would be fewer first-time offenders due to deterrence and far fewer repeat offenders due to them being incarcerated.
        But your logic is inherently contradictory. if a person is a criminal they aren't very much deterred by threat of breaking the law now are they? Same for the "mentally unstable." Also many "mentally unstable people" act out violently before they are on anyone's radar to cause a ping on a background check, Adam Lanza, the Batman Killer, and Jared Loughner among them. However this part I agree with...
        focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people.
        ...yes, lets. Even if it inconveniences a few hobbyists.
        •  You put it best..... (7+ / 0-)
          But your logic is inherently contradictory. if a person is a criminal they aren't very much deterred by threat of breaking the law now are they?
          and the legislation is to ban and confiscate?  I agree with your  statement but what about the 10s of millions of "cold" guns that are in circulation?  

          There is no simple solution to this problem - an assault weapons ban is just feel good legislation - especially in it's current form.

          Mental health is a big part - education is another - IMHO - it should be taught in schools as core how to safely hand a gun - think of how many people die or are hurt becasue they pick up something they know nothing about.

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:08:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think it's one or the other (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, nextstep

          If we could get both bans on unnecessary types of weapons AND efforts to control the violence caused by all the other types of weapons I'd be for it, but I don't think that's realistic. If we're only going to get one I'd rather it be a broad control against illegal use rather than a narrow control that affects everybody who uses one type of gun and no control at all on the people who use "good" guns.

          You state:

          But your logic is inherently contradictory. if a person is a criminal they aren't very much deterred by threat of breaking the law now are they? Same for the "mentally unstable." Also many "mentally unstable people" act out violently before they are on anyone's radar to cause a ping on a background check
          First, it isn't the threat of breaking the law that is the deterrent in most cases but the threat of the resulting punishment. I think that if you have a sign on every public building that says "commit a gun crime here and you WILL go to jail" that at least some of the people who might bring a gun with them will think twice.

          For those that don't care, the objective of certain punishment is not deterrence nor rehabilitation but simple removal of the criminal from society. I cannot be shot by a street thug who is doing 25-life after his last stick-up, and I'd argue that the number of crimes committed by repeat offenders is well out of proportion to their number.

          Getting mentally unstable people away from guns might be a case of returning to more mandatory institutionalization of the severely mentally ill. I realize that we are never going to identify every single such person in advance, but if we can find 50% of the potential killers and keep them away from guns of all sorts I think that is another win.

          There are lots of policy issues here and I don't pretend to be an expert, but it seems clear to me that the best first step is not to ban scary-looking weapons that are used in a statistically tiny fraction of all gun crimes. For example, nobody is proposing that we ban shotguns with magazines of 10 or fewer cartridges, which is what the lunatics will start using once the AR-15s have been banned. Also, there are already so many "assault" weapons in the population that short of a massive confiscation effort you are never going to get rid of them even if you disallow all new manufacture.

      •  People wielding the weapons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        Absolutely.  For instance if we assume that a person who own a  weapons primarily intended to murder other people are in need of mental care, we would greatly reduce the number of casualties.  If we a assume that an average person who feels the need to carry a loaded gun with them at all times is not sane, then we could greatly reduce the number of casualties.

        We should assume a person who carries a loaded gun or owns a number of guns built to murder people are going to at some point use them to solve problems.    As was shown in the Texas incident last week, this is what people do.  They do not have the sophisticated problem solving skills that the average civilized American has, so they think they need to kill people.  This is the gang member who wants to solve his problems by killing his adversary, the NRA member who want to solve his self esteem difficulties by buying a large capacity magazine for a long gun, or the genuinely scared kid who was never taught anything else.

        We should increase penalties, but the NRA has gutted the ATF, and the privileged aren't going to allow laws that put their kids in jeopardy.  For, instance it would probably be a great deterrent if an underaged kid were automatically put in jail for 30 days if caught drunk and disorderly.  But do you really think Rand Paul would vote for such a thing.  Likewise we could pass laws that said a gun on school grounds is equivalent to attempted homocide or selling a gun to felon makes the gun seller responsible for any crime the gun is used in.  What i would like to see is unregulated gun sales, but regulation on sales of ammunition.  The person at walmart who sells the bullet that kills a cop is as responsible for the death as the person who pulls the trigger.

        But really no one is going to go such laws.  So all this is a smokescreen meant to keep the murder of children at large.  Sure banning assault rifles isn't going to do that much.  Sure people kill people, not guns.  But all this is really about maintaining the rights of few insane people who are willing and eager to murder, so that when they have a chance the will be able to experience the act of murder without have any real consequences.

        •  Dafuq did I just read. (4+ / 0-)
          If we a assume that an average person who feels the need to carry a loaded gun with them at all times is not sane, then we could greatly reduce the number of casualties.
          This alone deserves a hiderate.

          Then you followed up with

          We should assume a person who carries a loaded gun or owns a number of guns built to murder people are going to at some point use them to solve problems.    As was shown in the Texas incident last week, this is what people do.  They do not have the sophisticated problem solving skills that the average civilized American has, so they think they need to kill people.
          But all this is really about maintaining the rights of few insane people who are willing and eager to murder, so that when they have a chance the will be able to experience the act of murder without have any real consequences.
          Blanket statements regarding the mental health of a great many people is pretty damned HR'able.

          I'm not going to throw the doughnut though because I'm going to respond to the following gem.

          The person at walmart who sells the bullet that kills a cop is as responsible for the death as the person who pulls the trigger.
          So it is the minimum wage, nonunionized, underemployed, mook's fault at the big box store that someone else made a decision to act in a way that society deems inappropriate? Perhaps you should read up more on psychology and sociology before you start throwing labels and accusations on people and making proposals that you don't have a fucking snow ball's chance in hell of doing any actual "good" what so ever.

          Seriously, and this shit has a rec on it.

          People wielding the weapons (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib

        •  lowt - your comment contains so many (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, annecros

          nonsensical statements that it doesn't deserve any reply.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:02:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The problem with this entire comment... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep, annecros, fuzzyguy, Boris49

          ...is epitomized by this:

          The person at walmart who sells the bullet that kills a cop is as responsible for the death as the person who pulls the trigger.
          Really? So the person at the hardware store who sells rat poison is just as guilty of murder as the guy who buys that poison and uses it on his wife instead of a rodent infestation?

          Puhleez.

          And diagnosing everyone who has a firearm capable of killing someone (which is EVERY firearm) as insane labels a significant number of people on this site and in this thread as mentally ill.

          "Overreach" doesn't begin to describe it.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:41:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I was waiting for this announcement (4+ / 0-)

    but I was also busy writing something else, so glad to see the reportage.  :)  I don't hold much hope for my feckless AZ Senators, but I'll certainly put pressure on Ron Barber, my rep. in the House. Have to let him know he's sitting in Gabrielle Giffords' old seat and ask him what he thinks of that.

    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

    by tytalus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:16:42 AM PST

  •  angus king (I-ME) too (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, lyvwyr101, JohnnyBoston

    has made recent noises indicating he might join the dems who'd torpedo this.

    "i hear you're mad about brubeck ... i like your eyes. i like him too." -donald fagen

    by homo neurotic on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:21:21 AM PST

    •  Why would King do this? He just won his seat (3+ / 0-)

      and it is not like he is a Senator from a deep red state like WV or AR or Alaska etc.  I can almost see why Begich and Manchin would oppose considering the states they represent are gun crazy...but why would King be a problem or for that matter, any Senator from a state that is not predominatingly Republican.

      I just never think of Maine as being a tea bagged crazed state despite the governor and that was a fluke due to a strong third party and vote splitting.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:03:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JohnnyBoston, MPociask

        please take my reply with a fistful of salt. it's been 12 years since i moved from ME to CA. i did vote for angus king for governor, and mostly hold him in high esteem as very smart and capable.

        maine's not crazy teabag land, but it is a big hunting state -- he pegs his awb reluctance to claims that a high proportion of hunters he's heard from use semi-automatics. i have no clue if that's an accurate reflection of weapon usage among maine's hunters.

        i also think -- and i say this in spite of the fact that, as above, i do mostly like the guy -- that this gives him a chance to puff his chest out early on and make it known he'll be no lockstepper with the democratic caucus. from my recollection, dude's ego is certainly intact.

        "i hear you're mad about brubeck ... i like your eyes. i like him too." -donald fagen

        by homo neurotic on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:19:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  northern New England (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy, ancblu

        Views on firearms up here aren't so neatly split along partisan lines as in other places.

        I like the first sentence in this one :)

        </selfaggrandizement>

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:08:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  True but then again, hunters do not need or often (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, sukeyna

          use assault, millitary style guns for hunting. I have a lot of hunters in my family who do not use anything close to an assault rifle for hunting.

          I have friends who are hunters in favor of assault weapons ban.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Assault is a behavior, not a weapon (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, ancblu, notrouble

            and the Second Amendment isn't about hunting. I made no reference to hunting. I spoke of the attitude toward guns.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:53:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok I see your point, that is true but still I (0+ / 0-)

              think Democrats do have to show a sharp and clear distinction between assault military style weapons and all other guns.   Democrats do not want to ban rifles and handguns or even the majority of guns.

              Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

              by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:03:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  wishingwell - Maine is a very rural state (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        homo neurotic, wishingwell

        with lots of hunters and visitors who go to Maine to hunt.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:03:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We have a lot of hunters in PA , a big hunting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib

          state but Casey seems in favor of banning assault weapons. For many hunters around here, they are making the distinction between hunting rifles and assault military weapons..maybe because we have a lot of veterans around here who know there is a huge difference.  

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:52:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  From Leahy's office: (9+ / 0-)
    NEWS RELEASE — Sen. Patrick Leahy
    Jan. 23, 2013

    Contact
    David Carle
    David_Carle@leahy.senate.gov [1]

    WASHINGTON (Wednesday, January 23, 2013) – U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced legislation Tuesday, the first day that bills can be introduced in the Senate in the new 113th Congress, that aims to combat the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms.

    The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 provides law enforcement officials with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practice of straw purchasing, where an individual buys a firearm for someone else who is prohibited from obtaining one on their own. The measure, cosponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), specifically prohibits the straw purchase of firearms and strengthens the law prohibiting material false statements when purchasing a firearm. The bill establishes tough penalties for anyone who purchases a firearm or ammunition with the intent to transfer it to someone else, particularly in cases involving crimes of violence or drug trafficking, and expands existing trafficking law to make it a crime for an individual to smuggle firearms out of the United States.

    Leahy said, “When the President spoke last week about the need for legislative action in the wake of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month, strengthening our law enforcement efforts against illegal gun trafficking was one of the key issues he noted. This bill will answer that call to action.”

    The Judiciary Committee next week will hold its first hearing of the 113th Congress on gun violence. Lawmakers are expected to hear testimony from a wide range of experts during that hearing and discuss various legislative proposals to stop the kind of tragic gun violence that recently struck Newtown, Conn., and Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    “The provisions laid out in this legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problem of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing,” Leahy said. “As the Senate seeks a way forward to find national solutions to reduce gun violence, I hope Senators from across the political spectrum can work together to find common ground on solutions like this.”

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:23:44 AM PST

  •  With the polling on this, (7+ / 0-)

    the Dems can actually win political capital with bold moves, particularly if they can get the GOP to go extra crazy again...

  •  She should STFU until she supports (8+ / 0-)

    filibuster reform.  This is just for show the way things stand.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:29:14 AM PST

  •  Just have a summary right now. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MRA NY, OLinda, Tom Seaview

    Any idea as to when (supposedly today) bill itself will be released?

  •  No gun legislation will EVER make it to the (15+ / 0-)

    floor of the Senate.

    Harry Reid just guaranteed that today.

  •  Kits? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, DRo, JohnnyBoston

    Are kits to transform semi-auto into automatic weapons included?

    We get what we want - or what we fail to refuse. - Muhammad Yunus

    by nightsweat on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:45:54 AM PST

  •  Win or lose (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, shaharazade, wishingwell

    this is a critical moment to get everyone in the political establishment on the record about where they stand. We'll see what people do when push comes to shove. Notice Sen. Casey is not among those promising "stiff" resistance. Like the hooker said to the guy with the Viagra bottle: "I guess pretty soon we'll see just how stiff."

    •  Casey, overall, does not seem to be always fearing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      for his seat in the Senate, He tends to vote as a Democrat almost all of the time.  He advocated for and voted for ACA and other bills that were not particularly popular in parts of PA but he easily won another term.

      The name Casey in PA carries a lot of weight and it gets a lot of respect.  I think he will keep his Senate seat for a long time.  

      Casey is a very, very strong supporter of President Obama and supported him quite early on , back in 2007,

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:00:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Real or Not? (4+ / 0-)

    "Sen. Feinstein's assault weapons ban will face stiff resistance from some elected Democrats"

    Are they REAL Democrats or just DINOs?  There seems to be a lot of those worthless critters around.

    •  Jeanne Shaheen is certainly not a DINO. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:54:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They might be DWWTGRs.... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JohnnyBoston, VClib, dewley notid, ancblu

      Democrats Who Want To Get Re-electeds.  

      Remember, there are Democrats from conservative leaning states out there.  McCaskill.  Tester.  Several others.  There are many house Dems as well.  Voting for this bill would be suicide to their careers, and we'd be looking at Republican pickups in both the house and senate for the next couple cycles.  

      Sadly, I fear we've already done the damage.  Whether it passes or not, the far right elements have seized on this issue and will come into the polls in 2014 with great zeal.  

      •  TRUE (0+ / 0-)

        I DO think we need to tighten up checks and either ban or make high cap mags so expensive that only people willing to pay will own them.

        But after sort of neutralizing the gun issue since 2006, this whole tragedy couldn't have come at a worse time for dems. In one way it might give them some cover for voting for gun control, but 94 would tell me otherwise.

        But in another way a certain section of voters, who started voting their interests instead of their fear of gun control may have just been convinced not to vote for dems.

    •  BLUE DOGS = DINOS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare, Laconic Lib

      Called Democrats; think, act, smell like repubs.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:34:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  there are uphill battles (8+ / 0-)

    and then there's pickett's charge.  DiFi's showboating.  again.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:52:28 AM PST

  •  This is a very effective bill.... (9+ / 0-)

    .....if the goal was to maintain GOP control of the House and flip the Senate back to the Republicans.

    I can't say I didn't see this coming (it was pretty well telegraphed by Sen. Feinstein & co.), but I am still a bit flabbergasted at the illogical, counter-productive, and fear-driven assault on our civil liberties.

    smh at hoplophobes shooting themselves in the foot

  •  How about we let only the parents of the children (9+ / 0-)

    who were massacred at Sandy Hook vote on the assault weapons ban.

    You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

    by shoeless on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:22 AM PST

    •  "Stiff Resistance" to a certain extent is NRA (6+ / 0-)

      propaganda. There are too many Grandpas in the Senate and to a certain extent the House.

       

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:01:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "assault weapon" at Sandy Hook never (0+ / 0-)

      left the shooter's car's trunk.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:17:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  HR for CT nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shoeless, The Nose, Laconic Lib

        There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

        by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:23:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That seems wrong (8+ / 0-)

        although there are a lot of sites claiming that the rifle was left in the trunk, I also found this.

        FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
        January 18, 2013

        * UPDATE *

        STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;
        INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

           In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

           To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

        Seized inside the school:

        #1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

        #2. Glock 10 mm handgun

        #3. Sig-Sauer P226   9mm handgun

        Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

        #4. Izhmash Canta-12   12 gauge Shotgun    (seized from car in parking lot)

        This case remains under investigation.

        Lt. J. Paul Vance

        “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

        by tytalus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:28:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I apologize for my error. When I (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, ancblu

          originally watched the 12/15 NBC video I got that info from (circulating on social media, so I didn't see it until recently), there was no caveat indicating that the contents had been updated.

          NBC must have realized that the video was making the social media rounds, and they put a caveat in the video itself and in the text on the page, which I just saw when I rewatched it to answer bernardpliers' CT accusation.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:32:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I appreciate that (0+ / 0-)

            I've observed such conspiracy type claims about Sandy Hook since it happened, but your prompt response should nip it in the bud here.

            “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

            by tytalus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:47:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This Is The Alex Jones/Glenn Beck Feud (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Nose, shoeless

          Jones is pushing all the insane theories about Obama hit squads, Beck won't repeat that crap, and the Jones idiots are talking trash over on Beck's site TheBlaze.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:43:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  What gun are you claiming was left in the trunk? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        What model specifically? What is your source? Is it more reputable than this ?

      •  That's been de-bunked. (6+ / 0-)

        I've seen video of the weapon being taken from the trunk, and it was a shotgun, not an AR-15.  There wasa statement clarifying this just yesterday from the Connecticut State Police.
        And yet hardly a day goes by that I'm not seeing someone on facebook linking to a mid-December NBC news clip erroneously claiming that the rifle wasn't brought into the building.

        •  That's because of all the disinfo crap at first (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          EthrDemon, Meteor Blades

          All the Nooz Boobz in SUCH a rush to get the word on the air that they utterly dispensed with fact-checking or any other aspect of responsible reporting, and just threw on whatever they had, whether it was true, false, a mish-mash or pulled out of someone's arse.

          The facts are still playing catch-up to the first hour or so's bullshit.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:20:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Alex Jones Pulling A Coup D'etat On Glenn Beck (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shoeless

            Jones is hammering away at Beck online, trying to snare the Becktard demographic.

            It also appeals to the usual nut jobs like the neonazis at StormFront
            (spoiler alert - they blame the Jews)

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:57:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  How about we only let those who have.... (0+ / 0-)

      .....used an AR to defend themselves or their families vote?

      I mean, if we're tossing representative democracy under the bus and all.....

      •  Both of them? (0+ / 0-)

        Find someone who has used an AR to defend themselves or their families, and they can vote.

        Dumbass.

        You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

        by shoeless on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:02:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name calling is the last refuge of the incompetent (0+ / 0-)

          But instead of hiderating, I decided it would be better to ask, how many do you want?  This is the latest of which I am aware:

          Boy defends home, sister, with AR

          As I implied, however, I think it unreasonable to depart from our representative form of government in order to make people driven by irrational fear feel more comfortable.  I thought perhaps you might be best served if I made the argument more explicit.

          I leave it to other readers to determine which of us has bothered to actually research before we post, and which of us is truly worthy of Red Foreman's favorite pejorative.

          Regards,
          VS

          •  OK, he can vote. That's one. (0+ / 0-)

            We've got 40 parents in Newtown alone. You gun nuts lose.

            You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

            by shoeless on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:17:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Another insult coupled with no homework? (0+ / 0-)

              I am starting to detect a pattern of emotional insecurity and immaturity coupled with an inability to excercise basic information-finding strategies in the Information Age.

              Really, if you are unable to do your own homework before you post, all you need to do is ask for assistance.  Would you like me to help you use google?  I can provide detailed instructions, if you would like.  All you have to do is ask for help, and I would be happy to oblige.

              That's what conscientious adults do, we help those in need of vital life skills necessary to disabuse one's self of erroneous notions.

              Regards,
              VS

              •  I suppose you are too dense to understand (0+ / 0-)

                that your over the top condescension is insulting. Go back to Redstate and talk to your psychotic friends about how manly you are with your military weapons. I'm sure that your Bushmaster is compensating for a physical attribute which doesn't quite measure up.

                You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

                by shoeless on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:22:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I suppose then (0+ / 0-)

                  that you are uninterested in learning how to locate and verify information in today's world, or at least less interested than you apparently are in personal and private contemplation of my physical attributes as you salaciously ruminate upon above.

                  I'm OK with that; I will fight for your right to be intentionally ignorant, as well as your right to contemplate the physical attributes of any you choose, whether you know them or not.  Just don't expect that I'll allow you to take away my civil rights on that basis.

                  Regards,
                  VS

                  •  Don't worry. (0+ / 0-)

                    You will be allowed to keep a penis extension. Perhaps it won't fire automatically, or carry 30 shots, but you may have to feel a bit less manly for the sake of the public good.

                    You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

                    by shoeless on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 07:50:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again with the fixation on my penis? (0+ / 0-)

                      Seriously, all of this to avoid doing some basic homework that would have caused you to avoid having advocated a departure from our system of representative democracy, especially one that would cause your position against our civil rights to lose?  Clearly your ability to engage in rational debate without demeaning yourself is beyond anyone's ability to ameliorate.

                      Perhaps instructions for for using google aren't what you need as much as a primer in logic and basic critical thinking skills.

                      Regards,
                      VS

                      •  It's hard to tell whether you are (0+ / 0-)

                        intentionally obtuse, or whether you truly can't see when someone is just trying to make a point. Now run along, and try to not shoot yourself, or anyone else, while you are playing with your manhood.

                        You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

                        by shoeless on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:53:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Trying to make a point.... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...by constantly and consistently referencing your fascination with my genitalia?  While I am convinced that there is a point at the forefront of your mind, I am likewise convinced that it is not appropriate to discuss in polite company!

                          Be that as it may, I will engage in a little light disabstrusion; have you managed to do your homework with respect to the efficacy of the AR platform for home defense?  Or are you continuing in your insistence that facts have no bearing on your opinions as you endeavor to restrict our mutual civil rights?  Do you renounce your implicit insistence that we toss our representative democracy 'under the bus' as it were, or are you now content to allow the political process to proceed along Constitutionally established guidelines?

                          •  There are only three reasons that you need a (0+ / 0-)

                            military assault weapon.

                            1. You are in the military.

                            2. You are planning a mass murder.

                            3. You are very insecure about something.

                            These weapons have no other uses. Which catagory do you fall into? I''ve had enough of you now. Go find someone else to pester.

                            You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, looks like he rushed it.- Bill Hicks

                            by shoeless on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:11:24 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We seem to be in agreement, of sorts... (0+ / 0-)

                            I do not advocate rolling back the 1986 'Firearms Owners Protection Act', despite the shady nature of its' passage and the fact that it is largely unnecessary.  I have neither the need for,  nor the desire to possess fully automatic weapons.  Sen. Feinstein's SB 150 does not seek to ban or further restrict access to automatic weapons; it seeks to ban semi-automatic rifles (as well as some classes of pistols and shotguns) without regard to utility or function.

                            Wikipedia entry re: aforementioned act

                            This should be the Thomas LOC Summary and Status of SB150

                            As for pestering someone, you are the one who can't accept that I lodged a valid complaint against your original suggestion that we toss our representative democracy in the dustbin and restrict voting on the issue to the parent of those slain at Sandy Hook.  That you agreed to include those who have used ARs (not even the more generic and inclusive 'semi-automatic rifle') to defend themselves lawfully reflects more upon your lack of forethought and/or appropriate research.

                            Understand that I am literally taking you at your word; I believe you really didn't know that military assault rifles were already banned.  If you were just continuing the trolling, then I guess shame on me for continuing to feed the beast.

  •  I'm glad Chris Murphy is so confident (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JohnnyBoston, MPociask

    How anyone can make a statement like that shows how far we've lowered the bar for our elected officials....and I voted for him.

    Hey Chris, why didn't you get this done when we had both houses and the Executive branch?

    How come?  

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:42 AM PST

  •  Future Weapons? Some sort of review mechanism (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Miggles, MPociask, fuzzyguy

    by Dept Of Justice;so the GOP can't starve the process like they do the ATF; that certifies a new weapon for civilian use.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:59:04 AM PST

    •  Agree. The list of banned weapons ought to have (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, MPociask, DJ Rix

      some verbiage in there such as "include but not limited to" so that the law in a sense casts a net instead of getting pigeon-holed to specific manufacturers, product names, or model numbers.  That way manufacturers and end users can't apply what amount to superficial modifications and loopholes to skirt around the intent of the law.  Ideally the law should define what is banned in terms of overall end-performance of the product as opposed to getting too bogged down in the intricacies of all the features that a weapon can or might have.

    •  Fraught with peril. (0+ / 0-)

      Put another way, that opens the door for a gun-friendly administration to approve...well...anything and everything.  And the objective of this bill is to avoid confiscation in favor of attrition.

  •  This is unnecessarily complex (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exterris, annecros, mmacdDE, Miggles

    Simply ban detachable magazines for weapons in civilian use. Establish a period during which firearms with detachable magazines can be converted to make them non-removable and provide funding to do so, which would be minimal in terms of a federal program.

    This would allow the firearms crowd to still have the weapons they like to shoot while eliminating the most lethal aspect of those arms. Someone who thinks they need a 15-round handgun for personal protection can still have one, they just wouldn't be able to pop in another 15 rounds in two seconds.

    Most shooters also manually reload their 15- and 30-round magazines between firings at a range or on private property anyway, so it really wouldn't be much of an inconvenience for them.

  •  What would Ted Kennedy do? (5+ / 0-)

    Ted fought an uphill battle against Big Tabacco. And it can be argued that he won. The template for what he accomplished shoud at least be looked at when we're talking gun control. The tax on cigarette sales that went toward funding SCHIP; I'd be happy to see a tax on ammo that funded mental health studies & facilities...

    Next, for those who can't get their heads around the moral imperative of gun control, where's the discussion on the fiscal responsibility for gun control? Taxpayer $ go towards cleaning up after these sprees, there's business interruption, infrastructure damage, extra first responders on and on. Meanwhile the NRA sells more guns. Let's talk taxpayer funds wasted!

  •  Feinstein has seen carnage up close...... (11+ / 0-)

    .....I was there when she tried to calm the crowds after the Dan White, who murdered Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk, was acquitted. I remember her heroism in facing that crowd, which was throwing rocks at her and, at one point, hit her in the face with one of those rocks.

    Let's stop throwing rocks at Dianne Feinstein and support her as she attempts the improbable here: a slight pushback against the flood of guns in this country.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:03:38 AM PST

    •  And if I am not mistaken, it was Dianne who (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JohnnyBoston, blueness, Miggles, snowwoman

      discovered the body of either the mayor or Harvey after they were shot.  I know she walked into one of their offices after the shooting. She saw their dead bodies.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:14:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes (5+ / 0-)

        People who believe Feinstein is "grandstanding" or "showboating" on this issue are just ignorant.

        That incident marked her. White had at one time been her protege, and that day she heard the shots and saw him leaving Milk's office, and then was the first person to come upon Milk's assassinated remains. Too, White's concomitant execution of Moscone, as an unintended consequence, revivified her otherwise moribund political career. Nutters with guns have also personally gone after her. People with long memories may recall when she was referred to as a latter-day Lillie Coit, for her, uh, penchant for those in uniform; she has long reflected, as here, the desires of law enforcement.

        I am no fan of Feinstein, and never have been, but she feels this one.

        •  In the movie, Milk, there is a scene where Harvey (0+ / 0-)

          is joking around with Dianne , promising her he will not go too radical, and that she can calm down and relax.  So Dianne knew the mayor and Harvey very well. As I noticed when Harvey, in the movie mentions Dianne, it is Dianne Feinstein he is talking about.  

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:46:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. But White used a revolver, a weapon that... (0+ / 0-)

      ...only a tiny, tiny proportion of gun-control advocates — none of them with any clout — are proposing be banned.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:51:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If my senator (Dianne) had supported (5+ / 0-)

    filibuster reform with teeth, she'd have a better chance of passing her assault weapons ban. But as usual, she' the queen of appearing to do something to change things for the better and in reality doing nothing at all. That seems to be an important skill set for Democractic politicians.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:03:56 AM PST

  •  But... but... but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crankypatriot, Laconic Lib

    more people are killed each year by cars with automatic transmissions!

    Won't somebody please think of the passengers!

  •  You have to hand it to Di-Fi (3+ / 0-)

    An unapologetic war profiteer pretending to care about the lives of others.

    Regardless, I hope the ban passes.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:07:17 AM PST

  •  I guess I'm more interested in what is approved. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewley notid

    Most of what was announced today was as expected. However, if there is an approved listing available, I hope someone will provide a link.

    Thanks

  •  As with all legislation, I will reserve judgement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boris49, lyvwyr101, Laconic Lib

    until I have read it, but this:

    2,200 specifically named hunting and sporting firearms would be exempted from the ban. (In '93, that number was 375.)
    sweeps away a lot of my misgivings, and probably undermines the entire NRA argument against the ban.

    I'm excited to read this!

    ...

    I'm excited to read a senate bill? God I'm such a dweeb.

    An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

    by OllieGarkey on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:08:34 AM PST

  •  It matters ZERO if she can get the Dem votes or (4+ / 0-)

    not in the Senate.  GOP will simply filibuster it.  If only there was something we could do about that pesky filibuster.  Oh, wait.  Never mind.

  •  One part makes enough sense to debate (7+ / 0-)

    Making detachable magazines harder to get could indeed make spree shooting more difficult for the shooter. By now we've all seen all the arguments for and against that, but it at least makes sense.

    But pistol grips? Please!

    That's in the realm of "ban it because it is scary", an appeal to emotion more typical of the other side. It costs votes from vanilla gun owners who might otherwise feel free to vote based on economic issues. They know perfectly well that many people are scared by any gun. So a quick thought tells them that a politician could make scary noises about their own guns and try to ban them.

    This is also damaging to Democrats because the gun community remembers the barefaced dishonesty of the campaign for the 1994 version. A sample of that was the public claim to the effect "These guns are the number one problem faced by law enforcement. Ask any police officer.". So I asked a police officer. He was in a public forum so he used family-friendly language. Suffice to say the answer was not in the same cluster of galaxies as "Yes".

  •  Wishful thinking by Sen. Murphy. (5+ / 0-)
    Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said that if the proposed ban had been in place already, the Newtown elementary school massacre in December would not have occurred.
    Sadly, that's not true.  AR15s and AK47s were still legally for sale after the ban and differed only slightly from the unbanned model (they typically didn't have bayonet lugs and flash suppressors).  Large capacity magazines could still be found for legal sale since a huge number of magazines manufactured before the ban and grandfathered in.  So, if we're "lucky" we might end up with "deja vu all over again".  


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

    by KingBolete on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:17:01 AM PST

    •  Worse than wishful thinking. Demonstrably false. (4+ / 0-)

      Columbine and VT occurred largely with large numbers of 10 round magazines. Sandy Hook didn't even involve an "assault weapon" (one was present, but it remained in  the shooter's car's trunk), but multiple pistols.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:19:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does it matter? (0+ / 0-)

        The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

        by lcj98 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:23:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I stand corrected on the latter point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        The claim that the rifle remained in the trunk was retracted by NBC.

        The report I was basing my statement on was subsequently updated, and the page with the original report did not show that fact until I just rewatched it a few moments ago.

        The danger of receiving incomplete news late.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:30:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe better than it looks, but still flawed. (0+ / 0-)

      Looked at bit more carefully at the proposed ban; all the tie-in to the 1994 ban led me to believe that it was the proposed law was the same as the previous one.  However, unless the magazine ban outlaws existing high capacity magazines (after a suitable period of government buy-back) things are not going to be fixed for a very, very long time.


      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
      "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

      by KingBolete on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:23:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With the amount of guns and ammo out there (0+ / 0-)

        Nothing short of a huge mandatory buy back would fix things very fast, and nobody is going to go for that (not even me).

        There should be a buy back program, but it's going to take a while for the real gun nuts to scale back.

        Remember, lots of guns go to few people overall, and often through a small number of dealers.

        I'd outlaw sales of weapons at gun shows as well, but that's me. I have no problem with them being shown. But you don't usually buy a car at the auto show, nor do you buy a plane at an air show, and you shouldn't go to a gun show to buy a gun. To SEE guns, and maybe take some classes, but that's about it.

  •  I am totally in agreement with Senator Feinstein! (7+ / 0-)

    I have no interest in banning guns per se, but the weapons and clips described have no business in the hands of just anyone who can plop down $500 or so.  I am more scared of would-be warlords than the federal government. I simply don't trust people who talk like they do to protect MY freedom.

    I have spent 70 years on this planet and have traveled extensively in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Trinidad, and most of the U.S. without the need of a semiautomatic gun to protect me.  Semiautomatics, in my opinion, are for people who can't hit the broadside of a barn anyway!  I can, however, see the need for a gun for protection in some cases, so I would oppose any outright ban on handguns, normal shotguns or hunting rifles.  However Senator Feinstein's bill does not include such.  It shows how crazy over guns and violence our society has become that this bill is considered extreme!

    Still I'll take what we can get- I hope at least universal background checks, anti-trafficking laws (I thought that they were already on the books!), prosecution of anybody who purchases guns for someone who could not pass a background check, allow appointment of a new AFT director, required gun safety courses for gun owners, required locking up of guns when not in use, better security at schools, better mental health services, and required liability insurance for gun owners. If the NRA opposes anti-trafficking laws, they are themselves, by definition, a terrorist organization, in my opinion.

  •  Really irked some members of Talking Head Nation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, sukeyna, snowwoman

    keep stating in their best know it all insider voices this week that this bill is already DOA. (The exact words of one of MSNBC's pet chipmunks.) In most  eras you didnt get plaudits just for parroting the most conventional wisdom, esp if it came from the NRA or some Republican junior staffer you're trying to hit on.

  •  Weapon of Mass Distraction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JohnnyBoston, fuzzyguy, dewley notid

    Assault Gun Ban -  Weapon of Mass Distraction

    If children die from gunfire, Obama has tears for TV. But if your child suffocates in industrial goo, neither Obama nor the news give a flying fart if your kid chokes or croaks.

    So, rather than take away assault rifles, we'd save far more children by taking away the President's easy access to executive orders.

    And the Republicans? Obama killing 9,000 more asthmatics annually is just not enough for them. So, to placate these GOP industry stooges, Obama threw them the severed head of his EPA chief, Lisa Jackson, pushing her to resign.

    Here's a real life-saving proposal: Rather than spy on gun buyers, the FBI should do background checks on Congressmen – and if they have a history of taking donations from polluters, ban them from voting on life-and-death laws.

    In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    by boriscleto on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:21:31 AM PST

  •  Kabuki. She just prevented filibuster reform. (4+ / 0-)
  •  I tweeted this (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sukeyna, The Nose, Laconic Lib, Miggles
    If your elected officials are more afraid of the NRA than their constituents, then you need new elected officials. #DemandAPlan Now!!
    We need to push this everywhere.. simple but true.. doesn't matter the party affiliation - just that the NRA proves their fear can be bought.

    Why do Republicans Hate Americans?

    by Caniac41 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:22:30 AM PST

  •  The whole AWB thing is stupid... (5+ / 0-)

    ...and designed to appease people ignorant about how guns work.

    Can anybody actually tell me how any of the following make a gun more lethal?
    "pistol grips and telescoping or folding stocks"
    "Firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons.” "
    Wait, they don't. At all.

    Or maybe we can do a review of how often these kind of weapons are actually used in crimes versus handguns? But that would require actual effort and research instead of "oh man, those guns look SCARY! They must be used by bad guys ALL THE TIME!"

    How about we talk about actual sensible measures like much stricter background checks, mandatory sale reporting, gun owners insurance, etc.?

    •  FTR, what's in your final paragraph IS... (5+ / 0-)

      ...being talked about, extensively.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:40:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's all well and good... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        ...but it doesn't mean we should be giving this clown any of our attention.

        She voted for the wars, she wants to crack down on medical cannabis users, she's hurting efforts for filibuster reform.

        Giving Feinstein eyeballs on a progressive site is not exactly the way to make our party more progressive. At least point out how horribly toothless and silly her proposal is.

        •  I disagree intensely. This proposal is going... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snowwoman, tytalus, sukeyna, 124NewYork

          ...to get a lot of attention and it is going to be backed by a lot of progressive senators and members of the House. Not reporting on it will not make it go away.

          Many progressives do not believe the proposal is silly or toothless, as was obvious from those appearing with her (including chiefs of police) and more than 200 mayors, many of them very progressive.

          Whether the proposal is silly and toothless, or contains worthwhile things, say, the high-capacity ban is something we can discuss, and have been discussing, for the past five weeks.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:49:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then you can't simultaneously complain... (0+ / 0-)

            ...about journalists reporting only what politicians say while not reporting on what those bills would actually do while not doing the same thing yourself.

            If you're going to report on these things it would be helpful to actually take a look on what it does. Being a supposedly-progressive proposal shouldn't get it a free pass to skip the sanity-check.

  •  If Feinstein were serious about this ban... (6+ / 0-)

    she would support meaningful filibuster reform.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:25:00 AM PST

  •  I hope it does more than just the AR-15 . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snowwoman, billmosby
    "Slide stops" that can transform a semi-automatic AR-15 and its clones into a rifle that fires rounds almost at the speed of an automatic
    The AK-47 also has a "slide fire" attachment ...
    I'm hoping all the "slide fire" attachments are made illegal .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:26:31 AM PST

    •  The ATF could rule on this. It doesn't need (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      congressional action.

      •  They have ruled on it . (0+ / 0-)

        Do you not know that already ?

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:51:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. But they can change their mind. (0+ / 0-)

          They've done that more than once.

          Don't be so snippy.

          •  So when you said (0+ / 0-)
            The ATF could rule on this.
            you meant they had already ? That they had already ruled them legal ?
            Is that what you are trying to pass off as the reality ?  

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:59:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We aren't on the same page here. I have no (0+ / 0-)

              idea what point you're attempting to make.

              A manufacturer can request an ATF review of a proposed device or part modification to determine if it falls within the law or prior guidelines issued by the ATF.  

              I received an email periodically from the ATF when they modify their position or issue a new ruling.  For example, they came out in 2010 with a ruling that a Mossberg Cruiser should not be  classified as a shotgun on the Form 4473.  They also determined that a GSG 22 that looked like an HK had some aspects of suppression and made the manufacturer modify the firearm.

              The ATF has ruled, from time to time, on bump devices and other methods of improving mechanical manipulation of semi-automatics.  Outside of modifications to a Ruger 10-22, I don't know anyone that would buy such a device and then spend the day wasting expensive ammo with it.  But, people watch and participate in "JackAss", so I guess it takes all kinds.

              I hope that addresses you comment.  If not, send me a pm.

              •  Once again , (0+ / 0-)

                the ATF has said the slide fire is legal .
                They have ruled already .
                Why in your opinion would a manufacturer request a review of something that has already been approved ?
                They are building / selling the slide fires already , the ATF has said its fine with them .

                I hope that addresses you comment.  If not, send me a pm.
                It doesn't and I will not .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:05:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I think it does. (0+ / 0-)

        The definitions in the 1934 NFA are pretty specific, and ATF doesn't get to rewrite statutes.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:30:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is no way an objective analysis of those (0+ / 0-)

      stocks would call them anything other than a fully-automatic trigger system. If you built a device that replaced the shooter's trigger finger and other arm with a trigger-operated dowel and a spring, respectively, it would be nothing more than a rube-goldberg fully automatic trigger system. The only difference is that you substitute parts of the shooter's body for mechanical parts.

      Other than angling for a serious bribe, I don't know what the ATF folks were thinking on that one.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:09:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are semi-auto . (0+ / 0-)

        The finger has to pull the trigger .
        There is no spring etc .
        They meet the semi-auto rules , they do not break the rules re full-auto .
        The ATF has approved them for sale under the rules for semi-auto . The purchaser may buy a slide fire without going to all the work/hassle required for a full-auto .

        The only difference is that you substitute parts of the shooter's body for mechanical parts.
        That's it exactly .
        That is what makes it "semi-auto" and not "full-auto".

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 09:58:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In use, you only pull the trigger once. (0+ / 0-)

          And it keeps firing until you "unpull" the trigger.

          That, plus the approx 10 rounds per second going downrange, is what makes it a full-auto weapon.

          All the other facts surrounding this thing are just legal technicalities.

          There is a spring, it's your arm, held with just the right amount of tension to make it just the right spring constant to work. If they'd put an actual spring in the slide stock it would work the same.

          Nothing could prevent you from bump-firing without the slide stock, of course, except perhaps a common-sense desire to control the weapon's direction I suppose.

          I still say the ATF could have worked a little harder to interpret slide stocks for what they are or what the end result of their use is.

          Moderation in most things.

          by billmosby on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:07:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not how it works . (0+ / 0-)

            The human has to pull the trigger for each round .

            And it keeps firing until you "unpull" the trigger.
            You unpull the trigger by pulling back on the gun with your left hand .
            That, plus the approx 10 rounds per second going downrange, is what makes it a full-auto weapon.
            Is that in the ATF rule book ?
            If they'd put an actual spring in the slide stock it would work the same.
            There were "slide stocks" in the past that had springs in them , they were ruled illegal re the semi-auto rules .
            I still say the ATF could have worked a little harder to interpret slide stocks for what they are or what the end result of their use is.
            I don't think they get to "interpret" . They have to go with the facts .
            And the facts say , the finger has to pull the trigger , release the trigger , pull the trigger etc etc etc .

            So to go back to the start , its not the ATF who can / should , its up to congress .

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 10:39:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My mistake. (0+ / 0-)

              I've never used one.

              However, from what you say, it looks like your trigger finger is adjusted to the right position, then held stationary, and then the left arm is moved so the trigger is pulled the first time by your stationary trigger finger. Then you keep holding your trigger finger stationary and keep the tension at the right level in your left arm so the gun keeps firing, do I have that right? (for a right handed person).

              Moderation in most things.

              by billmosby on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 11:03:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's very close . (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                billmosby

                The trigger finger needs to "move" in relationship to the trigger . The trigger needs to move in relationship to the finger . The firing of the round and the pull of the left hand moves the gun back and forth and the trigger finger actuates the trigger in response .
                If you used a solid fixed hand it would not work .

                If you put a bead atop a drum head and then tap the head the bead bounces on the drum head . The bead and the drum head are both moving .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 11:54:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sounds like a harmonic oscillator. (0+ / 0-)

                  About 2:45 into this video the demonstrator describes how the system is used with an M4:

                  So anyway you see how that works, it slides with you. You get your finger on the trigger and it just uh just uh keeps your finger hitting that trigger if you hold it correctly. You have to hold it against your shoulder like this with your finger right on there really stiffly and then you push out on the forearm pretty much and you're kind of pulling the gun apart and boom boom boom it just takes off on ya.

                  Doesn't sound like he's making individual trigger pulls either in the description or by the rate of fire. He does of course decide when to have the gun stop firing.

                  For me, the following quote from him hit home:

                  "It doesn't take long to empty a magazine, does it."

                  Lol.

                  After firing my AK and my SKS for a while, I decided I could burn plenty of rounds one pull at a time and stopped wanting a full auto. I'd take one as a gift, though.

                  And it would probably sit in the safe like the ones that 4 of my friends had. A mac-10, an uzi, an H-K MP5, and I forget what the other one was. My mac-10 friend was going to let me shoot his in return for my buying the ammo, but 30 sec of fire was going to run about $130. I bought it anyway but he didn't want to bother with it for a measly 900 round shooting outing. So I spent a number of years burning it in my Glock 30 and M1911.

                  Moderation in most things.

                  by billmosby on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 02:54:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sympathetic vibration even . (0+ / 0-)
                    Doesn't sound like he's making individual trigger pulls either in the description or by the rate of fire.
                    The trigger is not pulling itself , something else is .
                    The only thing close is the finger .

                    Have you seen my diary on the subject ?
                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    http://www.youtube.com/...

                    http://www.youtube.com/...

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:17:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My point is the gun is pulling its own trigger. (0+ / 0-)

                      If the finger is held still relative to the stationary part of the system, the stock, then the gun's motion pulls the trigger.

                      And in the video there is clearly a trigger finger rest which is used for holding the finger stationary relative to the stationary part of the stock.

                      The demonstrator says as much:

                      " You have to hold it against your shoulder like this with your finger right on there really stiffly..". He's referring to the trigger finger rest, he's focusing on it in the video at some point.

                      The trigger pulls itself against a finger which is for all practical purposes rigidly attached to the stock. You could substitute a piece of plastic for the finger and it would still work.

                      That's the point I am making, the shooter is not making one trigger pull per shot. He couldn't be, he couldn't move the finger that fast. It's one motion, multiple shots.

                      I still think the ATF screwed up.

                      I'd still like to have one if somebody would foot my ammo bill, lol. And buy me a new barrel from time to time.

                      Nice talking to you.

                      Oh, and I looked at the diary for a second and am headed back there now.

                      Moderation in most things.

                      by billmosby on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:17:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                        then the gun's motion pulls the trigger.
                        The round fires , the gun moves back , the finger moves away from the trigger release point , the left arm then moves the gun forward , the finger moves toward the trigger release point . The gun does not move forward under its own power . The human moves the gun forward , that forward motion is what causes the interaction between the finger and trigger .

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:26:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't mind that. (0+ / 0-)

      I think it's abhorrent that someone can sell for $400 bucks something you can make yourself in less than half an hour.

  •  Filibuster reform (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, MPociask

    Surely Sens. Reid & Feinstein know nothing will pass without adequate, sensible filibuster reform.

    What they don't know is that voters are paying attention and will hold them accountable, as well as the GOP for failure to pass good legislation.

    It's much tougher these days to BS voters with press conferences and weak tea legislation.

    Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

    by Betty Pinson on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27:10 AM PST

  •  Some of the stuff is both really stupid but shows (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, fuzzyguy, lyvwyr101, 124NewYork

    the huge difficulty of coding what we think into real language that reflects what we think exactly.

    A thumbhole stock is just meaningless. It's a good way to build a gun stock and I prefer them. Plenty of hunters just hate them. I like them and both my airguns are built on them.

    I think if you'd really want to cripple AR-15s and the like, prevent guns from having more than 1 mounting rail, which is going to be taken up by a scope or other site but prevents any of the other offending PIECES from being attached in the first place. Renders it a moot point.

    But while I think the blanket ban on guns some have wet dreams about won't be doable or happening, I also really wonder why people need huge clips/magazines/such firepower.

    MOST people who own those things are never going to hurt anybody so plenty of people's rights/privileges will be impinged upon while people try to curtail multiple murder/shooting sprees.

    If we can do this I think we can crack down harder on alcohol abuse and its resultant killing spree. It won't be a hardship on people or businesses to have even more safety regulation preventing intoxicated people from trying to drive.

    If it is going to save innocent lives, how can you be against it?

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27:48 AM PST

  •  First, lets be clear (5+ / 0-)

    If this were to become law, it would do NOTHING to statistically reduce the murder rate in this country.  The VAST majority of murders are committed with handguns, which don't fall under this ban.  Therefore, the only reason to pass this is as the thin edge of the wedge toward making most guns illegal.  If that is your goal, then fine, but you must realize the ramifications of this.

    Midterm elections are dominated by these types of issues and these types (single issue) of voters.  In the last 20 years, big "single issues" have been responsible for all of the wave elections that have flipped the House and/or Senate:  1994-Taxes, 2006-Iraq War, 2010-Obamacare.  There always was very little chance, under any circumstances, that the Dems could flip the House in 2014, but there was/is a very reasonable chance that they can hold the Senate (since the GOP needs net 6 seats, which is a lot even in a wave election).

    Making "gun control" your pet issue in 2013 is stirring one nasty hornet's nest of single issue voters.  Is it really any wonder a dozen Dems in vulnerable positions or red states aren't willing to die on that cross?  And for what, a symbolic piece of legislation, at best?  Of course, DiFi is safe, as is Obama.  Dems have worked awfully hard for thirty years to shed their lable as the party of "gun control".  Now, because of one recent incident (as tragic as it was, it was just one of many similar incidents over the last 30 years), the party is throwing that all away?  On a bill that won't actually do anything?  On a bill that won't even get a vote in the Senate?

    This is the kind of thing that posters here laugh at the GOP for doing (advocating weird "rape" bills and such), that just alienate large swathes of voters.  This is just dumb, and if it leads to the GOP making gains in the Senate (or flipping it), the whole dynamic of Obama's recent aggressive resurgence will be turned upside down, and President Christie will just reverse or neuter it in 2017.  Please don't underestimate the NRA.  They have done amazing political work with relatively small actual resources, for a very long time.  

  •  Total waste of time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    124NewYork

    More background checks and more laws/procedures to insure insane people cannot get a gun is what is needed.    In almost situtation the people that are killing are the people that have serious mental probelms.  Trying to eliminate guns is a ridiculous waste of time.  I guess it makes good for TV coverage but it will do nothing to stop the carnage.  

    The root cause again is mentally ill people that can get access to guns.  This must be stopped.

    •  Yeah, sure (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101, Glen The Plumber, lazybum

      it's easy to define anyone that uses a gun in a bad way as mentally ill, it's a nice distraction tactic. Through the innovation of multitasking, however, we can address problems in the reporting of mental illness, since there is no federal program and the feds are currently powerless to compel the states to report in. Well, you know. If Republicans let us.

      And then there's the problem of the NRA's right wingnut allies tying the concern about mental health to a conspiracy to take away the guns of christians. Strangely they have no issue when the NRA brings it up -- just Democrats!

      “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

      by tytalus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:52:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Analyze (0+ / 0-)

        When looking at an issue such as this sticking to the facts is the first step in the problem description.   From there you can refine the root cause and find the answers (permanent corrective actions) that turn the root cause off.   This is the only way this problem can be solved.

        •  Problem with your argument (4+ / 0-)

          is that you haven't demonstrated your 'root cause' except by fiat, and I have no reason to trust your expertise. I see it more in terms of firefighting. There are many ways to reduce gun violence, including taking guns out of the equation. I see no reason to do one thing and ignore other solutions; instead, I'm interested in pursuing all of them.

          “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

          by tytalus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:56:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  We do lead the world in gun ownership- (0+ / 0-)

    The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

    by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:43:50 AM PST

  •  My shotgun has a colapsing stock.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, dewley notid

    guiess I am against this ban now.

    "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

    by hangingchad on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:47:25 AM PST

  •  Heidi Heitkamp has put out her marker: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, ancblu
    I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration — and if the Washington Post is to be believed — that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about.  And it’s not going to pass.
    Heitkamp said on ABC News’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

    Acceleration is a thrill, but velocity gets you there

    by CarolinNJ on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:11:39 PM PST

  •  But Feinstein (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, dewley notid, BentLiberal

    doesn't want to get rid of the filibuster.

    You think Rand Paul won't block this?

    How much does Feinstein really care?

  •  The most radical part of the Feinstein bill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, ancblu

    is not mentioned in this post.  The best description of the bill can be found here in an article in the Guardian.  The bill calls for registration and finger printing of owners of the weapons currently in their possession.  It seems only useful to provide an accurate description of the bill so proponents know what they are endorsing.  

    •  Except that the Guardian article is inaccurate... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Feinstein dropped the registration proposal.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:09:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for that info and link ... (0+ / 0-)
      Since the previous assault rifle ban expired under a "sunset clause" in 2004, Feinstein said, "more than 350 people have been killed with assault weapons ...
      Without trivializing those deaths, less than 40 fatalities per year is statistically insignifcant compared to other pressing public health issues and where better progressive political leadership could make an real impact on firearm violence -- starting with living wages, full employment, affordable education and such.
  •  DiFi Creates A Consensus: Shes A Polarizing Figure (0+ / 0-)

    I knew she would be showboating on this issue, and that in some quarters she'd be as antagonizing as if Rosey O'Donnell was leading the charge.  But I underestimated how unpopular she really is.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:52:32 PM PST

  •  A window of opportunity is open (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101

    & it needs to be used in the best possible way before it begins to close.  Can't hope for more mass shootings to keep it open. It's not just the NRA responses.  The NRA doesn't have the power to silence the gun culture  crazies  currently making themselves heard. Some of these extreme, seditious  advocates consider the right to firearm ownership so absolute that they should be permitted to own anything to defend themselves against the Obama Gestapo they're convinced are on the way to their homes.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:02:48 PM PST

  •  It doesn't matter now if every Dem Senator (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, BentLiberal

    was for it Reid just killed it and every other Democratic Bill with his caving on Filibustering now just like before the election Republican Senators can stop it in it's tracks.NRA just won the Day with Filibustering "Reform"Deal.

  •  A well regulated militia is not a secret (0+ / 0-)

    Back when I was in the USAF, sometimes thought of as a  type of well-regulated militia, I had little chance of being anonymous. The USAF PR machine sent your photo to the hometown paper when you did something average or better.  Your personnel records indicated the weapons you were qualified to shoot. There were those damned parades. Your photo was on lots of ID cards. So, if we gun owners are part of a rightful well-regulated militia, someone tell me why we'd object to having a record of this? Seems to me it is part and parcel of well regulated. Did the founding fathers think they'd hatched a clandestine service?  'Seems like a gun license would be a public document, if gun ownership defines the militia.

  •  Strange, neither of mine seem to be (0+ / 0-)

    on the list. Well, an SKS is not really as much of an assault rifle as it is a kind of smaller battle rifle anyway, although aftermarket hi-cap (or I should say "hi-crap", lol) mags were made for it, it only is built to hold 10 rounds. The built in magazine has a releasable lower end, though, which creates an opening that can be used for attachment of a hi-cap mag. The three I had at one time wouldn't feed more than 10 rounds without jamming, though.

    And for some reason the designation of my other one, "SAR-1", does not click with many people as another name for an AK type. At least it didn't with the authors of the bill.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:05:37 AM PST

  •  Since mental health (0+ / 0-)

    appears to be such an issue---why not just declare a moratorium on gun sales until we get this whole mental health issue under control?

    The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

    by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:04:28 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site