Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-USSR) to introduce assault weapons ban

[Bo's Pelini]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press that she will introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...ay-Of-Congress

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Which is a pretty silly over reaction way of looking at it. Don't worry, you're not alone. All the talking pundits in the media are doing it.

I am not over reacting I am having a friendly discussion and anyway that was Direckshun's standard not mine.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

This is kind of funny

I liked the one where the guy was shooting one from the tailgate of his pickup and the muzzle blast shattered his tail light.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Dayze

Semi Auto huninting rifles that don't look scary on the list of guns to ban?

This is where I keep ending up.

I have a semi-automatic 30.06 that holds five rounds. I have several magazines and could get as many as I wanted.

A 30.06 is a significantly more powerful round than the .223 that the AR fires. It's just not even close. If you outlaw an AR and I feel like blowing the hell out of some folks, I could do just as fine a job with that 30.06, believe me. And the only difference would be that A) It would weigh a little more and B) I'd have to take about 2 seconds to put in the next mag every 5 shots.

Do folks not understand this? An AR is not an inherently dangerous firearm, at least not any more so than hunting rifles that many of us own. Sure, it's a slightly more efficient weapon given its weight and its magazine size, but that's to improve it's usability in the field.

If you're just out there shooting at unarmed civilians in an urban setting, there is no practical difference between the AR and a good ol' Springfield 30.06.

This is just perception. The AR is an undeniably scary looking weapon. It's also not a significantly more efficient killing machine than a semi-auto hunting rifle.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

This is where I keep ending up.

I have a semi-automatic 30.06 that holds five rounds. I have several magazines and could get as many as I wanted.

A 30.06 is a significantly more powerful round than the .223 that the AR fires. It's just not even close. If you outlaw an AR and I feel like blowing the hell out of some folks, I could do just as fine a job with that 30.06, believe me. And the only difference would be that A) It would weigh a little more and B) I'd have to take about 2 seconds to put in the next mag every 5 shots.

Do folks not understand this? An AR is not an inherently dangerous firearm, at least not any more so than hunting rifles that many of us own. Sure, it's a slightly more efficient weapon given its weight and its magazine size, but that's to improve it's usability in the field.

If you're just out there shooting at unarmed civilians in an urban setting, there is no practical difference between the AR and a good ol' Springfield 30.06.

This is just perception. The AR is an undeniably scary looking weapon. It's also not a significantly more efficient killing machine than a semi-auto hunting rifle.

I guess maybe in that 2 seconds it takes to reload your weapon every five shots could be the difference in someone rushing you and taking you down before you could continue to fire?

I dunno.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Alot of guns are fun to shoot if that was the criteria then they all would be legal

yes, and I believe fully-automatic weapons should be legal (other than the ones already grandfathered in), too. They are virtually useless in a crime, if a killer has a full auto instead of a semi-auto, indoors and not outdoors long-range, there'd be fewer deaths because of the innaccuracy and burning through ammo quickly.

They are illegal only because they are frightening, not for any reasonable reason.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by O.city

I guess maybe in that 2 seconds it takes to reload your weapon every five shots could be the difference in someone rushing you and taking you down before you could continue to fire?

I dunno.

Given how incredibly unlikely that is, that is a pretty flimsy basis to have a ban.

[2bikemike]

I heard DF say we can't let the rights of the minority few outweigh the safety of the.majority.

I thought really? The 2nd amendment extends to everybody who is not a.prohibited person. It seems DF is more interested restricting the rights of the majority over the actions of the minority perpetrators of violence.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I guess maybe in that 2 seconds it takes to reload your weapon every five shots could be the difference in someone rushing you and taking you down before you could continue to fire?

I dunno.

As to your first point, the odds of that 2 seconds being relevant are nominal at best. You'd have to have someone watching you that knows exactly how many rounds your gun holds and is ready to rush you as soon as you start to reload. Sorry, it's not a movie. That's not going to happen.

But lets say that it is relevant - How many heroes are there in elementary schools?

Is there any doubt that I could go into an elementary school with a 30.06 semi-auto hunting rifle and do every bit as much damage as this guy did? I don't see room for it. Hell, he could do it with a fire extinguisher and a couple of handguns. Use the extinguisher to break the door handle off, walk in and get to blasting. A large caliber handgun is going to do more damage than an AR round anyway.

That's what's so irritating about this - it's clearly just being used as grist to go after a long sought-after political goal. The AR is ultimately irrelevant to what happened in Connecticut. This was blowing away terrified women and children. Do you really need an assault rifle for that? Nope - a couple of handguns and a common hunting rifle would lead to the same ending.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

As to your first point, the odds of that 2 seconds being relevant are nominal at best. You'd have to have someone watching you that knows exactly how many rounds your gun holds and is ready to rush you as soon as you start to reload. Sorry, it's not a movie. That's not going to happen.

But lets say that it is relevant - How many heroes are there in elementary schools?

Is there any doubt that I could go into an elementary school with a 30.06 semi-auto hunting rifle and do every bit as much damage as this guy did? I don't see room for it. Hell, he could do it with a fire extinguisher and a couple of handguns. Use the extinguisher to break the door handle off, walk in and get to blasting. A large caliber handgun is going to do more damage than an AR round anyway.

That's what's so irritating about this - it's clearly just being used as grist to go after a long sought-after political goal. The AR is ultimately irrelevant to what happened in Connecticut. This was blowing away terrified women and children. Do you really need an assault rifle for that? Nope - a couple of handguns and a common hunting rifle would lead to the same ending.

No you don't need an AR.

But doesn't having one make it easier? Aren't they more efficient.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

As to your first point, the odds of that 2 seconds being relevant are nominal at best. You'd have to have someone watching you that knows exactly how many rounds your gun holds and is ready to rush you as soon as you start to reload. Sorry, it's not a movie. That's not going to happen.

But lets say that it is relevant - How many heroes are there in elementary schools?

Is there any doubt that I could go into an elementary school with a 30.06 semi-auto hunting rifle and do every bit as much damage as this guy did? I don't see room for it. Hell, he could do it with a fire extinguisher and a couple of handguns. Use the extinguisher to break the door handle off, walk in and get to blasting. A large caliber handgun is going to do more damage than an AR round anyway.

That's what's so irritating about this - it's clearly just being used as grist to go after a long sought-after political goal. The AR is ultimately irrelevant to what happened in Connecticut. This was blowing away terrified women and children. Do you really need an assault rifle for that? Nope - a couple of handguns and a common hunting rifle would lead to the same ending.

And my wife is an elementary school teacher, and knowing alot of here co workers, there are more than you think.

But I get the point.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

No you don't need an AR.

But doesn't having one make it easier? Aren't they more efficient.

They're more efficient if you have someone shooting back and you're needing to take cover and return rapid fire.

If you're just walking into a school room and killing children - no, they're really not any more efficient. It's akin to multiplying by zero at that point.

They're lighter, they're more maneuverable and they have a higher capacity magazine so you're able to continue to use rounds to suppress return fire. But in a kindergarten classroom, you're not worried about suppression fire. Rather, you're just pretty much executing people.

And at the risk of getting a little too grisly, the reports were that each victim had multiple gunshot wounds. I'll be completely honest - if I'm using a 30.06, I'm not using two rounds per kid. I'm putting one shot in and moving on. It's an incredibly damaging round.

For the purposes of blowing the hell out of unarmed civilians, there's little, if any, practical distinction between an AR and a good hunting rifle. Especially when you can get a nice synthetic stock, etc... to bring the weight down and a simple carry strap for moving.

Hunting rifles are designed for killing much more maneuverable and wary targets than kindergartners or mall patrons. They'll get the job done just fine.

[teedubya]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Add every country in Europe and GB while you are at it. And Canada

I know that every criminal in the US will immediately go to the weapon turn-in booth and completely comply with this law.

America is it's own beast... we glorify weapons on TV, Movies, Music and Video games... guns are ingrained in our culture. Plus, our education system pretty much sucks... the economy sucks... people feel there is no way out, and some psychos are going to shoot up places.

It's a result of a very bad scenario... the solution isn't to take away guns from law abiding citizens... once the threat of citizens with CCW is eliminated, these shootings become more ballsy and will become worse and more frequent, due to the state of America.

JMO.

[Garcia Bronco]

An "Assault Weapon" is a completely made up term by liberals and proponents of the Brady bill. The word is a loose defintion that can apply to almost any firearm.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by O.city

No you don't need an AR.

But doesn't having one make it easier? Aren't they more efficient.

No. The are very difficult to properly maintain.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They're more efficient if you have someone shooting back and you're needing to take cover and return rapid fire.

If you're just walking into a school room and killing children - no, they're really not any more efficient. It's akin to multiplying by zero at that point.

They're lighter, they're more maneuverable and they have a higher capacity magazine so you're able to continue to use rounds to suppress return fire. But in a kindergarten classroom, you're not worried about suppression fire. Rather, you're just pretty much executing people.

And at the risk of getting a little too grisly, the reports were that each victim had multiple gunshot wounds. I'll be completely honest - if I'm using a 30.06, I'm not using two rounds per kid. I'm putting one shot in and moving on. It's an incredibly damaging round.

For the purposes of blowing the hell out of unarmed civilians, there's little, if any, practical distinction between an AR and a good hunting rifle. Especially when you can get a nice synthetic stock, etc... to bring the weight down and a simple carry strap for moving.

Hunting rifles are designed for killing much more maneuverable and wary targets than kindergartners or mall patrons. They'll get the job done just fine.

I think they said most were shot 3-11 times each.

I was raised around guns, have alot of experience around hunting rifles and shotguns, but not much at all around any AR. I'm just curious as to why these always seem to happen with these weapons.