Assault Weapons Ban Dropped From Senate Bill

[listopencil]

A ban on assault weapons won't be included in major gun legislation set to take shape this week -- all but guaranteeing it won't pass Congress.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a onetime ally of the National Rifle Association, informed California Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Monday that the proposal to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines won't be included in a broad package of new gun laws that's taking shape this week and will be considered on the Senate floor in April.

"People say well, are you disappointed? Obviously I'm disappointed," Feinstein told reporters Tuesday. Feinstein has worked on gun violence issues for decades.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...nate-bill?lite

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by KC native

I TOLD YOU DIPSHITS THIS HAD ZERO CHANCE OF PASSING

It passed once before, dipshit.

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by KC native

I TOLD YOU DIPSHITS THIS HAD ZERO CHANCE OF PASSING

Colorado & NY say

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by LiveSteam

Colorado & NY say

Not the smart people in Colorado.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2898344.html

And who cares about New York? They are so stupid they need someone else to tell them how much soda they can drink.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

Let me preface my answer with this: there is no doubt in my mind why the Second Amendment was created. Looking at the historical context of the times and what the Founders and others living then had to say about it, and arms in general, anyone who tries to say otherwise is either an idiot or has an agenda. The young nation had just finished a war in which they fought against their homeland due to tyranny and oppression. But the Second Amendment was no way intended to afford the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government? Sorry, don't buy it.

Here is a great read on the very subject. And the website www.guncite.comis a wonderful resource in general. They actually provide sourcing and links to their information and quoted passages.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Now, given all of that evidence as well as the over all design of the Constitution which distributes the power in the land amongst not just three branches of a federal government but, also amongst the states and the people, it is more than obvious that the Founders realized what happens when power and authority are centralized. The checks and balances system pertains to all of us, not just the three branches at the federal level. And how, may I ask, are we the people to provide checks to our elected officials with out the balance of being equal to them in arms? Good luck trying it the other way.

So, finally to my answer, if you are a convicted felon who has shown to be a detrement to society instead of a productive contributing member, you get thrown back in jail if caught with a fire arm in your possession. No need to run background checks, because they are just going to avoid them any way. Out side of that law, I see no good to us the common man being restricted in any way in our ability to defend ourselves from tyranny, wether of the criminal variety or the governmental type.



Yes, because for the centuries leading up the invention of the fire arm, murder scarcely existed. Seriously, does anyone know just how naive they sound when spouting this tripe? Killing has been a part of life since the dawn of time. Someone wants someone else dead they are going to do it. Do you honestly believe that in a fit of rage someone is going to care wether a gun is handy or not? Of course not. They will pick up a baseball bat, a tire iron, they will smother with a pillow, strangle with a belt, stab with a knife ect. This notion that guns promote violence is foolish. Violence and urge to engage in it is a human thing, not a gun thing.



Yeah, because the almighty Supreme Court has never gotten anything wrong. They are made up of infallible human beings with no agendas or designs on power and control. For f#ck's sake, they let Obamacare stand. The Supreme Court is just another group of power vying for more power. Just because they say something does not mean they are morally right.

And I vehemently disagree on my entitlements. I am, in accordance with the supreme law of this land and the higher law of God, entitled to certain rights. As our very own Declaration of Indepence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sorry but, there are just some things that no man has the right to take away from another man. Our existence, and our ability to protect our existence, as well as the existence of our loved ones and our property, is chief amongst those.

So basically you don't support any gun laws or background checks. You are ok with convicted felons, murderers, psychopaths, child molesters etc going and legally buying a gun? I am glad you are in the very minority in this country JFC.

And if you don't believe a gun makes it easier to kill someone I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should go talk to the military and convince them to go back to clubs instead of killing the enemy hundreds of yards away lol.

We all know Columbine and Newtown would have happened without a gun. I am sure gang bangers would gladly go knock on their nemesis doors and try to throw knives at them rather than get in their beater, drive in the middle of the road, roll down the windows and spray and pray. yep guns don't make it easier.

You must live in some alternate universe you need to come back to reality.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by KC rectum

I TOLD YOU DIPSHITS THIS HAD ZERO CHANCE OF PASSING

EVERYBODY STILL HATES YOU AND THINKS YOU ARE A MORON.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So basically you don't support any gun laws or background checks. You are ok with convicted felons, murderers, psychopaths, child molesters etc going and legally buying a gun? I am glad you are in the very minority in this country JFC.

You are either illiterate or a disingenuous asshole, because I most certainly disavowed convicted felons of their right to own fire arms.

So wich is it, dummy, or lying, agenda pushing prick?

And if you don't believe a gun makes it easier to kill someone I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should go talk to the military and convince them to go back to clubs instead of killing the enemy hundreds of yards away lol.

Once again, the lack of a gun is not going to stop killing in any way shape or form. Therefore it is no easier. Now, if you want to talk specific situations like killing from a long distance, yeah, a sniper rifle is certainly going to aid in that. But the lack of such a weapon is not going to keep the target from getting killed if someone really wants him dead. You can argue that all you want but, it will be to no avail.

We all know Columbine and Newtown would have happened without a gun. I am sure gang bangers would gladly go knock on their nemesis doors and try to throw knives at them rather than get in their beater, drive in the middle of the road, roll down the windows and spray and pray. yep guns don't make it easier.

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? If someone desires to have a mass killing they don't need a gun of any type to carry it out. Hell, as we saw that day, these mass shootings look pretty paltry in comparison to that home made bomb. You are NOT going to stop violence by placing restrictions on fire arms. Period.

You must live in some alternate universe you need to come back to reality.

You, and others like you, support laws that don't work but, I'm the one in an alternative universe? Riiiiight.

Here is the universe I live in; guns do exist. Bad people do exist. I have no desire to be anyone's victim. I do not want to be caught carrying a double barrel scatter gun to an M-60 fight. Call me crazy. As long as the potential to do me and/or my loved ones harm exists, I deem it not only prudent but, necessary to be at the very least on equall footing with the enemy, whoever it may be at any particular time. You may be ok being at a disadvantage but, I certainly am not.

The only people living in an alternative universe are those that think surrendering any of our liberties is going to solve anything.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So basically you don't support any gun laws or background checks. You are ok with convicted felons, murderers, psychopaths, child molesters etc going and legally buying a gun? I am glad you are in the very minority in this country JFC.

And if you don't believe a gun makes it easier to kill someone I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should go talk to the military and convince them to go back to clubs instead of killing the enemy hundreds of yards away lol.

We all know Columbine and Newtown would have happened without a gun. I am sure gang bangers would gladly go knock on their nemesis doors and try to throw knives at them rather than get in their beater, drive in the middle of the road, roll down the windows and spray and pray. yep guns don't make it easier.

You must live in some alternate universe you need to come back to reality.

You realize that the guns in Newton and Columbine were obtained by legal gun owners and stolen by thieves (by the mother in the former and the father in the latter). More strict background checks wouldn't have saved a single life. Even in an alternate universe of national background checks, all those people would have still died.

Taking weapons away from the majority of law abiding citizens because some idiots kill with them makes as much sense as taking cars away from people who drive responsibly because others kill when they drive drunk .

[notorious]

I think that they dropped the ban for a couple of reasons:

1. Not near enough votes

2. States are getting away with the bans (for now)


If the Feds try to pass a ban and it fails or is found unconstitutional, it will destroy any of the bills that the states have pushed through

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I hate hearing this same tired argument. Of course criminals aren't going to abide by the law they are criminals for christ sake. If we go by your standard we should have zero laws.

What they need is universal background checks and if they get caught with a gun purchased illegally then they need to go to jail for a mandatory 10 years. That would end alot of this bs.

That

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by notorious

I think that they dropped the ban for a couple of reasons:

1. Not near enough votes

2. States are getting away with the bans (for now)


If the Feds try to pass a ban and it fails or is found unconstitutional, it will destroy any of the bills that the states have pushed through

3. It makes the rest of the bill look "reasonable"

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Dayze

That

I wonder why the same ferocity isn't given for changing laws regarding the mentally unstable? Controlling the mental condition of those that use the guns would do a lot more and make our country a lot safer than controlling guns that the mentally unstable can still get.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Raiderhader

You are either illiterate or a disingenuous asshole, because I most certainly disavowed convicted felons of their right to own fire arms.

So wich is it, dummy, or lying, agenda pushing prick?



Once again, the lack of a gun is not going to stop killing in any way shape or form. Therefore it is no easier. Now, if you want to talk specific situations like killing from a long distance, yeah, a sniper rifle is certainly going to aid in that. But the lack of such a weapon is not going to keep the target from getting killed if someone really wants him dead. You can argue that all you want but, it will be to no avail.



Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? If someone desires to have a mass killing they don't need a gun of any type to carry it out. Hell, as we saw that day, these mass shootings look pretty paltry in comparison to that home made bomb. You are NOT going to stop violence by placing restrictions on fire arms. Period.



You, and others like you, support laws that don't work but, I'm the one in an alternative universe? Riiiiight.

Here is the universe I live in; guns do exist. Bad people do exist. I have no desire to be anyone's victim. I do not want to be caught carrying a double barrel scatter gun to an M-60 fight. Call me crazy. As long as the potential to do me and/or my loved ones harm exists, I deem it not only prudent but, necessary to be at the very least on equall footing with the enemy, whoever it may be at any particular time. You may be ok being at a disadvantage but, I certainly am not.

The only people living in an alternative universe are those that think surrendering any of our liberties is going to solve anything.

My point is if you don't believe in background checks, which you said you don't support in post #20, there is no mechanism in place to stop somebody from buying a gun unless you think the honor system will suffice.

I never said it would stop killings what I said was it makes it easier for people to kill which it does. As my real life every day gang banger example showed. I am also 100% sure the military will disagree with you as well.

My position is keep what is currently is banned, have universal background checks, make all gun crimes federal and have 10 year mandatory sentences for owing or purchasing a gun illegally, and crack down hard on gun traffickers.

I don't want to take anyone's guns away and I don't my handgun that I own taken away. We just need to try as hard as we can to make sure the bad guy doesn't get a gun. It is not fail-proof but we got to try none the less.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

My point is if you don't believe in background checks, which you said you don't support in post #20, there is no mechanism in place to stop somebody from buying a gun unless you think the honor system will suffice.

I never said it would stop killings what I said was it makes it easier for people to kill which it does. As my real life every day gang banger example showed. I am also 100% sure the military will disagree with you as well.

My position is keep what is currently is banned, have universal background checks, make all gun crimes federal and have 10 year mandatory sentences for owing or purchasing a gun illegally, and crack down hard on gun traffickers.

I don't want to take anyone's guns away and I don't my handgun that I own taken away. We just need to try as hard as we can to make sure the bad guy doesn't get a gun. It is not fail-proof but we got to try none the less.

State by state laws regarding background checks makes perfect sense to me. Colorado and New York have both gone overboard. I have the right not to live there. Federal background checks strictly for the use of gun control is not logical by any means.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

You realize that the guns in Newton and Columbine were obtained by legal gun owners and stolen by thieves (by the mother in the former and the father in the latter). More strict background checks wouldn't have saved a single life. Even in an alternate universe of national background checks, all those people would have still died.

Taking weapons away from the majority of law abiding citizens because some idiots kill with them makes as much sense as taking cars away from people who drive responsibly because others kill when they drive drunk .

You are right just like registering, licensing, and insuring my car won't save a single life either. But I still have to do it. WAIT THOUGH, there is people that don't register, license or get car insurance and still drive on our roads and crash and kill people, well damn I guess we shouldn't have that law anymore.

We should just let every swinging dick and their blind and deaf grandma drive no worries.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

My point is if you don't believe in background checks, which you said you don't support in post #20, there is no mechanism in place to stop somebody from buying a gun unless you think the honor system will suffice.

THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO STOP SOMEBODY FROM BUYING A GUN NOR WILL THERE EVER BE! That is the entire f#cking point and what got you and I started on this discussion. The black market is going to continue to exist regardless. People who shouldn't have guns are always going to have a way to get them. Meaning that these utterly pointless background checks you support......

Wait for it......



Wait for it.......






Wait for it.........



Don't stop criminals. They ONLY affect the already law abiding citizen.

I never said it would stop killings what I said was it makes it easier for people to kill which it does. As my real life every day gang banger example showed. I am also 100% sure the military will disagree with you as well.

Your real life example proves nothing. Gangs existed before guns. Gains committed crimes, yes even murder before guns. Tighter gun laws, or even destroying every single gun in the world will not lower crime or violence rates. People will still war, murder, steal, rape, pillage and plunder just as they did for centuries before the fire arms existence. Your argument is based in emotional nonsense and not logic.

My position is keep what is currently is banned, have universal background checks, make all gun crimes federal and have 10 year mandatory sentences for owing or purchasing a gun illegally, and crack down hard on gun traffickers.

No problem with any of that. While I obviously am in favor of things being much less restrictive, I can live with a freeze of the current state of being in addition to actually prosecuting those who violate gun laws.

I don't want to take anyone's guns away and I don't my handgun that I own taken away. We just need to try as hard as we can to make sure the bad guy doesn't get a gun. It is not fail-proof but we got to try none the less.

You can try all you want but, these laws aren't going to stop the bad guys from getting guns. They are only going to...... Well, you know the rest by now.