Feinstein, McCarthy Unveil Strengthened Assault Weapons Ban

There are 529 comments on the Roll Call story from Jan 24, 2013, titled Feinstein, McCarthy Unveil Strengthened Assault Weapons Ban. In it, Roll Call reports that:

Democrats in both chambers unveiled legislation they are introducing Thursday that would reinstate and considerably strengthen the expired federal ban on assault weapons and large ammunition magazines.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Roll Call.

question Obama

Rochester, MN

#143 Jan 25, 2013
We now bring you news from the Leftist, gun controlled Plantation

http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#144 Jan 25, 2013
question Obama wrote:
We now bring you news from the Leftist, gun controlled Plantation
http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/
Yeah, one single person posting every single blog - every one of them.

Gotta be accurate.
Rock on

United States

#145 Jan 25, 2013
Dane Thorsen wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU........We elected Obama because we wanted to see America destroyed by any means necessary. We voted to be slaves to Big Brother and must surrender our guns and our paychecks to fund the transition.
. He misted a nut hair
Rock on

United States

#146 Jan 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to remember how Ruby Ridge turned out before making such a statement.
. Ruby ridge wasn't 200,000,000 +

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#147 Jan 25, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50562665
Bottom line - sensible gun controls in fact are the solution.
The main thing is that with a national registry, comes black market guns, which will be a lucrative business for those who simply choose to not be part of the registry! LOL. That chimp just borrowed 4 trillion more dollars on the backs of children and their children, the feds now borrow 40 cents on every dollar they spend, they'll fail at regulating guns, just as they have failed to run a post office without going into bankruptcy.
Cat74

Barrington, IL

#148 Jan 25, 2013
Most Americans are better armed today because of Ruby Ridge, and that attack on the Texas Church ordered by Janet Reno. Those government attacks on civilians were wake up calls. They were exactly why we need the 2nd Amendment. They were also why the Democrats want to disarm Americans.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#149 Jan 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were absolute then it couldn't be restricted.
It IS restricted.
Therefore it's NOT absolute.
Where is it restricted? Oh wait, I forgot we are under the reign of King Barry I.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#150 Jan 25, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
On a brighter note, did any of you know Faux News dumped Sarah Palin?
http://www.politicususa.com/fox-news-dumps-sa...
Gotta love it!
She dumped THEM, dupa.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#151 Jan 25, 2013
DUMB AND DUMBLY PROUD OF IT wrote:
<quoted text>
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz...wake me up when you are done posting your bullcrud.
Stay asleep, dumbass.
Rebel Against Tyranny

Grand Haven, MI

#152 Jan 25, 2013
Ol' Dead Fish (Rahm "Tiny Ballerina" Emanuel) called for banks to refuse to do business with gun makers that don't toe the line and support gun restrictions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/ ...

How about gun manufacturers refusing to sell guns or ammunition to THE US GOVERNMENT, including specifically, and at first, CHICAGO and their LE agencies, private security firms that guard political VIPS like Rahm, and city/county/state police officers? If the Chicago embargo doesn’t work, take it Federal. Refuse to fulfill military/TLA weapon-sale contracts, and walk away from new/current Fed bids for guns/ammo.

_WE_ MAKE the guns, not the government!

We CAN take THEIRS away by simply refusing to sell to them!
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#153 Jan 26, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you truly this stupid not to know this? This was legisltion speifically wrtten ino the "Brady" bill, exempting private sellers from performing background checks.
The results?
A proliferation of gun shows throghout the United States immediately following he implementation of this bill;
"The study detailed how gun shows have become a readily available source of weapons and ammunition for a wide variety of criminals—including street gangs, white supremacists, would-be presidential assassins, and domestic terrorists. The utility of gun shows to such dangerous individuals stems primarily from the exemption enjoyed by private sellers from the sales criteria of the Brady law, including a background check. This, in turn, encourages licensed dealers (FFL holders) to sell weapons without following the sales criteria of the Brady law in order to compete with unlicensed sellers. "
http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm
You now know what the gunshow loophole is.
"You now know what the gunshow loophole is."

I already know it's fabricated BS!

"This was legisltion speifically wrtten ino the "Brady" bill, exempting private sellers from performing background checks."

BS! Here's where YOU "frustrated control freaks" don't read...don't comprehend...and try a re-define the term "loophole".

Here is the tile of the "Brady Law";

TITLE I--BRADY HANDGUN CONTROL
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act'.
SEC. 102. FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE TRANSFER OF FIREARM TO NON-LICENSEE.

Specifically targeted to FFL dealers. Here's the link to the law;

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blbr...

YOUR comment about "exempting private sellers" is pure fabrication. No such "exemption" exists. The law requires ALL FFL dealers conduct the background check.

Your quote;

"This, in turn, encourages licensed dealers (FFL holders) to sell weapons without following the sales criteria of the Brady law in order to compete with unlicensed sellers."

Is more BS! A FFL dealer can NOT make a LEGAL sale WITHOUT doing the backgrouns check, gun show or no gun show.

IF...IF a FFL dealer COULD make a LEGAL sale WITHOUT the background check, THAT would be a "loophole". As it is, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

The link to law is above...PROVE ME WRONG!!
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#154 Jan 26, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure bullshit. Here's the law diwit;
"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. "
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.h...
Which means you can still legally purchase and own a machine gun manufactured prior to 1986...as long as all qualifications are met.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#155 Jan 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were absolute then it couldn't be restricted.
It IS restricted.
Therefore it's NOT absolute.
"It IS restricted."

Before exercised...?...how..?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#156 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"You now know what the gunshow loophole is."
I already know it's fabricated BS!
"This was legisltion speifically wrtten ino the "Brady" bill, exempting private sellers from performing background checks."
BS! Here's where YOU "frustrated control freaks" don't read...don't comprehend...and try a re-define the term "loophole".
Here is the tile of the "Brady Law";
TITLE I--BRADY HANDGUN CONTROL
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act'.
SEC. 102. FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE TRANSFER OF FIREARM TO NON-LICENSEE.
Specifically targeted to FFL dealers. Here's the link to the law;
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blbr...
YOUR comment about "exempting private sellers" is pure fabrication. No such "exemption" exists. The law requires ALL FFL dealers conduct the background check.
Your quote;
"This, in turn, encourages licensed dealers (FFL holders) to sell weapons without following the sales criteria of the Brady law in order to compete with unlicensed sellers."
Is more BS! A FFL dealer can NOT make a LEGAL sale WITHOUT doing the backgrouns check, gun show or no gun show.
IF...IF a FFL dealer COULD make a LEGAL sale WITHOUT the background check, THAT would be a "loophole". As it is, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".
The link to law is above...PROVE ME WRONG!!
Excellent!!

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#157 Jan 26, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
See the hoops?
http://gun.laws.com/automatic
You're insane to think anyone can easily purchase an automatic weapon, much less afford 20 to 40 thousand dollars to go through the process.
Stop looking to make stupid arguments.
"States where mass shootings have taken place, and have very lax gun laws;
Columbine
Arizona "
This retort? News Flash! Columbine is not in Arizona either.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#158 Jan 26, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
See the hoops?
http://gun.laws.com/automatic
You're insane to think anyone can easily purchase an automatic weapon, much less afford 20 to 40 thousand dollars to go through the process.
Stop looking to make stupid arguments.
Bwahahaha, anyone who, a) lives in a state that does not prohibit machine gun possession by individuals, and b) has not had their rights disabled, can possess a machine gun so long as they are in compliance with the national firearms act of 1934. I own two machine guns, three "silencers", four sawed off shotguns and one short barreled rifles, all NFA firearms. There's a 200.00 dollar tax paid to the treasury department per transfer or making, an ATF application process and that's it. The nice thing about the paperwork and 200.00 tax is it keeps idiots, minorities, and psycho dingbats like yourself out of the game.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#159 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"It IS restricted."
Before exercised...?...how..?
Yes.

In many cities you have to get a permit to have a parade or organize a public protest.

So they CAN restrict you freedom of speech and right to assembly before it is exercised.

That said, if you are punished for exercising your right, then that is a restriction on that right.

Using your logic, it's not restricting your 2nd amendment rights if the government confiscates your guns AFTER you buy them. You still have the right to buy a gun......
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#160 Jan 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
In many cities you have to get a permit to have a parade or organize a public protest.
So they CAN restrict you freedom of speech and right to assembly before it is exercised.
That said, if you are punished for exercising your right, then that is a restriction on that right.
Using your logic, it's not restricting your 2nd amendment rights if the government confiscates your guns AFTER you buy them. You still have the right to buy a gun......
"In many cities you have to get a permit to have a parade or organize a public protest."

An individual exercising their right doesn't require a permit. One individual is not a "parade"...don't get in the road to block traffic.

"That said, if you are punished for exercising your right, then that is a restriction on that right."

Getting punished for the mear exercise of your right is no right at all. Punishment would be for violation of your right when it affects others. My ownership and possession of so called "assault weapons" doesn't affect anyone.

"Using your logic, it's not restricting your 2nd amendment rights if the government confiscates your guns AFTER you buy them. You still have the right to buy a gun......"

That's BS and YOUR logic which is what YOU want to do. What part of "keep and bear" do you not understand...?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#161 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"In many cities you have to get a permit to have a parade or organize a public protest."
An individual exercising their right doesn't require a permit. One individual is not a "parade"...don't get in the road to block traffic.
"That said, if you are punished for exercising your right, then that is a restriction on that right."
Getting punished for the mear exercise of your right is no right at all. Punishment would be for violation of your right when it affects others. My ownership and possession of so called "assault weapons" doesn't affect anyone.
"Using your logic, it's not restricting your 2nd amendment rights if the government confiscates your guns AFTER you buy them. You still have the right to buy a gun......"
That's BS and YOUR logic which is what YOU want to do. What part of "keep and bear" do you not understand...?
You have yet to establish a right to own an assault rifle exists.

If you want to keep bears, you'll likely need a permit for that too.
2 posts removed

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#164 Jan 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
In many cities you have to get a permit to have a parade or organize a public protest.
So they CAN restrict you freedom of speech and right to assembly before it is exercised.
That said, if you are punished for exercising your right, then that is a restriction on that right.
Using your logic, it's not restricting your 2nd amendment rights if the government confiscates your guns AFTER you buy them. You still have the right to buy a gun......
Well, except for that whole "keep" part in the 2nd. What a maroon.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 2 min Go Blue Forever 2,406
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min HILLARY 2016 182,610
News Perry seeks to win over Iowa, a handshake at a ... 5 min barefoot2626 19
News Huckabee: I would ask Clinton about Benghazi 6 min barefoot2626 186
News Memorial Day ceremonies have personal touch 6 min Birds Landing Bob 1
News What Should Citizenship Mean? 8 min janetpatriot 59
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 12 min thetruth 7,422
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min RealDave 1,233,601
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 23 min Coffee Party 328,521
News GOP's fight for 2016 nomination likely to drag ... 57 min xxxrayted 122
News Ireland same-sex marriage 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 129
More from around the web