Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Hasta La Vista Assault Weapons Ban...

Posted 1 year ago on March 19, 2013, 11:18 a.m. EST by sylquester (-41)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

After a meeting yesterday with Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Dianne Feinstein learned that her controversial assault weapons ban mess will not be part of the gun control bill package heading to the senate floor next month.

The AWB could be offered up as an amendment, but the bill was already considered a long shot, as senate democrats will be facing a competitive election cycle for 2014. Many face constituents back home who do not support such legislation. “My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.

Democrat insiders say the universal background check, supported only by Democrats, will not head to the floor either.

92 Comments

92 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Is anyone really surprised the ban didn’t pass? They’ve been telling us it would fail for two months. At this point it appears the only things that will pass is universal background checks. Any hope of meaningful gun restrictions at the federal level is probably lost.

The States have taken the lead gun legislation. They’re not waiting on the feds. Three States have already passed more restrictive gun laws (New York, California and Colorado). But, about a dozen states have submitted state level legislation to circumvent any possible new gun restrictions.

Now that the assault rifle is off the table, the next big item is magazine capacity. Any State that ban magazine capacity over 19 rounds will in effect neuter the AR-15 and AK-47 rifles since they use 20, 30 or more round magazines. So’ as a back door way to ban assault rifles is to outlaw their magazines.

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Actually no,there are other mag sizes that will function in an AR-15 and AK. Universal checks won't make it either.

"Democrat insiders say the universal background check, supported only by Democrats, will not head to the floor either."

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

The smallest AR mag I ever heard of was ten rounds, but the smallest I’ve ever actually seen was 20 rounds. Most semi-auto bolt-action rifles are five rounds. My old Polytech AK had a 75 round drum which jammed every third round. Sold it.

Of all the crazy, outrageous proposed gun restrictions, The one easiest to live with by gun owners is background checks. It’s would be a minor hassle but I could live with it. But if keeping records are part of the deal then it’s just another gun grab. A way to know what people own.

[-] 1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Universal background checks are just a foot in the door toward full on confiscation.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Yea, I know it. I should know better than try to be reasonable to the gun grabbers. Don't give an inch.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Here's my question....all those people who were furious that the Republicans wanted to make voter ID the law because it would "disenfranchise" anyone who didn't have a legal ID...are NOW making sure that those same people cannot have a gun to protect themselves (and more often in poor, crime ridden neighborhoods) because they surely will not pass a background check without valid, legal, US identification.

In other words, they were concerned about their right to VOTE for the people they wanted to get elected to office, but could care less about their right to protect their own lives. It's utter hypocrisy.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Also bring id to buy liquor, cigarettes, car, enter tavern

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

proof of age...not "background" checks required for all except car, and you can't buy a new one without a credit check that involves a legal US social security number or legal ID.

I'm all for gun ownership. I've had no problem passing a background check to own one. But how many people who don't have the ID proposed in order to vote will?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Responsibility is a big factor.

Don't let your kids get ahold and shoot sister. It Happens

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

Right to vote is superior.

Right to own has restrictions....felons, mental patients.

If they want to buy a gun I'd is a minimum thing to ask for.

Besides, You know those people can get a gun....there's plenty floating around,

sold under table by thieves -- so it's said.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Right to vote has restrictions too. Age, citizenship, felons.

I guess you're saying that people will break the laws anyway, so why make them....

[-] 1 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

They should endeavor to get I'd.

I think I just had to show bills and my address to register to vote.

Only break immoral law and be ready to do the time, so it's said.

If you can't do the time don't do the crime . Crime doesn't pay.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Felons can vote in many places, and should be able to where they currently have had that right taken away.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Law abiding citizens can own guns everywhere and should never have that right taken away.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Unless they are violent felons? or insane?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The term "violent felon" indicates someone who has trouble abiding laws.

Since your definitions never quite match the standards accepted by intelligent, logical beings, you'll have to tell me what you mean by "insane" before I respond.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Which type of mentally unstable people should be allowed to have guns.?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Again, define the parameters you think should be used to classify someone as "mentally unstable". I think you are mentally unstable, but I can't swear to that unless I saw your test results and got several opinions from actual mental health experts.

I don't want the government determining that someone is mentally unstable any more than you want me determining that you are.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

A dr should decide.

[-] -1 points by elevenT (-99) 1 year ago

It's guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I lost all my guns in a boating accident last week. So I don’t have anything to register :-) If gun registration ever come true there will a lot of boating accidents.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I'd say all kinds of accidents that resulted in gun losses would happen. Everywhere. :) I'd blame global warming.

[-] -1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

A very excellent point.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Only 57% of Americans want an assault weapons ban
but the gun lobby - nra - keeps their employees in line

sadly, I think few of them know the "ban" does not ban the AR15, etc,
it only bans the manufacture & sale

I prefer a gun buy back funded by licensing & registration

[-] 1 points by urbanguy (-67) 1 year ago

“I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Senator Reid in our fight to protect the Second Amendment.” – Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association

http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/sportsmen/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oh look, another pro gun death, gun nutter.

How about a link?

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Why?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Why not??

Chicken??

Bwack, bwack , bwack, bwack!!

By being a chicken, you prove what VQ said a while ago.

Do you really want to do that?

chicken?

[-] 1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

I "rally" think you're losing it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

A pro gun death rally?

That's what the NRA does.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

I would be proud to be at a gun rally or an NRA rally. It is not a gathering of child killers, nursing home demolitionists, or anything of the sort. What you seem to have trouble differentiating is pro gun and pro death. It would be more accurate, if I were to make such a statement, that pro choice is pro death. Oops. I just said that!

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Exactly!!!

Pro choice has already been called that. It's why I chose the term in the foirst(sic) place.

You get the gold star, for figuring it out.

Now look around and see that pro choice is being beaten back in spite of SCOTUS calling it constitutional.

Why should you SCREAM so loud about your DEATH of choice being beaten back in a similar fashion?

Oh, that's "right", they're both "right" wing issues, or so it would seem.

On the other hand, it's an absurd comparison, as I can't recall an incident of a single doctor entering a school or theater and aborting multiple fetuses.

So really, calling today's gun nutters pro gun death is the more accurate of the two.

Ironic, that many of the anti-abortion advocates are also strongly pro gun.

Making my observation even more accurate.

They are indeed, pro gun death.

[-] 1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

My statement was that if one is going to use the broad brush and insinuate pro gun with pro death, then one could use the same broad brush and say, if I were to make that kind of statement, that young single mothers on medicaid only know how to spread their legs. Oh shit, I just said it again!!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Just lead further into the absurd.

My statement becomes truer with your every abatement.

Gun nutters are pro gun death.

That's just the way it is.

I don't know about you, but the guy that started this thread is definitely pro gun death.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

would an individual who wants to promote gun bans and restrictions and such be considered pro death considering that they are taking away and individual's ability to defend themselves?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That's so unproven, the opposite has been shown to be true, even in Switzerland, were you are encouraged to keep you gun away from your home.

So you see, you keep showing my statement as more correct, with every post so far...

Gun nutters, are pro gun death.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

sigh!!. Alright. I believe I know how you feel and I believe that perhaps you know how I feel. Could we consider this a microcosm of the national debate as it stands now. Where is the room for compromise? What do the two sides have in common? Sometimes, I see nothing at all.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This to me, is what defines a gun nutter.

They have compromised a whole lot of nothing.

Believe me, I've tried and given up.

I really have tried. I used to be strongly pro gun myself, until I started running into so many rabid gun nutters.

Until I saw tyranny come to Michigan, and the gun nutters hid in the woods.

They are pro gun death, and will accept nothing else, except the lies the NRA tells them to believe.

[-] -1 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

What happened in Michigan?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Tyranny.

I've posted some threads and you're welcome to read them.

There's far too much happening to do it all over in this thread.

All that talk about tyranny from the gun nutters always was a bunch of NRA bullshit.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-13-swiss-gun-law_N.htm

The Swiss have-and obviously want to keep-their guns at home. Those damn pro death, gun nutters!

LOL

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

If you had actually read the article, you would know that yeah, they kind of are.

You just check the headlines and post them anyway?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Highlander said: "would an individual who wants to promote gun bans and restrictions and such be considered pro death considering that they are taking away and individual's ability to defend themselves?"

You replied:

"That's so unproven, the opposite has been shown to be true, even in Switzerland, were you are encouraged to keep you gun away from your home."

Now, I posted the article to show you that the Swiss DO keep their guns in their homes, and they VOTED that they clearly want to keep it that way. That SOME people are "kind of" trying to change that is true.

But you have demonstrated anything to be "so unproven, the opposite has been shown to be true"....

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (14) 3 minutes ago

With your stunning lack of both logic and civility you are just a glowing credit to women's movements everywhere. (sarc) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


What happened there, Sweet Pea? Did you and yours attempt to do a grand slam and fail?

Let's review. You and yours thought that I would be taken aback by calling me a bitch. However, you didn't win that. You see, women have been dealing with the name calling for a very long time. Cartoons such as these have been out for over 25 years. What they do is point out how very small minded you actually are. Save your faux rage for someone else. You are, if anything, very transparent.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes, the Swiss government discourages it's citizens from keeping guns in their home.

You on the other, hand prefer to promote pro gun death agendas.

BY any means at your disposal.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Posted above Shooz's response due to lack of reply option-

Shooz argument that "the Swiss government discourages it's citizens from keeping guns in their home"

Article posted by me above includes the following- That there is a long standing "Swiss tradition of men keeping their army rifles at home — even after completing their military service."

That- (quote)"The government had argued ahead of the vote that existing laws were sufficient to ensure some 2.3 million mostly military weapons in a country of less than 8 million people aren't misused."

(The government thought the vote to force the Swiss to store their guns OUTSIDE of their homes was unnecessary. IE-the government was NOT responsible for the push to do this)

"Doctors, churches and women's groups launched a campaign four years ago to force ex-soldiers to store their military-issued firearms in secure army depots. They also want the Swiss government to establish a national gun registry and ban the sale of fully automatic weapons and pump action rifles."

Again-doctors, churches, and women's groups are NOT "the government".

Further evidence against shooz's argument- from Time World- http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2049136,00.html

"The initiative, launched by center-left parties, church groups and women's groups, as well as other anti-gun organizations, called for legislation requiring that soldiers and those who have completed their military service store their firearms in army depots rather than in their homes, as has been customary for hundreds of years. It also called for the establishment of a national, rather than cantonal, gun registry and for a ban on the sale of fully automatic weapons and pump-action rifles."

"The government urged voters to turn down the proposal, arguing that the existing laws regulating the sale, ownership and licensing of private guns — which include a ban on carrying concealed weapons — are stringent enough. Also, since 2008, all army — but not private — ammunitions are required to be stored in central arsenals. "

Conclusion-the Swiss people, have the right to vote for themselves on legislation and the US would be FAR better off if it did the same. But shooz would be disappointed if that happened on this issue because, just like the majority of the Swizz proved that (according to shooz) they "have a pro gun death agenda", so would Americans.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

So pro gun people are pro drive by's with illegal fully automatic Uzis and mac10s? I'm pretty sure you can't pick one of those up at Cabelas.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Go deep in the woods during hunting season. You'll here a lot more of them.

They are all pro gun death.

Gun nutters are gun nutters, out in the woods, or in the hood.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

No you won't, you don't know what your taking about. You're just another ant gun zealot who misunderstands nearly everything about them.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Do you like

long

hard

barrels?

[-] -3 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

No called you a bitch to degrade you for being a women, you can call a man a bitch to. I called youa bitch cause you were acting like a child and couldn't come up with a viable response because you don't have one. You don't know what you're talking about as usual.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-29) 14 minutes ago

No called you a bitch to degrade you for being a women, you can call a man a bitch to. I called youa bitch cause you were acting like a child and couldn't come up with a viable response because you don't have one. You don't know what you're talking about as usual. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink


Make no mistake, little creepy thing, I am a bitch and a whole lot more. It isn't my problem that you are not bright enough to grasp the entirety of it all.

When is shift change?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

So, in your everyday language, do you squeeze the trigger or pull the trigger?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - OWoooOOOO


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (14577) 3 minutes ago

I wasn't thinking about the Mom aspect either. Not at all ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It get's much better here

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28439) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I don't think "IT" ever considered the mom aspect. Really makes that a stupid cuss word - Hey?


[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (14586) 2 minutes ago

You say bitch like it's a bad thing.

Again, do you like long, hard barrels? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I wasn't thinking about the Mom aspect either. Not at all

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"2 points by GirlFriday (14545) 3 minutes ago

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (14) 3 minutes ago

With your stunning lack of both logic and civility you are just a glowing credit to women's movements everywhere. (sarc) ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

What happened there, Sweet Pea? Did you and yours attempt to do a grand slam and fail?

Let's review. You and yours thought that I would be taken aback by calling me a bitch. However, you didn't win that. You see, women have been dealing with the name calling for a very long time. Cartoons such as these have been out for over 25 years. What they do is point out how very small minded you actually are. Save your faux rage for someone else. You are, if anything, very transparent."

Don't know why you placed this response all the way up there rather than as close to my comment as possible....but whatever.

Neither "me" nor "mine" called you a bitch so I couldn't very well have thought you would be taken aback could I?

Women, and men, and every other group I can think of, has been called names. It ranks right up there with pretending to be able to read minds and motives and trying to malign someone with repeated, inane, logical fallacies (like sexual insinuations about long, hard barrels and pulling and squeezing). And now I can add condescending behavior like calling people you don't know "Sweet Pea" to your observable resume.

Your own obvious lack of both logic and civility aside, the reason I made that comment was because you so willingly embraced the label of "bitch" (and not in the "mother way either") as a good thing....rather than a bad one...all on your very own. Some might say that "what that did" was point out that you don't mind when women are portrayed as being small minded cartoons. Some might say that you only did it in order to post some wild assumptions about others in a sloppy attempt at reverse psychology.

Both reveal far more about you than you're willing to admit, and neither one is a credit to anyone, especially women.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

With your stunning lack of both logic and civility you are just a glowing credit to women's movements everywhere. (sarc)

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

How does squeeze sound?

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

How about when you learn to come up with a logical response, it that's even possible for you, we can continue this.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

So, in your everyday language, do you squeeze the trigger or pull the trigger?

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

You're proving my point even more, you can't come up with an anwser so you decide to be a bitch.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You say bitch like it's a bad thing.

Again, do you like long, hard barrels?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The more sense you make, the more foul her response will become.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

If I say yes then will you stop acting like a child?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

So, in your everyday language, do you squeeze the trigger or pull the trigger, sock puppet?

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Thanks for proving my point even more.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Again, do you like long, hard barrels?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

He thinks hunters and "hood"lums use fully automatic Uzi's and mac10s-

"Go deep in the woods during hunting season. You'll here a lot more of them."

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

He's just another over zealot gun hater who is uneducated about guns and obviously uneduated about real hunting.

[-] 0 points by highlander4 (-84) 1 year ago

I am sorry, shooz, never mind me, it's just that first amendment hocky puck spiralling out of control.

[-] -2 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Oh, you do know how to edit.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I guess you should have stayed at theblaze, where people don't know how to do that.

[-] -1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Where's your link for that opinion/accusation...MSNBC?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Don't ask me. I didn't post it.

You posted what you posted.

I want a link.

Chicken......Bwack, bwack.

[-] -1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

You want a link so you can make another asinine remark to disparage the source rather then pay attention to the content.

That's how you Democrat propagandists work.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

No Mr. Chicken, not if it's a legitimate link.

If you're not a chicken, you should be able to provide one.

I take hits on my links from time to time too.

I'm not a chicken, Mr. Chicken.

You are.

Bwack, bwack, bwack, bwack.

[-] 1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

"not if it's a legitimate link."

What do you consider a "legitimate link"??

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Chickeny, chicken...Mr. Chicken.

You're just a silly old bird, pecking away at anything.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Nothing says "I cannot support my own argument with facts" more than calling people names and making bird noises.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

But you're a chicken to vapro.

You were intensely terrified of saying what those three C's stood for.

You never did say, chicken.

Yep, you're a terrified chicken, just like Mr. Chicken. Who was too terrified to provide a link to back up his statement.

[Removed]

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Interesting. I wondered why you can’t buy a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18”.

While we're at it, can you tell me if a birdshead stock on a shotgun is legal. I know they're thuggish looking, but are they illegal?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

sawed off shotguns were a favorite along with the tommy gun of g-g-g-gangsters.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I’m just messing with you. Birdshead stocks are legal. But on the 18” shotguns. I’m not sure but I don’t think you can manufactory anything shorter than 18”. I know older and shorter barrels can be bought and sold via a class 3 FFL, but new one can’t be produced.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6592) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

And although it doesn't deal with 3-D printed guns, there's also this:

http://thehomegunsmith.com/

And this:

http://www.gatlingguns.net/

Seems to me you could scale up the plans in that second link and with some mods, increase the caliber to whatever you wanted. Hell, attach a flywheel and car starter and you could build your very own mini-gun in your basement.

Note to forum: I'm not a 'gun-nutter' and don't own any guns.

Just saying, where there's a will, there's a way.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

FYI - there are LEGAL AR15 kits that will make it fully automatic
$300 around 600 rounds per minute

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I assume you mean a bump fire kit. Bump fire is not full auto. It’s a simulation of full auto. It’s also a piece of junk that’s hard to shoot. Bump fire is a novelty. For exhibition only. No one takes them seriously.

Any modification of semi-auto weapon to make it a full auto is illegal. ALL legal full auto weapons must have been manufactured specifically as a full auto. You can’t legally convert them. All full auto weapons have to registered with the ATF. The government knows where every legal full auto gun is and who owns it.

Not trying to split hairs, but there’s a lot of misinformation about guns.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I've seen a video of the bumpfire in action
[ yea - A VIDEO ]
sounded exactly like the 1920's tommy guns
"full auto" = one trigger pull
bump fire is only slightly different and it is rated at least 600 RPM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1WhhKH3QVU&feature=pyv&ad=6832211627&kw=bumpfire

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6592) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, I've heard that.

[-] 0 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Have you tried one yet?

[-] -1 points by sylquester (-41) 1 year ago

Yes,this is a great brave new frontier. Very exciting.

[-] -1 points by urbanguy (-67) 1 year ago

I have to admit Feinstein used poor phrasing when she said:

“We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines,”