Law Feinstein to introduce 2019 "Assault" weapons ban legislation

[Greoric]

and what the hell does constitutionally compliant mean???

....Shall not be infringed, mother fucker.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Fears of gun bans are overstated. It won't be supported by the majority of the people (as shown by plenty of left leaning posters in this thread) but more importantly it won't get enough support in Congress. It's not a logical solution. At the same time we definitely need to overhaul our gun control laws.

That's your opinion. Mine is that it's constantly in the national debate thanks to media outlets and politicians, and that prompts concern. That and the fuckin' laundry list of shit I can't own where I live.

It doesn't need to be supported by the majority. Just the folks making the laws. Do you see marijuana legalized, or even rescheduled? 62% is a very clear majority.

It won't get support so long as one house is Republican. I have no doubt it would pass if Democrats were in control of both houses and the presidency.

 

[Greoric]

The only group that I ever see talking about trannies is the die hard Trump supporters. You guys are obsessed.

I agree. It's such an insignificant topic.

 

[Mr Holmes]

The only group that I ever see talking about trannies is the die hard Trump supporters. You guys are obsessed.

Yeah, normal people get concerned with wide spread insanity.

 

[SaiWa]

That's your opinion. Mine is that it's constantly in the national debate thanks to media outlets and politicians, and that prompts concern. That and the fuckin' laundry list of shit I can't own where I live.

It doesn't need to be supported by the majority. Just the folks making the laws. Do you see marijuana legalized, or even rescheduled? 62% is a very clear majority.

It won't get support so long as one house is Republican. I have no doubt it would pass if Democrats were in control of both houses and the presidency.

Ummm yeah... that's slowly but surely moving that way.. more and more states are legalizing it and it won't be long before the federal government changes its stance and legalizes (or at least downgrades it to nothing)...

You can blame old school Republican farts for holding us back to the stone age of 90s drug war...

 

[irish_thug]

Even the low IQ criminals made fun of Chicago lawmakers for passing assault rifles bans. I was watching a Chiraq documentary and during an interview with one of the Village Boys, he said something to the effect of: They want to ban assault weapons... we don't use assault weapons. We use handguns. We get right up on your ass and shoot you.

Lol, you know your policies are stupid when gangbangers are poking holes in it.

As the immortal Ice-T said: try to ban the AK, I got 10 of 'em stashed with a case of hand grenades.

 

[Gregolian]

How about Democrats focus on issues that actually have a popular approval rating: medicare for all, repealing billionaire tax cuts, clean energy programs, expanding background checks...

Student loan debt.... For post graduate students too please.

 

[Greoric]

As the immortal Ice-T said: try to ban the AK, I got 10 of 'em stashed with a case of hand grenades.

Link that you fuck...

This interview was awesome to watch though.


"I'll give up my gun when everyone else does."

 

[Hognoxious]

Why have any laws at all if you’re using this logic?

Not saying I agree with the assault weapons ban, but that isn’t much of an argument.

Do gang members obtain their firearms legally or illegally? The answer gives you the logic to your question.

 

[King in the North]

Yeah I read you, not to nit pick (I guess I am), but its just a short hand for the more complete argument about effectiveness. The only people you're affecting are going to be the people that cuck and abide by laws already. Given that laws already exist that don't stop people from murder, theft, and rape,... another will not stop them either.

Yeah, I think we’re in agreement on point one.

I’m general, you’re not wrong that harsh penalties don’t really have that much of an impact on crime deterrence. But leading theories on criminal justice are more of a utilitarian theory. It’s all about crime deterrence. We aren’t throwing people in prison to rehabilitate them, or to get them off the streets and give them appropriate punishment for their actions, we do it in hopes of preventing future crime. If that is your view (and it is for a lot of people) you really should just ignore how effective a law is and maintain that it works as a deterrence—we’re already doing this.

Now, personally, I think that is stupid as fuck. We could really get into theories of punishment but that’s a topic for another thread.

That’s long-winded. TLDR; I agree with you. But it’s complicated.

 

[Hognoxious]

"Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer, and importation"

Yeah, I don't think drug dealers and gang members are going to be manufacturing highly capable weapons.

Come on man. Do you think that gang members actually obtain firearms legally?

 

[Graves The Elder]

I remember growing up in NY many years ago and then governor Rockefeller pushed through a law that mandated at least one year in jail for ANY
gun related crime. Simple possession, etc.

Within two years, gun related crimes dropped by over 50%.

 

[King in the North]

Do gang members obtain their firearms legally or illegally? The answer gives you the logic to your question.

Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure how that answers the question.

FWIW: a lot of people buy guns legally in states with more lenient gun regulations and then sell them (illegally) to gang members (and a lot of other people). But I do not support this legislation. I’m not trying to have a debate on gun control.

Again, I just don’t agree with the idea that we shouldn’t have XYZ law because people will inevitably break it—because you could apply this to any law anywhere.

I just don’t think it’s a winning argument in a debate where the moral high ground has shifted against you. Just stick to the constitution.

 

[Greoric]

Yeah, I think we’re in agreement on point one.

I’m general, you’re not wrong that harsh penalties don’t really have that much of an impact on crime deterrence. But leading theories on criminal justice are more of a utilitarian theory. It’s all about crime deterrence. We aren’t throwing people in prison to rehabilitate them, or to get them off the streets and give them appropriate punishment for their actions, we do it in hopes of preventing future crime. If that is your view (and it is for a lot of people) you really should just ignore how effective a law is and maintain that it works as a deterrence—we’re already doing this.

Now, personally, I think that is stupid as fuck. We could really get into theories of punishment but that’s a topic for another thread.

That’s long-winded. TLDR; I agree with you. But it’s complicated.

Yeah there's some nuance to this, and there's bigger fish to fry for me with the general argument. Good talk.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

more and more states are legalizing it

Mostly the people are doing it with ballot initiatives. Not the politicians, in spite of knowing the majority are in favor.

 

[Greoric]

Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure how that answers the question.

FWIW: a lot of peopls buy guns legally in states with more lenient gun regulations and then sell them (illegally) to gang members (and a lot of other people). But I do not support this legislation. I’m not trying to have a debate on gun control.

Again, I just don’t agree with the idea that we shouldn’t have XYZ law because people will inevitably break it—because you could apply this to any law anywhere.

I just don’t think it’s a winning argument in a debate where the moral high ground has shifted against you. Just stick to the constitution.

Solid, I offer the fundamental argument shouldn't even be what's written on a fucking piece of paper. People have a right to choose their means of self defense, and we shouldn't be locking people in a cage and shooting them if they resist for making that decision.

 

[Trotsky]

Come on man. Do you think that gang members actually obtain firearms legally?

No. But I do think that they obtain firearms that were manufactured. I don't think they make them themselves.

Restricting who can have a gun when all sorts of them are in circulation is obviously going to have enforcement difficulties. But choking off the production and importation of those guns is another story.

Even aside from manufacturing bans, simply monitoring the initial introduction into the private market is apparently effective, since we don't see criminals getting their hands on rocket launchers and bazookas, presumably because the access point for the would-be black market is so costly.

 

[SaiWa]

Mostly the people are doing it with ballot initiatives. Not the politicians, in spite of knowing the majority are in favor.

doesn't matter how we get there.. just get there... 31 states have legalized medical marijuana.. .10 states legalized recreational marijuana... if republicans would get their heads out of there asses and stop preaching BS this would have been a done deal already...

But you got ancient dinosaurs like Jeff Session still hollering about the dangers of MJ... so it has been slow.

it will get there... stop voting Republican until they change their minds...

 

[King in the North]

Solid, I offer the fundamental argument shouldn't even be what's written on a fucking piece of paper. People have a right to choose their means of self defense, and we shouldn't be locking people in a cage and shooting them if they resist for making that decision.

I can get behind that. So many people get thrown in prison for owning a gun while on some kind of community control sanction. I couldn’t support more prison sentences for simply being in possession a weapon.


Although once again, that doesn’t seem to be what this bill is putting forward. Either way it’s a waste of time right now. They don’t have the votes to override a veto and they aren’t going to get Donald Trump to endorse massive gun control regulations. It’s just a way for democrats to lose more ground in rural America.

 

[Big Dick Cheney**]

no child.

when did I ever support a ban of partial or any weapons? find me a post please. why did you have to assume I want ban or partial ban???

this is why we can never have a decent conversation.

the majority of us want gun CONTROL. if you want guns you need a gun registry, permit, checks and enforcements... that sort of thing that's considered gun CONTROL. maybe a limited period of a year or two of gun ownership then you can upgrade to bigger better guns. Making sure how gun registry and databases are linked to medical database that can flag anyone who maybe had some mental issues. I don't know. I am not too invested in this BS argument right now but the polls show massive support for GUN CONTROL and not gun ban of any kind.

But you fuckers always spin it to gun ban. You got far leftist idiots who screams gun bans and then you got far right idiots like you who screams they're taking our guns away!!! the majority of everyone else in the middle want solutions that will protect our gun rights AND everyone else. Is it a 100% solution.. NO! but we got to start somewhere damnit. the current situation does NOT work.

It's been working for 250 years what is you talking about?