On Jan. 24, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 150, her long-anticipated bill to ban "assault weapons" and "large" magazines. Contrary to media claims that Feinstein wants to "reinstate" the 1994 ban, the bill will go much further toward her stated long-term goal of gun confiscation, imposing a host of absurdly broad definitions and onerous restrictions:
Ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 named firearms. Presumably, these were chosen by looking at pictures, as Sen. Feinstein has said she did before introducing her first legislation on the issue in 1993.You know how you can tell when the NRA is lying? Well, lips moving isn't really gonna work here, but you know what I mean.
They use "gun confiscations" in the broadest possible sense to conjure up frightening images of jack-booted government officials going door-to-door. Of course Sen. Feinstein never said any such thing.
Thinking people know this, but the NRA minions don't think. They just repeat - and repeat.
The other lie is about choosing the weapons to be prohibited by "looking at pictures." The inference is that Diane Feinstein is a ditzy broad who knows nothing about guns and picked out the bad ones ONLY by their appearance. This is another oft-repeated lie. Do they really think there were no advisors of any kind? Do they really think that as a gun owner herself, the Senator didn't know just a little bit about guns?
Of course they know better, but like the wrong party in any argument, they need to resort to lies and tricky language to hold their own.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Really thats why my shot gun thats not even a semi-auto is going to be banned also you idiot. She is the most evilest of the gun grabbers.
ReplyDeleteI hate to tell you this Mike, but this is demonstrably true. Here is Mrs. Feinstein herself admitting she got her ideas by reading gun magazines:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4254272
And considering her new AWB has the added "rocket launcher" as a military feature, I'm not so sure any sort of advice she's receiving can be very good. I have yet to hear of a firearm that has a rocket launcher attached to it; this sounds like one of those Old Wives Tales she heard, had a giant freak out about, and decided to include in her bill to scare the uninformed even further. Or maybe she read in a gun magazine that that was somehow possible, truth be told Soldier of Fortune isn't where I would go looking for policy suggestions. I also note that "barrel shroud" is added onto the rifle's list of the AWB, like there's some sort of determination on the part of gun control advocates to go after that part. I can only imagine that after Carolyn McCarthy's humiliation over "barrel shrouds" that it's become some sort of object of obsession to be totally banned from existence as atonement.
(See item "iv" and "v" on page 3)
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
As for the poster above me, unless you have one of those bizarro revolving cylinder shotguns, no, the bill doesn't touch your shotgun.
I guess you're right, Jack. She and the other gun control people are foolish simpletons completely ignorant of what they're talking about while you pro-gun guys are experts and geniuses all.
DeleteSee, my issue here is that her justifications border on absurd, and I'm not sure how much hands on experience she got. Yes, she did lift the original AWB features (for rifles) from legitimate experts (ATF "military configuration list" from the 1989 semiautomatic importation ban), but apparently only after reading gun magazines (by her own admission). She also picked the scariest sounding sets of parts she could find with little understanding of what they did. Parts like "bipod" and "night sight" were too innocuous relative to evil sounding parts like "pistol grip", "bayonet lug", and "grenade launcher" (the latter of which was already restricted under US law). She also apparently demonstrated no aptitude with the function of these parts, using either bizarre or flatout wrong justifications as to why they made a rifle more "powerful".
DeleteThe latest AWB just drops any pretense of ATF aid. She didn't even "copy paste" ATF guidelines. Some of these ideas are literally grabbed out of thin air, or seem like desperate attempts to atone for setbacks. "Barrel shrouds", however little they are used, set back AWB efforts and have now become this object of obsession. Having no use for them myself, you could likely attempt such a ban without any objections on my part, although I think you'd be barking up the wrong tree.
Finally, Mikeb, you say something that we all can agree on.
DeleteWould you prefer, then, that we approach the argument assuming she and/or her staff really do know the cosmetic features they have selected have no impact on lethality and that they are, therefore, being intentionally deceitful? Or that the magazines they now call "high capacity" have been the standard capacity magazines for many of these firearms for decades (since the 1950s in the case of the AR-15)? Or, that 10 rounds was a number arrived at arbitrarily? Or that her stated desire to preserve firearms ownership for what she considers "legitimate" purposes, especially of those weapons she proposes to grandfather directly contradicts what she has said in the past regrading her desire to ban all of them? Which of these do you find more palatable?
ReplyDeleteYou guys keep calling them "cosmetic features" but they're not that at all. They're functional features that increase lethality. You really should stop mindlessly repeating what other mindless NRA minions have been saying.
DeleteSo bayonet lugs? Pistol grips? these make guns more lethal?
DeleteHey Anonymous, that rocket launcher you're planning on fitting on your AR-15 is obviously not cosmetic!
DeleteNot so sure about that other stuff though. Mike, how does a pistol grip increase lethality exactly? Does the less awkward angle of the hand increase the velocity of the bullet, killing more people with each shot?
There is no fundamental difference. The load, fire, and eject rounds in the same manner. She wants to ban features that have nothing to do with the basic operation. It's like banning cars with windows that go up at the push of a button, but ignoring the engine altogether.
DeleteHow do pistol grips on a rifle increase lethality? Is it because you can "spray fire from the hip?"
DeleteMike, there are two features that truly increase or decrease the lethality of a rifle the size of the round and whether the trigger is select fire IE capable of fully automatic or burst fire. Which the weapons that people want banned are not. A true assault rifle as they function has been controlled by the NFA since 1934. a pistol grip, handguard/ barrel shroud "shoulder thing that goes up" have no bearing on the lethality of a weapon. They have a bearing on the comfort of firing a weapon but not the lethality. And I know these things because of 10 years in the military building them. As well building them for LE and having an LE background myself. Mike Z
DeleteIsn't the purpose of a pistol grip obvious, to give the shooter more control when delivering many shots at a target? Is that not increasing lethality?
DeleteYou guys are really full of shit trying so hard to disparage those who disagree with you.
No, the purpose of a pistol grip is to place the grip under the action (not behind it like an M1), resulting in a rifle with shorter overall length. You've really drank the Josh Sugarmann kool-aid with the whole "spray firing from the hip" myth.
DeleteNo,Mike. To those with significant practical experience it's not obvious. Now, if you find my decades of experience and the even greater experience of others to be irrelevant, just be honest enough to say so. We point out errors and erroneous assumptions because that's what they are. Insisting that these features do increase lethality without presenting any real evidence is reflective of either ignorance or a desire to proceed regardless of the facts about each feature selected. It frustrates us when a person who has an obligation to be better informed gives the appearance, at best, of choosing to remain uninformed. Look, when someone makes a comment that seems to reflect ignorance, that's no big deal...unless he or she persists in that after multiple opportunities to become better educated. It's when they persist that we are faced with one of two ugly choices. Either that person is choosing ignorance over knowledge OR that person has become better educated and chooses to ignore what has been learned.
DeleteThe pistol grip is one way to aid in aiming and controlling the gun. That doesn't change the power of the weapon. It only affects the accuracy of the shooter.
DeleteMass shootings typically take place where a lot of people are--note that I'm stating the obvious, but your side needs it. The shooters aren't usually shooting at people who are distant.
Pistol grips aren't the real point here. The goal of Frankenstein is to restrict more and more guns. She ultimately wants all guns gone. You have seen that video, right? She said that if she had the votes, she'd go for demand that all privately held guns get turned in.
RT, did you see what Greg said. The pistol grip improves the accuracy of the weapon. You're so biased you can't even admit that much.
DeleteMike,
DeleteIf you want to reduce the accuracy of a rifle, ask Feinstein to ban sights. That would make more sense than banning pistol grips.
BTW, pistol grips do not improve accuracy. Trigger control, sight alignment and sight picture improve accuracy.
Mikeb, that's not what I said. I said that it helps in aiming and controlling the gun. There are other ways to do that. Besides, why would you care about the accuracy of a firearm? Am I to conclude that you don't mind the AK-47, then? It has a reputation for being less than a tack driver.
DeleteSo what about Bidens statements that "assault rifles" are less lethal than a shotgun and used in a minuscule percentage of gun crime? MikeZ
DeleteMike,
DeleteFirst, I'd refer you to Greg's follow up comments. Second, I think I was pretty clear in stating that I referred to my experience and to the experience of other shooters with whom I have spoken. I cannot presume to speak for Greg, either in terms of his experience or that of those with whom he has spoken. So, even more clearly, it has been my experience and the experience of the other military and civilian shooters with whom I have spoken over decades, that the features listed do nothing to increase the lethality of firearms. However, if you insist that they do, please tell me exactly how they served to do so in the most recent tragedy. As I have asked before, please be specific.
We were talking in general terms about Feinstein's AWB, suddenly you want me to speak about "the most recent tragedy," and to be specific? That's pretty slick of you.
DeleteIt seemed reasonable given that it was the impetus for the currently proposed legislation. But, if you insist...go for any and all such tragedies. Just be specific about the impact of the features.
DeleteThen please, tell me how they increase lethality. I'm really curious about this because in all of my training, practice and real world experience, both military and civilian, failed address that. What is it that you and Senator Feinstein know about these features, specifically, that I, all my instructors, all my fellow military members and everyone of the civilian shooters I've met do not?
ReplyDeleteAnother typo...please ignore the word "in" after "because".
ReplyDeleteFeinstein's rule is easy to understand: If she wants it, she may have it. If an ordinary citizen wants it, too bad.
ReplyDeleteFive words bro: shoulder thing that goes up.
ReplyDeleteThe inference is that Diane Feinstein is a ditzy broad who knows nothing about guns and picked out the bad ones ONLY by their appearance.
ReplyDeleteThe Ruger Mini-14 Ranch is exempt by name. This is the same rifle that was used in the Norway massacre where nearly 70 people were murdered, while the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical is banned by name, because it has a pistol grip. Both rifles are identical in function just one is black and scary.
Do they really think that as a gun owner herself, the Senator didn't know just a little bit about guns?
Just because she used to be a gun owner doesn't mean she's an expert on guns. That would be like calling me a master mechanic because I can change a tire on my car.
No Bill, it would be like saying you can't tell the difference between a car and a motorcycle. That's the level of ignorance you guys assign to Congresswoman McCarthy and Senator Feinstein. And it's total bullshit. You just hate them because they disagree with you on gun rights but instead of arguing the gun issues you keep harping on how stupid and uninformed they are.
DeleteI just hate it when ignorant people try to control things that they don't understand. And yes, I argue with their reasoning, when they offer any.
DeleteEveryone's ignorant if they disagree with you.
DeleteNot at all. I'm just basing my assessment on the statements made by the people in question.
Delete