Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumFeinstein gun bill plugs state ban holes
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-gun-bill-plugs-state-ban-holes-4246558.phpSen. Dianne Feinstein's push for a national ban on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines is focusing attention on California's decision 23 years ago to prohibit some military-style guns, a pioneering move that also sprang from a school massacre.
But while Feinstein's bill is patterned after the California ban, it seeks to avoid some of the pitfalls of a state law that still stirs fierce debate - over whether it is fair, whether it has made people safer, and whether loopholes have rendered it meaningless.
The California ban outlawed the sale of some rifles and pistols capable of rapid-fire attacks, but left many others legal. It survived court challenges, but gun makers found ways around it, selling firearms that were similar to banned ones.
Guns purchased before the ban were protected by a grandfather clause. And criminals exploited looser gun-buying laws in Nevada, Arizona and other nearby states, bringing forbidden weapons back over the border.
<more>
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...knees jerking...
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)jpak
(41,758 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)nick of time
(651 posts)There are now at least 6 red state Dems opposed, Sen. Susan Collins is saying she will oppose it despite her voting for the last one, Reid and Leahy are refusing to endorse it.
Feinstein pretty much ruined her chances of getting it through the Senate when she refused to vote for the talking filibuster, and the House is controlled by the repukes.
Did I get anything wrong?
jpak
(41,758 posts)Leahy and Reid have not ENDORSED it - they have not OPPOSED it either.
try again
yup
nick of time
(651 posts)Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
Add another red state Dem who has come out against it, Joe Donnelly D-IN.
Where am I wrong?
I know how bad you want this, but you're just going to have to face the fact that Feinstein's AWB is not going to happen.
jpak
(41,758 posts)"expressed skepticism" is not the same thing as "will vote against".
King has not opposed the ban - he is Cool Toward It...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/angus-king-weapons-ban_n_2502367.html
Try again.
Yup
nick of time
(651 posts)from 1/18/2013, the link I posted is from 1/25/2013.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
Sounds like he's made up his mind.
Susan Collins supported the last AWB and now she opposes an new AWB.
Face the fact, Feinstein's new AWB is DOA. You, my friend, are grasping at straws.
jpak
(41,758 posts)too bad.
Try again
yup
nick of time
(651 posts)Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
jpak
(41,758 posts)"But he said he hasn't decided whether to embrace the president's call to ban new assault weapons."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/angus-king-weapons-ban_n_2502367.html
Enjoy your stay on Fantasy Island!
yup
nick of time
(651 posts)Here's the date of your link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/angus-king-weapons-ban_n_2502367.html
Here's the date of my link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
Where am I wrong or living on Fantasy Island?
It's really ok to face reality and admit that the AWB is DOA.
nick of time
(651 posts)to he hasn't made up his mind. Which is it?
Also your quoting from an article from 1/18/2013 while my article is from 1/25/2013.
Sure sounds like he's made up his mind.
jpak
(41,758 posts)duh
nick of time
(651 posts)Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.
jpak
(41,758 posts)It is YOU that is wrong.
I've already proven you're wrong, so if you say I'm wrong, then provide the proof, otherwise your saying so doesn't make it so.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)....is still an abortion of cosmetic idiocy, banning some on the basis of *scariness* factors while allowing functionally identical equivalents that don't have things like pistol grips or barrel shrouds. It is not legislation designed to improve public safety in any way, rather, it appears more like a middle finger aimed at gun owners.
And it will rightfully fail.
yup
jpak
(41,758 posts)and rightly fails
yup
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...to say in response to my post? It must have been lost in your jumbled word salad.
hack89
(39,171 posts)This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being illegal under the AWB:
This gun is specifically called out in the legislation as being legal under the AWB:
They are both Ruger Mini-14s
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
jpak
(41,758 posts)and would be rightly banned.
The bottom variant needs a 7 round clip to be OK.
Yup
hack89
(39,171 posts)why not the top gun with a 7 round clip?
pistol grips make antigunners think about penises. And barrel shrouds remind them of condoms. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry scary.
Assault whale with 'pistol grip'
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...makes a gun "look" deadly, kind of like a racing stripe makes a car "look" fast.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)you can lead a horse to water .........................