Gun ban said to include handguns, shotguns

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The relevant question, then, is whether she would turn her gun in if her dreamed-of law passes. Perhaps she thinks that with an armed populace, she need to be a part of the arms race so she isn't left behind, but would rather have all of them banned. As long as she doesn't want to violate the laws when they exist, you're doing nothing but throwing meat for you and your political allies to slap each other on the back over while bashing the "enemy."
A better question would be, "is she proposing a law that would ban a normal handgun, rifle, or shotgun?"
The better answer would be "no"

An even better question would be "does the proposed law require anyone to turn in any guns?"

The even better answer to that question is "no, it doesn't, stop lying about the bill."
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The relevant question, then, is whether she would turn her gun in if her dreamed-of law passes. Perhaps she thinks that with an armed populace, she need to be a part of the arms race so she isn't left behind, but would rather have all of them banned. As long as she doesn't want to violate the laws when they exist, you're doing nothing but throwing meat for you and your political allies to slap each other on the back over while bashing the "enemy."

She's from California where you basically have to be well connected to obtain a concealed pistol license because it's a "may issue" state.
 
Upvote 0

DrkSdBls

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2006
1,721
56
42
✟2,298.00
Faith
Seeker
We don't have a Sea World here. Now, can you explain why it is illegal to walk down the street backwards while eating a hamburger?

Because someone at one time did so and someone else found it unacceptable.

Of course, it's certainly not safe to do that, slightly less safe then walking Forward while eating a Hamburger. But someone found doing it backwards was far too dangerous (or offensive.)
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
A better question would be, "is she proposing a law that would ban a normal handgun, rifle, or shotgun?"
The better answer would be "no"

A still more interesting question is what is a "normal" rifle, handgun, or shotgun."

The AR-15 is probably one of the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States. That suggests that it's "normal."
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
So why didn't the NRA or some other group take their case to the Supreme Court when assault weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004? Why are they so afraid to do more than just talk about it?

If an assault weapons ban is passed into law I think the chances that the NRA will push for a Supreme Court hearing is slim to none, and Slim just left town.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
If that is argument the NRA uses in front of the Supreme Court, they will lose big time.

:dontcare: Not that I want to speculate on an imaginary court case, but Obama's Obamacare lawyer used a worse argument than that and still won.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TerranceL

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
Jul 3, 2009
18,940
4,661
✟105,808.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The relevant question, then, is whether she would turn her gun in if her dreamed-of law passes. Perhaps she thinks that with an armed populace, she need to be a part of the arms race so she isn't left behind, but would rather have all of them banned. As long as she doesn't want to violate the laws when they exist, you're doing nothing but throwing meat for you and your political allies to slap each other on the back over while bashing the "enemy."


Dianne Feinstein Introduces Assault Weapons Ban, Urges Public To Help It Pass

Finally, the bill includes a number of exemptions: It exempts more than 2,200 hunting and sporting weapons; any gun manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement; and any weapons legally owned as of the date of the bill's enactment.

She made sure to work in an exemption for herself.
 
Upvote 0

QR1

Rook by any other name, still moves the same
Nov 20, 2012
482
18
✟15,712.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
So why didn't the NRA or some other group take their case to the Supreme Court when assault weapons were banned from 1994 to 2004? Why are they so afraid to do more than just talk about it?
The message was pretty clear in the next Congressional elections. Following the passage of the 1994 law, what had been a majority, got gutted. If another such law is passed it will cost more political careers from the left and then it will be repealed. . . again. It is like a puppy that drops a deuce on the floor, we will just keep rubbing democrat congressional careers in "it" til they get the idea that silly ineffectual laws that penalize citizens while doing nothing to stop crime are bad. (Now I don't advocate that for dogs, but apparently congress folk on the left need that training method to keep from making the same mistake).


If an assault weapons ban is passed into law I think the chances that the NRA will push for a Supreme Court hearing is slim to none, and Slim just left town.
Sure, why wait for the SC? Just like last time, enough political capital will be burnt to pass a law that nobody who thinks wants and the following election we'll have enough of Congress it won't even matter who the president is . . . vetos can be overruled and it will cost the democrats enough seats they won't be able to stop it. Maybe this time democrats will learn. Then too, maybe this time enough democrats are thinking and will actively discourage the Feinsteins and Obamas from passing silly ineffectual laws that penalize citizens while doing nothing to prevent crime or violence. Either way, I am not worried. The gun ban will die, the 2A will live on.
 
Upvote 0

DrkSdBls

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2006
1,721
56
42
✟2,298.00
Faith
Seeker
The message was pretty clear in the next Congressional elections. Following the passage of the 1994 law, what had been a majority, got gutted. If another such law is passed it will cost more political careers from the left and then it will be repealed. . . again. It is like a puppy that drops a deuce on the floor, we will just keep rubbing democrat congressional careers in "it" til they get the idea that silly ineffectual laws that penalize citizens while doing nothing to stop crime are bad. (Now I don't advocate that for dogs, but apparently congress folk on the left need that training method to keep from making the same mistake).

You mean like how the Republicans got their nose rubbed in it Nov. 6th?


Sure, why wait for the SC? Just like last time, enough political capital will be burnt to pass a law that nobody who thinks wants and the following election we'll have enough of Congress it won't even matter who the president is . . . vetos can be overruled and it will cost the democrats enough seats they won't be able to stop it. Maybe this time democrats will learn. Then too, maybe this time enough democrats are thinking and will actively discourage the Feinsteins and Obamas from passing silly ineffectual laws that penalize citizens while doing nothing to prevent crime or violence. Either way, I am not worried. The gun ban will die, the 2A will live on.

And this, My Friends, is why the Republicans Lost this past Election: They honestly believe their own rhetoric.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
You mean like how the Republicans got their nose rubbed in it Nov. 6th?




And this, My Friends, is why the Republicans Lost this past Election: They honestly believe their own rhetoric.

So you're saying that Democrats won because they don't believe the things they say? :asd:
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So you're saying that Democrats won because they don't believe the things they say? :asd:

No, they don't believe what republicans say. It's like the Romney internal poll numbers that totally said he'd win. By not recognizing the difference between reality and fiction he didn't adjust his campaign to the developing situation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

QR1

Rook by any other name, still moves the same
Nov 20, 2012
482
18
✟15,712.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
You mean like how the Republicans got their nose rubbed in it Nov. 6th?
You mean the democrats achieved majorities they didn't have in BOTH the senate and the house? I didn't get that memo. I thought republicans still had the house of reps. Sorry, did you want to show me I am wrong?


And this, My Friends, is why the Republicans Lost this past Election: They honestly believe their own rhetoric.
Huh, perhaps the democrats will lose the next election because they assume that anybody that isn't a democrat is a republican or that the majority of people want to hop on an agenda which is clearly contrary to the trends of the last decade+
 
Upvote 0

TerranceL

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?
Jul 3, 2009
18,940
4,661
✟105,808.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You mean the democrats achieved majorities they didn't have in BOTH the senate and the house? I didn't get that memo. I thought republicans still had the house of reps. Sorry, did you want to show me I am wrong?


It's kinda funny, basically nothing changed politically Nov 6th from Nov 5th but to hear some speak the earth moved, angels flew from the heavens and anointed democrats de facto rulers for the next four years.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
[serious];62264903 said:
No, they don't believe what republicans say. It's like the Romney internal poll numbers that totally said he'd win. By not recognizing the difference between reality and fiction he didn't adjust his campaign to the developing situation.

I know what he meant, but that's not what he wrote.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
It's kinda funny, basically nothing changed politically Nov 6th from Nov 5th but to hear some speak the earth moved, angels flew from the heavens and anointed democrats de facto rulers for the next four years.

That's because they DO believe their own rhetoric. That's why we have a thread comparing Obama to Reagan.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums