Sen. Diane Feinstein to Introduce Gun Control Bill

[Caesars Ghost]

You want to tell me exactly why you need a clip with more than ten rounds in it?

Why can't we have a clip with more than ten rounds in it?
Criminals can access higher round clips.

 

[stamperben]

Why can't we have a clip with more than ten rounds in it?
Criminals can access higher round clips.

How many criminals do you face each time the marauding hordes come to your door?

 

[Quincunx]

For the love of PETE! this comes up every time. Why is it that when we have had a Civil War in which soldiers with military equipment went on one side (gray) and soldiers with military equipment stayed in blue uniforms and the two sides fought, along with plenty of civilians in no uniform at all . . . . WHY! WHY do some people figure that if the situation reoccurred,

Are you seriously comparing the Civil War military to the modern 21st century military? Have you seen one of these?

or perhaps one of these?

Not a lot of farmers these days have that kind of firepower.

Even you have droned on and on and on to remind us ad nauseam the difference between full auto and semi-auto. How many full autos do you know of in your town outside of military usage?

the "blue uniforms would keep all the soldiers and equipment and face off against fat hill billies with lever actions" WHY????? It is as if there was no history taught in school.

There's history taught in schools. And I've visited many Civil War battlegrounds. USed to work about a mile away from one. I'm familiar with a great deal of the methods of the Civil War fighting. Doesn't quite compare to modern 21st century warfare.

But then, of course, I kept learning after I learned about the Civil War.

It is maddening. It makes me want to weep for all those history teachers that apparently haven't had jobs since back when I was in school and they still taught history.

Makes me want to weep for people who think that military hardware hasn't changed in 150 years.

Um yeah. . . . So, the side that alienates and denigrates the military

That isn't me. I actually am proud of the US military. I am impressed by our military people. I don't denigrate them. Perhaps you are arguing with someone else?

is also the side that has civillians that wouldn't dream of touching a gun and the side that loves the military and honors them

As I said I actually like the US military (a bit too big, though, bigger than we need). But the training and skills and equipment are beyond compare! One of my good friends actually designs explosives and weapons for the Army.

But yeah, stand by your original statement about how all us gun lovers are hopeless against the might of the military.

Predator Drone + Hellfire Missile.

Tell me how that Glock is going to fare.

So some zit faced kid following orders is somehow magically superior in every way to someone with combat experience

Said "zit faced kid" is precisely what these "combat experienced" people you are talking about started off as.

Only now they have unmanned drones, helicopter gunships, and thermonuclear weapons.

And the retired "combat experienced" guy is working in a cubicle these days.

Would skirmishes be one sided? Probably not in favor of the Anti-Constitutionalists like a lot of liberals imply.

The only way it works is if there's sufficient guerilla action which will not result in a new America...it will result in a non-stop hellhole like Afghanistan for generations. And that's at best for the guerilla forces.

I'm not entirely sure that's an ideal outcome for the US.

 

[wing2000]

Reasonable folks understand it's worth giving up the freedom to own thirty round magazines or weapons designed to kill a high number of people in exchange for making such weapons & magazines less accessible to mass murderers....

 

[Glas Ridire]

You want to tell me exactly why you need a clip with more than ten rounds in it?

Because standard sized magazines are easier to get out of their pouches. Reduced capacity magazines provide no defensive benefit, though admittedly the 20 rounder is better for shooting from prone.

 

[stamperben]

Because standard sized magazines are easier to get out of their pouches. Reduced capacity magazines provide no defensive benefit, though admittedly the 20 rounder is better for shooting from prone.

See? Here's your freaking PROBLEM! You insist on using fire arms to KILL PEOPLE! And you even use the smiley face while defending it!

 

[wing2000]

...also, it seems some here don't have an appreciation of guerrilla warfare or the limits of military power.

An Army can have all the fire power in the world and still loose if the population at large is against them.

 

[Caesars Ghost]

How many criminals do you face each time the marauding hordes come to your door?

Well if it was your perfect world and there ever were such a thing, everyone inside would die due to being unarmed.
Because after all, the marauding hordes would stand to be armed to the teeth, while the law abiding behind the door would be disarmed because it's just not necessary to have guns, or clips that hold more than 10 rounds. It's downright naughty and unnecessary.



I appreciate gun nuts. I really do. They save time in anyone thinking to defend them if they are of a need for an armed savior, if they're ever accosted by an armed violent offender.
Anti-gun? Stay consistent! Don't ever allow anyone with a gun to come to their defense.
Let 'em die unarmed. After all, anything else would go against their creed when they felt safe prior to that present altercation that's befalling them.

 

[jayem]

Protecting people cannot be done at the expense of the Constitution.

We dare not exchange or liberty for an assumed security

Yes and no. There is precedent for the public safety overriding individual rights. Mandatory drug testing of safety-sensitive transportation workers (including random tests without reasonable suspicion) can certainly be seen as violating the 4th Amendment language on warrantless searches with no probable cause. Yet it's never been successfully challenged in court. I'm not saying that prohibiting private ownership of certain firearms will protect the public to the same degree. Let's just recognize that even explicity enumerated Constitutional rights can have exceptions.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Gun control is not about making political capital out of a tragedy. It is about instituting greater protection for everyone, including children in school.

As I have said elsewhere, protecting the constitution does not rank higher than protecting little children and their teachers from being murdered in a classroom. Something certainly has to be done; whether this bill is the answer I do not know, but something has to change.[/QUOTE]

Tell me more about how these laws will protect people.

It sure doesn't seem like they worked here.

From my understanding, this guy murdered his mother. There's a law against that.

He also stole a bunch of stuff from his mother. There's a law against that.

I heard that he possessed pistols in Connecticut. Pretty sure there's a law requiring a permit to carry a pistol in CT, and you have to be over 21. Another one he broke.

From what I understand, he trespassed on the school grounds. There's a law against that.

I've also heard that he broke a window to get in. There's a law against that. It's called breaking and entering.

There's the "Gun Free School Act." Which means it's illegal to have a gun at a school. Another law that he broke.

I bet there's a law against pointing a weapon at someone except in self defense or defense of someone else.

Then there's all the counts of murder.

Remember, the worst penalty the state can impose is death. This guy committed suicide.

So, we have a guy who doesn't follow the a bunch of other laws, and kills himself, thereby placing himself beyond the reach of the state for punishment. So, the state can't do anything to him any more.

So, tell me more about this law you propose, and the purpose that it will serve to prevent crazy people that go on shooting rampages in violation of a multitude of laws and then kill themselves from doing that sort of thing again.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Reasonable folks understand it's worth giving up the freedom to own thirty round magazines or weapons designed to kill a high number of people in exchange for making such weapons & magazines less accessible to mass murderers....

Because a guy that shot himself is sure going to be scared by a law.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Are you seriously comparing the Civil War military to the modern 21st century military?

So yeah. . . . again . . . one more time for lil Jimmy in the back: Yes the military has a lot of firepower. In history, when we had a Civil War, some of the military went on oneside and took their toys with them, others went on the other side with their toys. Both sides were augmented by non-soldiers engaged in guerrilla warfare. That was the first Civil War. If we had another civil war, some of the military would likely go to one side and take their toys with them. Other military folks would likely go to the other side and take their toys with them . . . just like last time. The difference being, the side that would be opposing the US Constitution, has openly belittled (are you sure you never sided with the people protesting the wars during the Bush era) and marginalized the military for better than a decade and the side loyal to the Constitution has been friendly with and is currently making up the bulk of the military. So yeah, thanks for reminding us all of the power of the US military that would be fighting alongside many of us citizens against the few disloyal (zit faced) kids that signed on for Hope and Change.

 

[MachZer0]

Uh huh. And tell me, do you actually think Iraq is doing well against the US military? Seriously, if the US military were to use full-force (remember you have hypothesized a government gone rogue here, the US government in your hypothetical has turned against its own people).

Basically the "insurgents" in Iraq themselves exist outside of normal life, and that isn't how most Americans currently live and it would take a generation or two before we got to that level of disability that we'd become "wolverines" or whatever.

On top of that if the US military were allowed to go "full metal jacket" on 'em don't you think that Iraq would wind up a whole lot worse off?

Now map this back onto your hypothetical scenario where the government of the US has decided to subdue it's own people. Do you think suddenly public opinion polls and international oprobrium would stay the hands of the military?

Really?

Wow. Even the fever dreams of the Right can't leverage reality.

I realize that a lot of my liberal friends would choose acquiescence. As for me, I'll choose to fight for my freedom

 

[JCSr]

Sen. Diane Feinstein to Introduce Gun Control Bill | KTLA 5

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Good. I hope it passes.

 

[Quincunx]

I realize that a lot of my liberal friends would choose acquiescence. As for me, I'll choose to fight for my freedom

Here's a "third way"....maybe, just maybe the US Government isn't sitting there waiting to destroy you. Maybe, just maybe, the "magic" that is America is that we actually have a stable society.

The government probably doesn't NOT destroy us because we have guns ourselves, but because we are the Government in this glorious experiment.

Maybe the problem we have is that some of us live their lives fantasizing about how they could hold off a government gone rogue and they see every action the government takes that they personally don't like as a direct threat to life and liberty.

Raise taxes on the richest? Oh noes!!! The gubmint is using the money to make FEMA COFFINS and CONCENTRATION CAMPS!

Healthcare reform so more people can get healthcare? OH NOES! The gubmint is going to EUTHANIZE OLD PEOPLE and experiment on the young!

Jeezly, the sheer level of paranoia on the Right would lead me to believe that if we actually had mental health tests as a prerequisite for gun ownership many of the staunchest gun advocates would fail!

Ugh.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Good. I hope it passes.

Have you ever been to Chicago? Seriously, Chicago had gun bans, and was more dangerous that Baghdad, Iraq...

What the Democrats are trying to do is profit off of a horrible situation in order to push through something to disarm law abiding citizens.

What I'd like to know is why the Police Officer that was supposed to be at the school, didn't do anything. Oh right, that program had been DEFUNDED!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

What good does taking guns away from me, and about 80 million other law abiding citizens do?

 

[Illuminaughty]

I often hear radical conservatives saying the following

1. If the government is oppressing people and implementing socialism I will take up arms and fight them.

2. The government is currently oppressing people , imposing socialism, and Obama is a communist.

Wouldn't the logical outcome involve conservatives taking up guns and fighting the government NOW or could the first statement simply be a fantasy of theirs?

 

[wing2000]

Have you ever been to Chicago? Seriously, Chicago had gun bans, and was more dangerous that Baghdad, Iraq..

What good does taking guns away from me, and about 80 million other law abiding citizens do?

No one is proposing banning guns.

 

[Quincunx]

Ahhhhhh....cute.

So yeah. . . . again . . . one more time for lil Jimmy in the back: Yes the military has a lot of firepower. In history, when we had a Civil War, some of the military went on oneside and took their toys with them, others went on the other side with their toys.

This is a nice scenario but the conditions were a bit different. The country didn't break down along government vs citizens. It broke down along government vs government. Kind of what secession was.

Both sides were augmented by non-soldiers engaged in guerrilla warfare. That was the first Civil War. If we had another civil war, some of the military would likely go to one side and take their toys with them.

Well, I guess you can hope. But the original hypothesized scenario was the people vs the government. That's the example Mach used with his reference to the Iraq insurgency which is what I was addressing.

A highly unbalanced military conflict.

The difference being, the side that would be opposing the US Constitution, has openly belittled (are you sure you never sided with the people protesting the wars during the Bush era)

I like your "reasoning"! So if I found Bush's wars based on poor intelligence at a time we couldn't afford it against an enemy of no real imminent threat it means I dishonor the military?

Wow. Nice leap there! Funny!

and marginalized the military for better than a decade and the side loyal to the Constitution has been friendly with and is currently making up the bulk of the military. So yeah, thanks for reminding us all of the power of the US military that would be fighting alongside many of us citizens against the few disloyal (zit faced) kids that signed on for Hope and Change.

Fighting along side us? Hmmmmm, guess if you have it all "gamed out in your head" along those lines it will certainly make for decades of slaughter.

And to think it all starts off because we are asymptotically yearning for 1 gun for every American.

I don't know what people want in this nation, but we sure do have vivid fantasies about our ability to shoot our way out of any disagreement. Guns, guns guns. That's our real savior!

Praise guns from whom all answers flow.