Feinstein unveils her gun ban legislation

[CitizenBBN]

Quick summary: wants "assault weapons" to be treated more severely than we currently regulate full auto machine guns.

I'm not exaggerating.

For purposes of terms: Machine guns, silencers, that sort of stuff are called NFA weapons, National Firearms Act. You can own a machine gun, but you have to pay the $200 NFA tax and the transfer takes direct ATF approval that takes months. They're legal, but highly regulated, and to my knowledge haven't ever been used in a crime to make national news ever.

Here's what she wants and why it's more restrictive than even machine guns:

1) She wants them to be NFA weapons. That means everyone who has one pays $200 per gun and registers it with NFA.

2) It is illegal to transfer/sell them even with NFA approval. You can sell your machine guns and silencers, they just require NFA approval. These can't even be sold, ever.

3) When the current owner dies they cannot be transferred or inherited, they are confiscated. NFA weapons now can be transferred, again with approval.

Clearly the goal is to eliminate these guns from existence in a generation when we haven't even found that necessary to do to full automatic machine guns, true "weapons of war".

She also expands the definition of 'assault weapon' to include the M1, the Mini-14, SKS, as we've discussed, but broadens definitions of "pistol grip" and such to make it very hard to make anything except standard hunting stock guns. Even the California legal ARs, which is a very tough law, would be banned. Those guns have 10 round mag limits and such built into the guns, and even that's not enough.

She exempts "1,000 guns" which is hilarious b/c she just went and got a list of guns that obviously wouldn't be covered to make it sound like she's leaving "all these options" and being reasonable. Sorry but 200 kinds of double barrel shotgun on a list is hardly reasonable.

Of those 1,000 though she exempts NO handguns. Not one. The 10 round mag ban would cover all handguns but instead of protecting any handguns she wants that option left open. Feinstein lobbied for a complete handgun ban before she was elected to the Senate.


I even proposed some kind of NFA style approach to certain guns, i.e. a heightened level of approval of some kind to buy one, but this is more strict than the NFA for machine guns. That's absurd. The semi-auto replica of the Thompson submachine gun would be regulated more harshly than the real full auto gun? Huh?

Of course her stats are all bunk. Just lies, like her report on guns to Mexico. This woman is a fanatic, a zealot who will lie about almost anything to get her way on this issue. There is a gun control argument to be made. I disagree with it but there is a case. This woman undermines that case by distorting the facts and being extremist even by gun control standards.

She cites a change in traces of assault weapons as evidence of reduced use in crimes but traces aren't traces of guns used in crimes in any proportioned way. Lots of guns used in crimes aren't traced and many are traced that aren't used in crimes where police verify legal ownership or such. They really don't tie to the crime rate of use at all.

Of course you're 8.5 times more likely to be killed with someone's bare hands or a knife than ANY long gun of any kind, rifle or shotgun. She claims a reduction in gun violence during the ban larger than all the gun crime committed with all long guns total. So we had negative gun violence? Is that people popping back up from the dead who were un-shot by an un-gun? The math doesn't even add up on some of her stuff based on my very cursory review.

Of course most of this was in the bill she was going to submit based on the Mexican gun running before F&F blew up. She's done this again and again.

This though is insane. She's reaching much farther than ever before. Hoping her reach has exceeded her grasp and our economy isn't the only thing to go over the cliff this next month.

She's going to introduce it on Jan 3rd, so if you're like me call your representatives and tell them to tell her to get stuffed, and maybe a therapist. lol.

[jazyd]

True liberal democrat, base everything on lies and gullible voters and a tragedy that this law would not have stopped. No mention of fast and furious, no mention of increasing budgets for mental health. Also why isn't she banning knives? Sorry for the language but she is a dumb ass

[dan_bgblue]

A friend sent this t me just now via email. I liked it enough to share, and I think it fits this thread.

If handguns cause crimes, mine's defective.- Eric Shelton

[Darrell KSR]

A friend sent this t me just now via email. I liked it enough to share, and I think it fits this thread.

If handguns cause crimes, mine's defective.- Eric Shelton

Very good.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[Doc]

True liberal democrat, base everything on lies and gullible voters and a tragedy that this law would not have stopped. No mention of fast and furious, no mention of increasing budgets for mental health. Also why isn't she banning knives? Sorry for the language but she is a dumb ass

The last time knives were used to commit mass murder, there was legislation enacted. I'm assuming you recall 9/11 when box cutters were the tools used to hijack the four planes that crashed into the WTC and pentagon (including the one that crashed in rural PA), killing 2,977 innocent people. One of the results was a ban on knives on airplanes, one that is still in place.

[Doc]

A friend sent this t me just now via email. I liked it enough to share, and I think it fits this thread.

If handguns cause crimes, mine's defective.- Eric Shelton


Slogans and catch phrases are quickly becoming one of my pet peeves.

Following your premise, then I guess "if Hammers build homes, I guess mines defective" because its never been used to build a house. :533:

Guns are TOOLS used in crimes and they are an extremely effective tool in killing. Gun advocates can deny it, deflect it, minimize it, etc..... but it does not change the fact that a gun is the method of choice for a criminal to commit murder. Other things can kill as well but for efficiency, ease, access and portability, a gun is the most effective and efficient. That doesn't mean they should be banned and we should throw out the second amendment but ignoring the problem isn't the solution, nor are little cutey sound bites that deflect the issue.

[CitizenBBN]

The last time knives were used to commit mass murder, there was legislation enacted. I'm assuming you recall 9/11 when box cutters were the tools used to hijack the four planes that crashed into the WTC and pentagon (including the one that crashed in rural PA), killing 2,977 innocent people. One of the results was a ban on knives on airplanes, one that is still in place.

They used planes. the knives were used to obtain the weapons, kind of like blaming the pry bar someone uses to steal the gun they use in a murder.

[CitizenBBN]

That doesn't mean they should be banned and we should throw out the second amendment but ignoring the problem isn't the solution, nor are little cutey sound bites that deflect the issue.

I agree the one liners can be trite on both sides, and people have to move past the Tonight Show one liner as their way of examining issues, but this particular one isn't an attempt to deflect the issue. It's an attempt to point out the issue isn't the one people think it is.

[Doc]

They used planes. the knives were used to obtain the weapons, kind of like blaming the pry bar someone uses to steal the gun they use in a murder.

I guess but then we could also say it wasn't the gun that killed those 28 elementary school kids, but rather the bullets. The gun just fired the bullets. Fun game, huh?

[Doc]

I agree the one liners can be trite on both sides, and people have to move past the Tonight Show one liner as their way of examining issues, but this particular one isn't an attempt to deflect the issue. It's an attempt to point out the issue isn't the one people think it is.

Sure it is an attempt to deflect. It is common for criminals to use guns in the commission of a crime. Not every gun is used to commit a crime. Nobody suggested that was the case but the trite one liner makes an attempt to suggest the gun control advocates are suggesting every gun is used to commit a killing. Standard approach by both sides is to change the argument of the other side to something else, then defend your side against that pseudo-argument. Who ever stated EVERY gun is use to commit a crime? Nobody that I know yet the premise suggested is that a gun that hasn't been used in a crime is defective.

The argument is guns are used to commit crimes, not that they cause crime. Inanimate objects don't cause or commit any crime. The crime is always done by an individual.

[CattyWampus]

The last time knives were used to commit mass murder, there was legislation enacted. I'm assuming you recall 9/11 when box cutters were the tools used to hijack the four planes that crashed into the WTC and pentagon (including the one that crashed in rural PA), killing 2,977 innocent people. One of the results was a ban on knives on airplanes, one that is still in place.

Your knife/gun comparison doesn't quite work for me. After 9/11, action was taken to prohibit knives on airplanes. The way they enforce that is through the security processes installed at airports. Knives are not banned "on the street" nor are they controlled in regard to purchase. I think there are some restrictions that may apply to knives such as switchblades being illegal, but there is no requirement for background checks to buy a knife.

So, as your post-9/11 comparison goes, there are security measures to make sure someone doesn't carry a knife on a plane, therefore install security protocols to stop an unauthorized person from bringing a firearm into a school or other venue.

If there's a comparison to be made, it's about security of a venue, not controlling general access to a knife or firearm for law-abiding citizens just because some nutjob used a firearm to enter an unsecured or poorly secured facility to kill innocent people.

[CitizenBBN]

What Wampus said. In fact lots of schools and of course court buildings and such have the same security for guns and have had for a while, and none of that bears on what people do outside those buildings. A "ban" in a location needing heightened security isn't within 1,000 miles of a ban on all ownership that would include your private property.

The analogous action ironically would be the NRA proposal of security in schools. They're proposing doing for schools just what we have done for airports.

Like the NRA or hate them or in between, it's still the only sound idea put on the table that can quickly raise the security of children in schools in a significant way. If Obama had proposed it people would be peeing themselves with excitement.

[CitizenBBN]

Sure it is an attempt to deflect. It is common for criminals to use guns in the commission of a crime. Not every gun is used to commit a crime. Nobody suggested that was the case but the trite one liner makes an attempt to suggest the gun control advocates are suggesting every gun is used to commit a killing.

...

The argument is guns are used to commit crimes, not that they cause crime. Inanimate objects don't cause or commit any crime. The crime is always done by an individual.

The point of it isn't to deflect, it's to raise the point of causality and the improper focus of the gun control proposals. I agree it's trite, did at the start, but it's not to change the subject, it's to highlight the logical failings of the proposals made by the gun control groups.

Yes the argument is that criminals use guns to commit crimes, not cause crimes, BUT their next step is where they fail. If we see the shooting of someone in a robbery as a chain of causal events from some starting point to the person turning to crime to them deciding to rob the store to them choosing a gun to them pulling the trigger, where of course picking up the gun is only one link in a chain of causality, and really the last link, the gun control crowd fails in that they:

a) they focus in singularly on the guns as "the problem", the link in the chain that must be attacked to the exclusion of all others
b) presume that by eliminating the guns held by law abiding citizens through the proposed laws the criminals will not have guns, thus missing the chain entirely, and



It quickly goes from crime being the problem to the guns, and not just guns used in crimes but all guns. These trite statements are attempts to show they immediately lose focus on the problem and focus on things that aren't even causal to their original concern.

They are attempting to reverse (and even ignore) the causal chain, trying to eliminate guns as an option for criminals and lunatics so they can't hurt anyone but rejecting calls for attention to other parts of the chain as "deflecting" and then calling for eliminating them for everyone even though those weren't even in the chain and even calling for action on specific guns that also aren't even in the chain or are so easily substituted in the chain as to make the action irrelevant to the chain.

That's not deflecting, that's trying to highlight their failed logic.

Their first mistake is to focus in on only guns and see everything else as "avoiding the issue." They claim the "issue" is the dead person in the quickie mart, and if they are being honest then the gun is only one part of that issue. So for other non-gun factors to be "avoiding the issue" by definition the issue isn't the victim, it's the gun. Apparently had he been killed with a knife they wouldn't be as concerned about his death. These trite statements try to highlight that grizzly truth about their focus. They have lost broad concern for the dead guy, trying to find a way to prevent it from happening again, and vapor locked on the gun as "the problem."

If the "issue" were the dead guy, their focus should be on a range of things that could prevent his death. If the issue is the kids killed at Newtown their focus should be on preventing kids from being killed in schools, period. That may mean a gun ban, it may mean security, it may mean something else, but they should be open to non-gun solutions. They aren't, which means their "issue" isn't with saving those lives, it's with saving those lives only insofar as a gun ban can save them.

Then we go to the 2nd part, which is they then propose not just gun-centric laws, but gun-centric laws that clearly don't go to the causal chain they claim to care about. they miss on two levels:

a) they pass laws that clearly won't impact those committing the violent acts. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country and thousands are wounded and killed by guns annually. clearly those laws aren't applying to the criminals, b/c they all have guns, so why are they trying to stop people from having guns who haven't had them and clearly are not part of the chain of gun violence in their city? By definition allowing law abiding people to keep a gun in their home for protection isn't a causal factor for those deaths, yet the gun control crowd fight to keep them from having a gun.

What that says is they aren't worried about those deaths so much as the guns themselves. They see all guns as somehow causal in those deaths, so all guns must be eliminated. Thus they have in fact come around to the view that the guns are causing the deaths b/c they want to eliminate guns that have no part in the causal chain as if they are causal.

If they were seeing it as you describe they'd be asking "how do these criminals get these guns and how can we stop it" and not "how can we stop people who have never had a gun in our city and who are no risk to others be prevented from having a gun".

They have forgotten the problem is the dead guy, the gun playing a role in it, and decided the problem is not just that gun but all guns. So they attack all guns and not just that gun and attack only guns and not the other aspects of getting that guy dead.


Then they go further and

b) try to pass laws on specific guns that also have nothing to do with making a dent in gun involved deaths.

Statistically most people killed by guns, including most children, are killed by small handguns that either don't hold 10 rounds or never fire the 10th shot in the killing of the person. All long gun murders are less than 1% of gun related murders, and tactical rifles are an even smaller percentage of that 1%, but their push is to ban those guns.

I am willing to bet more children are murdered by the Phoenix Raven MP-25 pistol than all long gun deaths of children combined. It's not on the ban list but guns that may have never killed a single child are?

Even within that ban they want to ban things that have nothing to do with the danger of the gun, pure aesthetics and things that have never been shown to be a factor in ANY use of the gun in a crime or mass murder. Not in one case, ever, has anyone concluded lives would be saved if the gun didn't have a folding stock. It's NEVER been a factor.

So how can one claim they are focused on the dead guy as the problem, trying to solve it with this legislation, when that legislation calls for banning something that has never once been in the causal chain of any gun death? Not ONE freaking time.

Of course logically you can't. They might as well be calling for the banning of blue sports cars, and when it reaches that point of absurdity clearly this has nothing to do with the dead guy, just about banning things in guns they don't like.

Those trite statements try to show just how off the path, just how irrelevant, these proposals have become to the supposed problem, the dead guy.




Their words may say they acknowledge guns don't cause crime, but I've seen many times them claiming the crime wouldn't happen without the guns, which is in fact saying guns cause crimes. Even ignoring that and accepting your characterization, the logic of their position is based on guns being the causal factor. If anything the deflection may be that they dont' see guns as the source of the evil b/c they sure act like guns are the source of evil.

They ignore all empirical and statistical evidence and priority, demonize gun owners, make distorted claims about the capabilities and uses/needs for guns, and fundamentally attack the very basis of this nation's liberties by asking ownership of something to be justified rather than granting it presumption and having to prove why a liberty must be curtailed.

From my seat for a long time, way before I was in the business, the gun control crowd has seen guns as "the problem", and I can do a quick google and find a few thousand times they make that statement.

Well if "guns are the problem" by definition they are the CAUSE of something, and that's wholly different from the stand you say they are taking.

The trite catch phrase, far from deflecting, is trying to highlight that difference between your very logical statement and their focus and intentions. It is trying to show that the gun control crowd is acting very much as if guns, all guns no matter who owns them, are singularly the source of these bad things happening.

They are through their actions and proposals making the assumptive causality that the guns do in fact cause the crimes, or are incredibly close, and for sure are way away from specific guns in specific hands being part of the bigger problem.

Trite yes. No doubt, and I share your aversion to trite statements b/c it discourages people from really tearing into an issue and educating themselves.

Deflecting? No. An attempt, trite or not, to highlight how the gun control logic ends up being a misdirected and reversed causality that has nothing to do with their stated goals and their supposed justification for their proposals.

I suppose all short statements deflect in some way b/c it deflects from really studying an issue, but I don't think this is an attempt to avoid the debate. it's an attempt to frame the debate correctly in response to it having been framed in ways that are irrelevant and misleading and useless.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/28/opinion/martin-gun-conversation/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

[CitizenBBN]

Interesting link Dan.

Like I said above, the 1000s of kids killed by violence and 100s by gun violence, doesn't stir up so much as a bottom of the website footnote when it's poor kids in the projects or some backward part of the flyover. Let it happen in a nice upper middle class suburb and suddenly it's "the worst day of my Presidency". What about the other days when those people in Chicago were getting killed?

Obama did say that today fwiw. Apparently letting 4 Americans die in Benghazi and encouraging our enemies when he could have stopped it wasn't his worst day. I guess I'm thinking in terms of job performance. Guess if all 500 of those people in Chicago died on the same day they'd be tragic deaths. Otherwise they're just faceless statistics.

Thus my fanatic insistence on policy being objective. Save the most people with the least infringement on liberty. Pretty simple.

[KeithKSR]

Slogans and catch phrases are quickly becoming one of my pet peeves.

Following your premise, then I guess "if Hammers build homes, I guess mines defective" because its never been used to build a house. :533:

Guns are TOOLS used in crimes and they are an extremely effective tool in killing. Gun advocates can deny it, deflect it, minimize it, etc..... but it does not change the fact that a gun is the method of choice for a criminal to commit murder. Other things can kill as well but for efficiency, ease, access and portability, a gun is the most effective and efficient. That doesn't mean they should be banned and we should throw out the second amendment but ignoring the problem isn't the solution, nor are little cutey sound bites that deflect the issue.



Catch phrases aside, my question to the gun ban crowd is how can there be claims that guns do not prevent or deter crimes when nearly 100% of all LEOs carry firearms. Even mall security at most malls carry sidearms, the exceptions being those malls that psychos have chosen as killing grounds.

The big question for society should deal with the "why" and not the "how" these shootings occur. In nearly every instance the shooter goes into an area they feel is free from armed resistance and go on a spree until someone with a weapon arrives at which time they kill themselves.

Eric Harris (Columbine) had a website where his blog contained threats, a hit list, instructions on bomb building and online levels for the video game Doom. It was discovered in 2001 a police officer had investigated, written an affidavit to seek a search warrant, but never filed for the search warrant. The LEO's failure to follow through allowed Harris and Klebold the opportunity to follow through on their plans.

Violent video games seem to be a common thread that links many of the murderers together. Today some in the media are claiming that video games cannot be linked to violent acts, this is counter to the studies used to endorse passage of video and song lyric ratings when they were legislated.

These incidents come in waves, to some extent media coverage appears to spur successive events as there will be year's when there are fewer than ten deaths nationwide from such actions.

In several of these events guns have not been the only lethal weapon deployed, fortunately at Columbine, the church in Colorado and some others there were bombs involved and the bombs either failed to explode (Columbine) or the perp was dead before they were exploded.

Why ban firearms at all? There are certainly things that are not banned that cause more deaths each year, and are not a protected Constitutional right. Alcohol results in more lost lives via intoxicated motorists, cigarettes result in lung cancer. This is primarily a socialist political agenda, and has little to do with lost lives. A primary step in socialism is to take arms away from the masses.

[KeithKSR]

Interesting link Dan.

Like I said above, the 1000s of kids killed by violence and 100s by gun violence, doesn't stir up so much as a bottom of the website footnote when it's poor kids in the projects or some backward part of the flyover. Let it happen in a nice upper middle class suburb and suddenly it's "the worst day of my Presidency". What about the other days when those people in Chicago were getting killed?

Obama did say that today fwiw. Apparently letting 4 Americans die in Benghazi and encouraging our enemies when he could have stopped it wasn't his worst day. I guess I'm thinking in terms of job performance. Guess if all 500 of those people in Chicago died on the same day they'd be tragic deaths. Otherwise they're just faceless statistics.

Thus my fanatic insistence on policy being objective. Save the most people with the least infringement on liberty. Pretty simple.

We are dealing with the most agenda driven President in my lifetime. He has also showed the least leadership of any President in my lifetime, and perhaps the least of any President ever.