This is what Democrats do: instead of wanting the government to actually enforce existing law, they want more gun bans that punish law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. This reads almost like a press release from the DNC
(ABC News) In the aftermath of yet another mass shooting, this time in Southerland Springs, Texas, members of Congress are once again proposing legislation aimed at overhauling and enforcing stricter gun laws.
Democrats announced today the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, which would ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammo magazines.
The last time senators attempted legislation of this magnitude was in 2012, following the Sandy Hook school shooting that killed 20 children and six adult staff members.
The bill was defeated in the Senate on April 17, 2013, by a vote of 40 to 60.
“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right — we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job,†Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a press release Wednesday.
It’s cute, but it won’t go anywhere, and Democrats know it. The most likely outcome is that the legislation never makes it out of committee, having been tabled. However, if Mitch McConnell is smart, he’ll fast track it to get it to the Senate floor and allow debate and a vote, which would show that Democrats are really just gun grabbers.
JUST IN: Sen. Feinstein and Senate Democrats introduce bill to ban assault weapons pic.twitter.com/d94tkH6ASo
— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) November 8, 2017
You can see that bigger here.
- Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
- Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
- Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.
That last one is of interest: does it apply only to “assault rifles”, or is it applicable to all weapons that have a magazine? Also, we’ll have to see the full language to see if the 2nd only applies to those 205 weapons, or to all weapons, which could ban the sale of all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns.
- Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.
The question here is “when?” At all times, meaning that they cannot be taken out? Besides, how is this enforced? You can’t. Not unless Los Federales are planning on sending someone to the home of everyone who has a scary looking weapon.
Feinstein had this to say
“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.
So, it won’t work, just like the previous one didn’t work, but, it will work towards taking away people’s guns, punishing law abiding citizens.
"Nobody's trying to ban any guns, that's just a paranoid lie. Oh, and we're proposing legislation to ban over 200 different guns." https://t.co/248JG9wWMD
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) November 8, 2017
Crossed at Right Wing News.
She misspelled “any”.
What is a “forward grip”? Every long gun has a grip forward of the trigger, because rifles are meant to be used with a two-handed grip, to steady the weapon for accurate aim.
No disrespect but…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOHzA3YWAAIglH9.jpg
Let’s be honest. Military-styled semi-auto rifles are the weapon of choice of mass shooters and “hunters of humans” the world over! Why is that? What advantage do these rifles offer over, say, the Remington Model 700 when you need to kill dozens of humans at a time?
But you are right that we will do nothing. If we did nothing when Adam Lanza murdered 20 terrified 6 and 7 year olds with his mommie’s Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15-E2S then we’ll do nothing now either. Wayne LaPierre and the terrorists running the NRA won this debate long ago.
I would ban all semi-auto firearms, period, and would confiscate any found. But that’s just me. It will never happen.
Every now and again we’ll just have to tolerate a crazed gunman shooting a dozen or so tiny and terrified schoolchildren huddled in the corner of a room, not knowing what will happen next.
Freedom!!
Nobody needs a whiney little bitch either, yet here you are…
Actually, Jeff, one of the biggest demographics for purchase of “assault rifles” in past years has been women. In the graphic above, both rifles have exactly the same characteristics. Same cartridge, same rate of fire. The bottom one is slightly more accurate. But, it is also heavier and less weildy. An “assault rifle” is lighter and easier for a woman to carry and fire for defense.
Why do you think mass shooters prefer assault weapons over the other rifles?
There are aproximately 10 million ar15’s and probably a like amount of ak’s, sk’s, mini-30’s, mini-14’s, etc etc etc. Compliance rates in Connecticut & NJ for magazine & “assault weapon” legislation is thought to be ~20%. Only a retard (that’s you Jeff) would think that another AWB would do anything.
Hillbilly,
You may have missed it, but we said it would never work in America.
We will just have to learn to tolerate terrorists making their point by killing our children.
Conservatives seem to be perfectly OK with that.
Jeff,
Why can’t liberals confront the issue of mental health care that they did away with decades ago? Then why do liberals stop profiling of Muslims and restricting their presence in our country, please don’t refer to freedom of religion which has consistently been abused by liberals? I think all these killings are directly at the feet of progressives.
Restricting guns and bump stocks and other stupidity will do nothing.
dave,
Can you specify when and how liberals did away with mental health care decades ago? Are you referring to when we used to imprison those accused of being mentally ill?
Have you examined patients that you’d want imprisoned based on your opinion?
You have a tendency to refer to yourself in the plural. Do you fancy yourself as Thurston Howell the third?
He started doing that a few months ago. It is strange.
Yes. Yes, we do.
By the way, I’m a Hillbilly in Affton.
Drug overdose deaths in 2016 most likely exceeded 59,000, the largest annual jump ever recorded in the United States,
more than 32,000 people died on U.S. roads, roughly 90 fatalities a day, according to the CDC.
Top 10 leading causes of deaths in the USA.
Heart disease
Cancer (malignant neoplasms)
Chronic lower respiratory disease
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
Alzheimer’s disease
Diabetes
Influenza and pneumonia
Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis)
Suicide
But the left wants YOUR guns because they need them to take over America in a bloodless coup.
How many people died to assault rifles in the USA per year? 100? 200? Its a tragedy but the left really should get on board fixing whats broke not obsessing over semi automatic rifles.
rot,
Do you think that we should just ignore these acts of terrorism since they kill relatively so few? 9-11 only killed 3000, 1/10th the number killed EVERY year in auto accidents, yet we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and changed the way we live. Are you sure you want to equate acts of terrorism with other more “common” deaths?
Are you suggesting that we invade Detroit over automotive deaths?
Some,
Are you suggesting that society is wrong to react with horror at acts of terrorism? That a car crash, while indeed a tragedy is equivalent to the horror of a man shooting schoolchildren? Society appears to disagree with you. The difference, of course, is the sense of fear and instability that acts of terrorism instill in a community. We’ve reduced automobile deaths per miles travelled over ten-fold over the past century! Can we say the same about shooting innocent crowds of Americans?
It sounds like YOU’RE suggesting that we invade Detroit. Why? Are you suggesting that the primary function of automobiles is to kill humans? The primary function of assault weapons, besides offering a false sense of security and making milquetoasts feel manly, is to kill humans. That’s not to say that the primary REASON people buy them is to shoot schoolchildren, it’s just that dead schoolchildren is a negative externality of the gentle availability of assault weapons. Sure, sure, we realize that without an assault weapon a gun nut could and would use a semi-auto pistol.
But as we repeat repeatedly, a ban of assault weapons will NEVER work in the US, so it’s not worth discussing.
“But as we repeat repeatedly, a ban of assault weapons will NEVER work in the US, so it’s not worth discussing.” Then why do you continue to bring it up?
TEACH made the original post.
Jeffrey wrote:
Yeah, it is . . . because far more schoolchildren are killed in automobile crashes than by being shot.
The left don’t want to ban cars, of course, at least not their cars — though they’d be perfectly happy to take them away from the rubes in flyover country, and ban anyone from owning a [Gasp!] pickup truck — because they use cars themselves. But guns? Most of the left don’t use them, and half of them are so pussified that they don’t even know out of which end the round comes. They pack themselves into cities, and hire gate guards to keep the Negroes away from their homes, because they know ‘those people’ won’t shoot them if they’re contained in their own neighborhoods.
To them, the only good guns are the ones their hired guards have. So, since they don’t use them themselves, why they are perfectly willing to take the right to own firearms from other people.
The insurance industry paid off every politician who came along until they are now regulated into building tanks. The result is 25000-150,000.00 cars.
The further result is that poor people can no longer afford to buy anything but an old beat up junker.
This is true in every area in which the USA becomes involved in regulation. They just drive up the costs further alienating the middle class and no amount of tax break is going to solve what ails them.
Explain to me why they have cars that can go 360 KPH. Or Miles per hour? Explain why the drug companies push drugs onto the general population? Explain why someone needs an 80k dollar truck?
The simple reason is very few do. But would you deny those very few that necessity because of health problems because of an addiction problem or someone wants to buy a 300 MPH car because they can? Or how about who really needs a million dollar Boat when a nice aluminum boat with a trolling motor will work? How about those giant RV’s that cost 1/2 a million dollars?
And as long as your talking about ignoring things. Should we ignore the millions of illegals who flood this nation Illegally because a MOST are good people? Should we ignore the FEW who are not? That seems to be the lefts idea. Who cares if a FEW murder, rape or kill people. The Rest are just swell potential voters for the communist party of the USA.
There are plenty of laws on the books. Another dozen laws is not going to prevent a whacko from killing people. Its not going to prevent mass murderers. Jack the Ripper I believe did not use a semi automatic weapon.
Lets not even talk about murdering a 1000 babies per day or whatever the horrid statistic actually is.
Where there is a will, there is a way. The left proves it everyday with their pet political footballs. The right gets to play this game too. Don’t they?
Remember ‘Cash for Clunkers’? It was a policy of the idiotic Obumble Administration, in which people with low-MPG cars could trade them in for new, higher-MPG automobiles, and get a government subsidy. This was supposed to help with the recession, and get lower MPG vehicles off the roads.
But, of course, nobody actually thought about what would happen. The only people who could buy new cars during 2009-2010, when C4C was active, were people who had survived the recession with their good jobs intact. C4C was, in effect, welfare for the well-to-do!
And there’s more. Automobile traded in under C4C had to have their engines destroyed. That meant that the people who had the newer used cars — if you could afford to buy new, you more than likely had bought the car you were trading in new — had their traded in vehicles destroyed, which meant that the used car market lost its best vehicles. That left the working class, the people who couldn’t buy new, but had to rely on used cars, were facing a used car market in which quality went down, and prices went up, because the supply of used cars had an artificial ‘hole’ in the supply chain.
This was typical of the left’s brainstorms: they get a great f(ornicating) idea, and jump on it, without ever thinking things through. They claim to be oh-so-wonderfully-edumacated, but few of them have any common sense at all.
If any of them understood the working class, understood how poorer, yet still working, Americans live their daily lives, they would have seen the obvious flaw with C4C, but they didn’t.
Why do you think the white working class have deserted the Democrats? They might not be urban professionals, but they could see that C4C was just another program to give welfare to people who didn’t need it while making their lives more difficult.