Max Velocity Tactical



Your Ad Here - Email for Info

You Can Shop At Amazon and Help Support Emergency-Preps.com Without It Costing You One Thin Dime - Click Here to Learn How!

Author Topic: Gun bills in the US Senate  (Read 974 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Drang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Karma: +29/-3
    • The Cluemeter
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.

Offline Bill Quick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Karma: +50/-6
  • Gender: Male
    • Daily Pundit
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2013, 11:23:39 PM »
Write or call your representatives.  Join the pro-gun lobby of your choice.  And answer your phone when the pollsters call.  Conservatives tend not to do that, which makes the country look even more leftist than it actually is.
"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."  --   Al Capone


Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2013, 11:57:44 PM »
Ha!  Here in the Corpulent Governor State, one of our Senators is senile and the other is a pervert.  Both Democrats of course.  Our Congressman is a Princeton-schooled RINO who ranks lower on the ACU Conservative scale than some Democrats.  He was one of the 8 traitors who voted for Cap and Trade.  I do send him emails (that he ignores) but he won't take my calls anymore. 


Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2013, 09:38:48 AM »
Ha!  Here in the Corpulent Governor State, ...
Sadly, your corpulent governor thinks himself a POTUS candidate in 2016. Worse, a number of RINOs agree.  >:(

If he did get elected, perhaps Air Force One could be conferred on a blimp?

Offline Langenator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2013, 07:31:11 PM »
If he tries for the GOP nomination, every one of his opponents will be running commercials showing him cuddling with The One after Sandy.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
“In the house of a wise man are stores of food, wine, and oil, but the foolish man devours all he has.” Proverbs 21:20
"We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." -Pashtun malik, 1815

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2013, 07:53:23 PM »
Christie for President?

Fugetaboutit!


Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2013, 07:59:22 PM »
If he tries for the GOP nomination, every one of his opponents will be running commercials showing him cuddling with The One after Sandy.
Unfortunately, if the moderate GOP lemmings flock to him (moderates herd or flock much better than conservatives) and the conservatives split their vote as usual, that may not deny him the nomination. cf. M. Romney.

Offline Drang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Karma: +29/-3
    • The Cluemeter
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2013, 08:49:55 PM »
Rand Paul/Ted Cruz, FTW.
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.

Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2013, 09:43:38 PM »
Rand Paul/Ted Cruz, FTW.
If FTW is "for the win", that hardly matters to moderates. The important thing is ... being moderate.  >:(

Offline BooMushroom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
  • Karma: +17/-0
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2013, 11:23:24 PM »
If FTW is "for the win", that hardly matters to moderates. The important thing is ... being moderate.  >:(
It seems like the goal of a "moderate" republican is to get as many democrat votes as possible, without too many republicans getting "out of line."

Offline Langenator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2013, 08:39:19 AM »
I don't think you'll see Ted Cruz...Marco Rubio seems more likely.

Then again, Obama was a first term senator with no real accomplishments 5 years ago.

Now he's a second term President with no real (positive) accomplishments.  And honestly, it's tough to count Obamacare as something he did, even though his name is on it.  It's really more like Pelosicare.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
“In the house of a wise man are stores of food, wine, and oil, but the foolish man devours all he has.” Proverbs 21:20
"We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." -Pashtun malik, 1815

Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2013, 09:36:17 AM »
It seems like the goal of a "moderate" republican is to get as many democrat votes as possible, without too many republicans getting "out of line."
Yes, but the moderates don't really want to be associated with those "icky" ideologically conservative types either. They'll happily lop them off.

The problem is that these moderates are so insecure, they glom onto the first consensus moderate candidate, whereas the conservatives split their votes in search of the most "pure" candidate across a variety of real issues.

We're doomed.

Offline Bill Quick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Karma: +50/-6
  • Gender: Male
    • Daily Pundit
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2013, 09:49:12 AM »
We're doomed.


Probably.  The United States transformed itself from a representative republic into the mob rule of nearly pure democracy, and at the same time created a nation of historical and civic ignoramuses and idiots.

I didn't start this site because I think the future, at least near term, is bright.
"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."  --   Al Capone

Offline Drang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Karma: +29/-3
    • The Cluemeter
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2013, 03:37:42 PM »
If FTW is "for the win", that hardly matters to moderates. The important thing is ... being moderate.  >:(
"FTW" is an old biker term, the "TW" stands for "The World."  I'll let you figure out what the "F" stands for.
I'd like to live in a world where Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were considered moderates.
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.

Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2013, 05:06:26 PM »
"FTW" is an old biker term, the "TW" stands for "The World."  I'll let you figure out what the "F" stands for.
I'd like to live in a world where Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were considered moderates.
Ok. The good news is that you got the right world. Just the wrong century.

Offline Drang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Karma: +29/-3
    • The Cluemeter
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2013, 07:33:55 PM »
BTW, according to GovTrack, Feinstein's S-150 bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes, still has no text or summary available.

It does, however, have three additional co-sponsors. 
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.

Offline Langenator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2013, 07:36:11 PM »
It's posted on her Senate page.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
“In the house of a wise man are stores of food, wine, and oil, but the foolish man devours all he has.” Proverbs 21:20
"We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." -Pashtun malik, 1815

Offline Drang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Karma: +29/-3
    • The Cluemeter
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2013, 08:40:28 PM »
Has been, since at least last Friday, which is when I posted the link on the blog.  In fact, it seems that that document has been on her web page since early December, so it's a draft, and may not be what she's pushing.

Probably, we're supposed to beg them to pass it so we can find out what's in it.
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.

Offline Langenator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2013, 10:18:35 AM »
I saw a blog post which asserted that the big list is basically a red herring, and that the way the language is written elsewhere in the bill, that pretty much any detachable magazine semi-auto would be banned.

I tried to find it, but the format used for bills makes anything in there unintelligible.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
“In the house of a wise man are stores of food, wine, and oil, but the foolish man devours all he has.” Proverbs 21:20
"We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." -Pashtun malik, 1815

Offline Bill Quick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5016
  • Karma: +50/-6
  • Gender: Male
    • Daily Pundit
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2013, 01:50:11 PM »
Does Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Cover All Semiautomatic Rifles? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Gun writer Alan Korwin, who blogs here, argues (in an email missive that does not seem to be online yet) that the "assault weapon" ban introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last week effectively bans all semiautomatic rifles, not just the scary-looking, military-style ones. How so? Under her bill, a rifle that accepts a detachable magazine qualifies as an "assault weapon" if it has one or more of six features, including "a pistol grip." The bill defines a "pistol grip" as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip" (emphasis added). Therefore, Korwin says, "any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned."

Given how little these idiots actually seem to know about firearms, I'm inclined to think this is accidental, especially given that the bill specifically exempts about 2000 rifles that you can "grip" from its provisions.

Nonetheless, the whole thing is an intolerable and unconstitutional affront to our unalienable rights and liberties, and must be murdered in its crib.
"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."  --   Al Capone

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2013, 11:47:10 PM »
The Feinstein bill is all for show.  It's going nowhere, and if by some Obamagic slight of hand it passes the Senate, it will never get through the House.

Of course, if the commie globalist barstools stage another shooting incident--say at an airport TSA grope-a-rama where the ovine travelers are neatly lined up--all bets are off.




Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2013, 11:52:27 PM »
Great gun control rant from a Marine...

          
On the topic of Guns, Accoutrements, and the idiots who "Represent" us:

I have had just about enough of the queue of lambasting idiots whose sole desire is to control every aspect of American's lives. Their bloated exhortations about things they obviously know nothing about has risen to the level of epidemic. What is more troublesome is that there seems to be an unending assortment and number of mixed nuts fully prepared to accept any edict these windbags hand down from their lofty "thrones" in the City of the Dead (DC) while the combined knowledge of both exhorter and audience, if melted down and strained couldn't fill a thimble!

 I am sick to the point of retching of listening to the absolute nonsensical sputtering about firearms by those who can't differentiate between a butt stock and a flash suppressor so here is a short lesson in nomenclature to make you sound less stupid:

 FIRST, they are not "clips", they are magazines and the semi-automatic AR-15 is not "an assault rifle" any more than a baseball bat, hammer, kitchen knife, scarf, rope, lead pipe, pipe wrench, automobile, hands, feet, stick, screw driver, torch, et al all of which have been used at one time or another to "assault" someone by a deranged person.

 The "shoulder thingy that goes up" is a folding butt stock on a very few long guns most notably, the SPAS shotgun which is no longer manufactured. The correct description of what this particular dingbat in Congress was trying to describe, is, an adjustable butt stock. Its crime is making itself available for shooters of varying shapes and sizes - including women for whom many rifles are too large to fire accurately and painlessly.

 A bayonet lug is a superfluous piece of equipment - for almost anyone, in or out of uniform and does not contribute to the mental deficiency that denies a person the ability to know it is wrong to kill. A sling swivel is a mounting point for a sling which is used in competition and to carry a rifle over the shoulder for most civilians and while there are some really neat 1, 2 and 3 point slings on the market, no one except a seasoned and well-trained professional has a need for it or would even know how to use it. And NO; it does not make the rifle more lethal or the operator more proficient.

 A flash suppressor is not a lethal device. It is used to reduce the light signature of escaping gases from the muzzle of the rifle so the enemy has a more difficult time registering your position and dropping mortars and artillery on your head. Being as there isn't much in the way of danger from ordinance here in the civilian world, it is superfluous. And just because it is superfluous is no reason to ban it. It does not make the rifle more lethal or the operator more proficient. It does, however, make the rifle compliant with long distance rifle matches hosted around the country and at Camp Perry every year.

 A pistol grip has sent many a "sensitive anti-gunner" into orbit. Here's the skinny: All things being equal, I prefer a straight stock. Contorting your hand and wrist to accommodate a pistol grip actually take some practice and again, does nothing to make the rifle more lethal or the operator more proficient. So, get over it!

A magazine with any number of rounds is of ZERO use to someone who is not well-trained with the rifle or handgun it supports and no; Newtown doesn't count because at the grand distance of about 25 feet, he could have caused as much damage with a pile of rocks.

Magazines hold cartridges - not bullets! The ammunition that the Military uses does not possess "magical properties" delivering greater lethality. The fact is, military grade ammunition is designed to meet the requirements of the Geneva Conventions which requires full metal jacket bullets to reduce expansion and associated lethality which in turn reduces damage to the flesh, increasing the probability of survival. This also, then makes this ammunition terrible for hunting. In comparison, a hunting bullet, fired from even a bolt action rifle is far more lethal.

 Finally; for all of you "sheeple" who mindlessly "feel" your way to decisions that could ultimately eliminate first the 2nd Amendment and eventually, the entire Bill of Rights; get your bloody heads out of the clouds and do a little research so you won't appear to be the blustering idiots you currently sound like. And if you insist on allowing others to represent your sorry opinions of something that is no more than a tool, in the hands of a law abiding citizen, at least get someone who doesn't make the rest of us feel embarrassed to be a member of the same species!

 If any of you, left of center would like legitimate questions answered…please feel free to ask them. And no; I will not get drawn into an inane conversation filled with semantics and sensationalism. The fact is, our murder rate isn't even half of what the United Kingdom's is even though there are no more firearms available to their "subjects". Currently the weapon of choice in "merry ole England" is a knife which Parliament is in the process of outlawing.

 In this country, last year, 323 people were killed by someone brandishing an AR-15 or AK-47 style, semi-automatic rifle while in that same year, nearly 700 people were killed by a hammer!

 Echo Eight Bravo; Out!
          
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 11:54:03 PM by ND Martin »

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2013, 09:32:57 PM »
One more...
Rational testimony of a father from Newtown.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/wAYLr6u2FyY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/wAYLr6u2FyY</a>

Offline Langenator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2013, 08:23:33 AM »
Rational?  What does rational have to do with anything?

This is politics.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
“In the house of a wise man are stores of food, wine, and oil, but the foolish man devours all he has.” Proverbs 21:20
"We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." -Pashtun malik, 1815

Offline Drang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
  • Karma: +29/-3
    • The Cluemeter
Re: Gun bills in the US Senate
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2013, 11:03:18 AM »
BTW, according to GovTrack, Feinstein's S-150 bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes, still has no text or summary available.
Last night GovTrack informed me that Bill's esteemed Senator Feinswine  :o has posted the "official" summary of her assault weapons ban on her Senate webpage.
Fisking at The Cluemeter: S-150 summary now posted, excerpts below:
Quote
The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
  • All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
  • All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
  • All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  • All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
  • All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
I wanna see the Mossberg 930 with a rocket launcher attached to it...
Further down, she adds:
Quote
The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:
  • Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.
    • This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.
  • Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.
  • Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  • Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.
  • Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon
Ooh, look, a Federal registry of "assault weapons"!  And still no definition of what is an "assault weapon", just a list of cosmetic features we don't like!

Does this bill have a chance of passing?  Maybe not, but what is their "reasonable compromise" going to look like?
The United States Constitution
(c) 1791.
All Rights Reserved.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
175 Views
Last post March 06, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
by Drang
1 Replies
247 Views
Last post August 03, 2012, 07:50:05 AM
by Langenator
0 Replies
98 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 07:41:16 AM
by Paul
23 Replies
749 Views
Last post January 26, 2013, 12:57:00 PM
by BooMushroom
1 Replies
162 Views
Last post March 02, 2013, 09:29:08 PM
by 9thInfDivRvrRat


Your Ad Here - Email for Info
Help Support E-P.com
Even A Buck Makes A Difference!
Or Make Convenient Monthly
Donations By Selecting
A Payment Option
Payment Options