House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

a reply to: SailorJerry

They say we all commit three felonies a day anyway. What's one more! In for a penny, in for a pound!

www.politico.com... they dont even think the bump stock ban or even increased NCIS will pass this has a snowballs chance in hell of passing

But that proposal has been rejected twice by the Senate in the past five years, despite public support for instituting background checks on Internet and gun show sales. And the chief GOP sponsor of the Fix NICS bill rejected Schumer’s plea to go much bigger than improving the existing background check system. “I’m for doing what’s achievable. If we want to get bogged down again, do nothing? To me that’s unacceptable,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). Fix NICS is “the most obvious place to start. I’m not saying finish there, but start there and let’s get that done.” It’s unclear precisely what Trump wants Congress to do. He has spoken of improving background checks, raising the age for buying some rifles to 21 and enacting a ban on bump stocks, which allows semi-automatic weapons to mimic the rate of fire of fully automatic ones. But Republicans are bearish on doing much beyond Fix NICS and enacting a bump stock ban, with that perhaps being done under the president’s executive authority. “Most of us believe that’s a Second Amendment right that’s not to be trifled with,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) of the gun control debate. He said both Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had little appetite for a big gun debate. “We’re not going to ban the AR-15. But we can ban bump stocks. I don’t know about the age change,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in an interview with The Greenville News. “I don’t know where that’s going to go. It depends on what the president does.”

i could even see trump vetoing it

and if they do some how manage to get it passed and its not vetoed the scotus will take it up and crush it like DC hand gun ban Goursh is far from anti gun would almost be worth it to have it pass just to have SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional so it cant be attempted again

a reply to: Xcathdra

So, when one gun crazed nut kills people, we must introduce a bill to change the law.... Okay, liberals... And when a illegal/DACA person does a heinous crime we should lump all of them together too...

a reply to: jhn7537

Dana Loesch tells it straight.

No guys, they just want to ban most guns.

This is going to end badly.

Notice the logic involved.

"We need to ban assault weapons. These weapons have only one purpose, to kill a lot of people quickly."

"So this ban applies to law enforcement as well?"

"No, the police need these weapons to do their job."

Apparently, they feel the job of the police is to kill a lot of people quickly.

a reply to: [post=23184608]Bhadhidar[/post

Yet, those were the EXACT same weapons that were in use by the military at the time, if semi-automatics were common place they would have owned those as well. People that could afford them also owned Gatling guns and cannons as well.

The Constitution specifically states ARMS, and yes ARMS expressively includes all weapons of war. George Washington also stated that the people should always maintain a balance of power to the governments at all levels, to maintain their inalienable Rights granted to them by their creator.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not what grants an American their rights, they are restrictions to government not the people. So just by changing or removing "rights" changes nothing. Rights are not given by man and cannot be taken by man. This is were 99.9% of people get it wrong.

Your argument is completely invalid.

transparent pandering.... all this is doing is securing repub win...

its like dems want to lose seats

Come and get them

What in the name of John Moses Browning are these numbskulls thinking? I bet they will sit there at the table with their hand out and wait for the friendly turn in as oh about 140 million gun owners descend on DC.

Just remember that Diane Feinstein illegally carried concealed for her protection and despite this, was one of the first few issued a CCW in California.

originally posted by: Jiggly
transparent pandering.... all this is doing is securing repub win...

its like dems want to lose seats

Shhhhh,...

Let them... Let them run on gun control

a reply to: visitedbythem

No they will champion this until the point where its inacted.

And then SOMEONE is going to have to go get them from citizens.

Im willing to bet that voluntary list is going to be very very short.

This will not happen, and if it ever did, no threat intended, but it would make all these school shootings and such seem a lot less bloody than what would be to come.

Surely even the most ardent liberal can see where that would lead, and if they TRULY valued life, they wouldnt be pushing it

They better be ready for the # storm this will bring.

a reply to: projectvxn

This may get ugly, assuming for the moment, it passes, which is unlikely given the make up of both houses.

Actually, it's not a may, it will get ugly. I certainly would not comply.

We all saw this coming and now its here.

I wonder how many people will stick to their guns, and abide the slogan -

"I'll give you my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands"


Who knew this day would ever come?

I fear this is only the beginning..


----

I guess only our trusting and loving (world) government will have automatic weapons, and will be the only ones to produce them. Wow, banning production too. We'll see how this all pans out.

a reply to: SailorJerry

And then SOMEONE is going to have to go get them from citizens. Im willing to bet that voluntary list is going to be very very short.

I imagine when automatic weapons were banned in Australia, people thought the same thing. That there was going to be a sh# storm. But there was no sh# storm, and people voluntarily handed in their guns (though they did get paid for them - paid for by the citizens own tax contributions).

It's not going to pass with a Republican owned government but it sure will stoke the partisan fire, just as intended.

I should sell pitchforks, I'd be a millionaire in no time these days. Regardless of what the issue is one side will buy them up like hotcakes.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Xcathdra

"Assault weapons were made for one purpose,” Cicilline said in a statement. “They are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They do not belong in our communities.”"

Let's just get one thing straight. By Assault weapons here, he means ALL semi-automatics, not just ARs.

By this logic we can say the same thing about knives. Before being refined and ACCEPTED by a solid majority; these tools were primarily used for killing. It started with stone Which wasn't sharp enough for simple cutting in our early development and tool creation. A knife is a tool. A tool that through most of it's development was designed around war. Yet, totally cool today. Why because there is a bigger goblin to fear. We let guns slip, we keep slipping.

Come on , you can’t really compare knives to guns. The same could be said about forks.

Anyways some knives are banned, like switch blades for example.

a reply to: nOraKat

semi automatic weapons see thats the problem you dont even know what your taking about ,btw lever action shotguns just became legal in aus as far as i know fully attomatic weapons were ever legal in aus

a reply to: violet

www.smithsonianmag.com...

More than 130 people in Kunming, China, were injured when about ten men and women wielding knives began stabbing others at random Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com... Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://(link tracking not allowed)/1cGUiGv Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

130 in one setting thats all the school shootings in america in 2017 and 2018 combined for wounding and killed


dailycaller.com...

guess we could go the japanese route where NBC and chem warfare are threats en.wikipedia.org... killing 12 and a whopping 4000 wounded topping all the mass shootng deaths since 1756(i think may have date wrong but that was the date of the first school shooting in usa)