Senators Introduce Weapons Bill: Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Think of the eyes we could save...

originally posted by: infolurker


Chainsaw bayonets are the most dangerous weapons in the world!

"According to that Counter-terrorism force "G. I. Joe" knowing is half the battle. Given that weapons, men, equipment, and troop logistics are the other half, than knowing is the biggest part of the battle. Given this nugget of information shouldn't we ban "Knowing"? If we don't know anything then the biggest part of the battle (or conflict) will never hurt any one. People what I am saying is that if we ban knowledge, then people won't get hurt!"

Made up quote, from a made up DNC play book

***IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE ABOVE QUOTE***

It's fake, I made it up. I know someone is going to ask for a link for it so here it is: LINK TO FAKE QUOTE

****BACK ON TOPIC****

With those GOP Senators leaving, I wonder if this bill will have to be veto'd by Trump?

a reply to: infolurker

Now that sounds like a bill that Ronald Reagan would love

a reply to: roadgravel

No doubt. Next they should ban slingshots:

Slingshots have been used as military weapons, but primarily by guerrilla forces due to the primitive resources and technology required to construct one. Such guerrilla groups included the Irish Republican Army; prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein released a propaganda video demonstrating slingshots as a possible insurgency weapon for use against invading forces.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: CB328
Great news, though it won't pass.

You consider the Government taking away the Constitutional rights of your fellow citizens a GOOD thing? I will remember this when they come to take away a right you actually care about.

In the spirit of the silly bill, not that I want to see another massacre but could the next one use racks of high velocity hunting sling shots with marbles, although marbles won't have the kinetic energy at impact of lead or steel.

Maybe racks of bows and arrows (I think there was an ancient machine that did that).

Maybe catapult to throw balls of flaming pitch.

Vehicles and guns are so last year.

Then let's hear about assault sling shots, bows and catapults.

So is this the "If you like your AR-pattern rifles, you can keep your AR-pattern rifles." bill?

a reply to: cynicalheathen


It reads more like;
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. It's a banable weapon," bill.

Unless it's a listed duck, then it's ok as long as you don't hand your duck to a friend, neighbor, estranged work colleague, ex-wife, ect ect. If you do then your duck becomes an assault duck, and you could pay a fine or go to jail. It all depends on who has your duck. If you choose to eat your duck, and other consume it too, then you still might be in trouble.

I really wish we'd see perjury charges every time a "representative" violates their oath.

After all, each and every one of them swears an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution".

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.

Each and every "representative" that votes "Yea" on a bill like this is an instant oathbreaker, and should be charged.

Bills like this are why the first paragraph of each piece of legislation should be required to explicitly state where in the Constitution Congress has the power to pass the bill.

a reply to: CB328

Great news, it won't pass!!

Instead of attempting, and failing, why don't you anti-2nds do it the way it was explained in the Constitution. Amend it by putting it before the people.

That's the way the writers of the Constitution intended for it to be done. Go ahead, try it.

Looks like a voting block of the big D from the north east. No wonder the we call them the Damn Yankees. This should be a state issue. Draconian Gun Laws don't seem to work. Check out Chicago, NY, Philadelphia Or LA.

And as always, we here in the South, will never agree to give up our weapons. We remember the reconstruction times after the Cival War, and we will not live in fear, defenceless in our homes.

Gun laws will only push ownership underground. The collective view in Tennessee, among my neighbors, seems to be "you can't have my rifle, but I give you what in it, if you come by force."

a reply to: infolurker

What the hell is a military style assault weapon?

Look at the language they are using. For a start, military style rifles, unless we are talking about the military of some backwater somewhere, have fully automatic and/or burst fire settings, aside from the ability to fire one round to one trigger pull. None of the rifles they are going to be talking about here, are going to feature those settings, because those weapons are already strictly and tightly controlled, even in America (some states individual laws not withstanding of course).

So are they talking about firearms which happen to have rail mounting systems for optics, lasers, flashlights, and the like? Are they talking about black rifles? Are they talking about basically things which look like military weapons? Because if you go back far enough, even the fanciest of muzzle loading, flint locked gear is military style, all the firearms you can name off the top of your head, from pistols to shotguns, from the olde worlde to the new age, have some military application, and that goes double for insurgency related military applications!

Does putting forest camouflage on your .22 now count?

Its nonsense. And as for an assault weapon...

I do not know what terminology these people are using, but it is NOT an assault rifle, just because it has a thirty round mag. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle, because an assault rifle features select fire capabilities. Assault weapon is a nothing term, having to do with cosmetic decisions on a rifle, and nothing to do with its actual performance what so ever. So your .22 has a foregrip and flashlight, and a large magazine, a barrel shroud. Its still not fully automatic, its still not a military specification piece of machinery, its still a plinker, not an industrial death machine.

These people honestly have no idea what they are even talking about.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


This has zero chance of passing.

But it is for the children!

If just saves one life!
..second

a reply to: joemoe

I insist that there be some distinction made between Democrats, and politicians who happen to be in the Democrat party. There is a massive difference.

The Democrats are the people in the streets. Their representatives in government are every bit as corrupt and deluded as those on the other side of the house however, and their actions cannot be taken as representative of the people who voted for them, which is probably why your friends correctly stated that Dems do not want guns taken away from law abiding folk, but every action of the political machinery of the Democrat party, appears to be heading in that direction regardless.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Welp at leas in my case I look at it as Liberals and Democrats..

true liberals are good people that actually want to make things better but do not want to beat up their opposition but instead talk with them to find common ground.

then you have democrats, the people that will do everything they can to shut up their opposition, use dirty tricks when they can, and generally suppress anyone that does not participate in the group think.

The DNC and the RNC have both been subverted by people that make used car salesmen seem like beacons of integrity.

That is not to say there are not good people in the parties, they are just completely and totally marginalized when it comes to being able to actually make change happen.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Yeah, but that distinction is neither accurate nor helpful.

You can call folk whatever seems most comfortable to you of course, but the fact of the matter is that there are people out there, who vote Democrat, because they believe in democratic values, not because they believe in draconian ones. The only Dems who actually personify the things that people most routinely have a genuine grievance about, are those involved in the actual process of governance.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
What the hell is a military style assault weapon?

Is it:

• Black?
  
• Scary looking?
  
• Does it have all kinds of accesories that enhance the scare factor?
  
• Does it look like it could shoot through a cinder block wall?
  
• Come with a chainsaw?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hell, cheese burgers should come with chainsaws... I love chainsaws!

But the issue here is, that none of these things actually, realistically make a weapon an assault weapon.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If they hadn't run out of page space they could have added in BB & Airsoft guns.

Give it time - I'd say once certain freedoms begin to be stripped away they'll be almost impossible to get reinstated without some form of political or social revolution.

We all know how different the firearms laws are in the UK, similar strict restrictions already apply to airsoft 'guns';

(UK) Since October 2007 you can only buy a realistic imitation firearm (one that looks like a real gun) if you are at least 18 years old and meet one of the following conditions:

• You are a 'registered' airsofter with membership of an insured skirmish site. To be registered, you must attend a properly organised and insured airsoft site and play for at least three days over a period of no less than two months. Even if you attend and play the three days in your first week, UK Law requires that two months pass from the first day you attended before you can legally be registered.

• You are a member of a properly insured historical re-enactment group or society.

• You are a film, television or theatre production company.

• You are (or are acting on behalf of) a museum

• You are a Crown Servant in pursuance of your Crown duties

If you cannot meet any of these criteria, you can still buy an imitation firearm, one who's principle colour is significantly different to that of a real firearm – i.e. bright green, bright blue etc.

UK Law and Regulation Regarding Airsoft Guns

Where I live anyone over 16 can legally purchase, own and use any airsoft rifle, but would require a firearms licence, endorsed by the parish constable and depending on the outcome of a full background check, just to own a 1.77 air rifle.

"Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.). "

That's a convenient list right there.

I'd hate to see anything bad happen to that list.