Feinstein's Take on a "New" AWB

[jshuberg]

I agree, I'd rather that legislation *not* be passed as opposed to passed and thrown out by the court. It took what, 200+ years for the court to examine the meaning of the 2A?

The lawyers who are working for our cause appear to be going about the process in a very methodical, ordered, are carefully chosen manner. First establishing the individual right to keep arms. Then incorporating that ruling to the states. Most recently establishing the individual right to bear arms. This is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, and it could take years. I don't believe anyone has challenged a ban on certain types of weapons as being unconstitutional. They would have to find the ideal test case, and work it through the lower courts to the Supreme Court. This could take decades. During that time, I'd like to still be able to exercise my fundamental rights.

The Dems must realize the current court is likely to strike down an AWB, but will try to pass it anyway in hope that a future court will throw original intent under the bus, and deny the people their rights. This battle must be fought and won here and now. We currently have more mindshare, more people who are exercising their 2A rights since the post revolutionary period. We don't need to try to win hearts or minds right now. We don't need to compromise. We need to let our representatives know that there is a line in the sand, and that anyone foolish enough to cross it will find themselves thrown out of office in their next election. We need to let them know that we will not retreat on this issue. And that no matter what else they may do in office, if they betray their oaths and vote to pass another AWB, they will suffer the consequences of that decision and find themselves in the unemployment line.

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable. Anyone with half a brain can see what's happening right now. Today it's "assault weapons" and 30 round mags. If they succeed, they'll next turn their attention to something else, like high power rifles, and ban anything larger than a .22. Or pass a law banning the use of lead in bullets. Or taxing bullets, or requiring a serial number on each bullet, etc. if we give them an inch they'll just keep taking from us.

Firearms enthusiasts of all varieties need to come together with a single voice, united with unwavering clarity, and simply tell them NO.

[river_boater]

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable.

It's probably a pretty small number, but I wouldn't be so sure. I've been asked on three separate occasions why I "need a gun like that" while shooting my AR at Oakdale, each time by (older) OGC members.

[jshuberg]

You should remind him that while they're only coming after your gun today, they will be coming after his gun tomorrow.

[bstrawse]

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable.

It's probably a pretty small number, but I wouldn't be so sure. I've been asked on three separate occasions why I "need a gun like that" while shooting my AR at Oakdale, each time by (older) OGC members.

Given the number of ARs I see at OGC on any given day, this is a surprise to me
b

[river_boater]

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable.

It's probably a pretty small number, but I wouldn't be so sure. I've been asked on three separate occasions why I "need a gun like that" while shooting my AR at Oakdale, each time by (older) OGC members.

Given the number of ARs I see at OGC on any given day, this is a surprise to me
b

It was quite a while ago, but it was a surprise to me too. One of them was a board member at the time.

[Mn01r6]

I had a really nice RO on the 50 yard range ask to shoot my 6920 when I was sighting it in during the open to the public hours. He said he didn't have any ARs but after shooting mine he was thinking about getting one. I sure hope he did before all this madness.

He was a much better shot than I am. Hanging out in the little clubhouse thingy people seemed very accepting of my rifle and were all telling stories about how many GIs died with cleaning rods in their hands before they finally fixed the issues with the original M16s.

[Collector1337420]

Feinstain is scum and a traitor.

That's helpful

Wasn't trying to be.

Could you explain how she's being helpful by trying to take our guns away?

A person who has said that if she could, she would ban ALL guns AND CONFISCATE.

How is that helpful?

[LePetomane]

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable.

I can't agree with this one. I don't hunt and don't own a semiautomatic rifle. Revolvers and a Beretta PX4 here. I've been questioned several times by my brother (hunter) why anyone needs 30 round magazines for hunting or a .44 magnum to put a whole in a piece of paper. A lot of hunters could go either way because their rifles and shotguns are not (yet) under attack. Personally I would not count on them for any support.

[bstrawse]

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable.

I can't agree with this one. I don't hunt and don't own a semiautomatic rifle. Revolvers and a Beretta PX4 here. I've been questioned several times by my brother (hunter) why anyone needs 30 round magazines for hunting or a .44 magnum to put a whole in a piece of paper. A lot of hunters could go either way because their rifles and shotguns are not (yet) under attack. Personally I would not count on them for any support.

We are going to have to convince them, in a lot of cases, to oppose this crap....

That fight has started

[MasonK]

The notion that hunters that don't use 30 round mags won't stand with us is laughable.

I can't agree with this one. I don't hunt and don't own a semiautomatic rifle. Revolvers and a Beretta PX4 here. I've been questioned several times by my brother (hunter) why anyone needs 30 round magazines for hunting or a .44 magnum to put a whole in a piece of paper. A lot of hunters could go either way because their rifles and shotguns are not (yet) under attack. Personally I would not count on them for any support.

I too am not that hopeful. Many gun regulation people I've spoken with are hunters, and only see guns as a hunting tool. I might say you don't need 30 rounds to hunt, but I sure as hell say I need 30 rounds to defend myself more effectively.

In that argument I refer to an interview with Bob Stasch of the Chicago PD who talks about him and his partner shooting a drug dealer 17 times at point blank range. He didn't die for 10 days, and the only reason the fight was over was because they hit his knee and he couldn't keep advancing on them. Why do I need more than 10 bullets in the gun? Because sometimes 17 isn't even enough to stop the threat.

Also, the BG wasn't on any drugs as confirmed by toxicology screens.

I don't use guns to hunt, I have them in case I ever need to defend myself and family. If police need big magazines to defend themselves, or the Secret Service needs big magazines to protect someone else's family, I don't really see why I should be limited to ten, and need a special tool to change mags on the rifle.

[justinvan]

I was speaking to my Fater In Law about this and he said "I dont care if they take those rifles"... it was hard for me to remember the list of replies I keep in the back of my mind for all of the antis, but I told him if he thought they were gonna take away mine and leave his alone he was sadly mistaken. I truly believe there are many hunters that fall more so in the "anti" category than the "pro".

[45Badger]

Feinstain is scum and a traitor.

That's helpful

Wasn't trying to be.

Could you explain how she's being helpful by trying to take our guns away?

A person who has said that if she could, she would ban ALL guns AND CONFISCATE.

How is that helpful?

Calling political opponents names and making fun of their names is a juvenile and emotional response. It demonstrates anger without thought. To be fair, it cuts both ways and the loons on the far left behave the same way. One does not justify or give relevance to the other.

Calling someone a traitor might sound powerful in front of a gang of fellow patriots or keyboard commandos. If there were any factual basis for such an accusation, I think people with a lot more money, education, and influence (than any of use here possess) would have already initiated legal proceedings against her. Like the above, this accusation sets a low benchmark for critical thought, and will not influence anybody "on the fence" to come to our side.

I'll rephrase-

That was "thoughtful"

If you want to see more fun and funny examples of rhetoric similar to yours, check out frugalsquirrels.

[Heffay]

So, I've been working on my arguments against the AWB, and have had limited success with it so far. But here's the logic I'm using. Helps to do it when drinking with the people you are discussing this with, because a) props are readily available, and b) you're drinking.

First, let's assume all guns are for entertainment. All shooting. Hunting, self defense guns, zombie shoots, 3 gun competitions, trap & skeet, safe queens, and Rambo wannabes. Pure entertainment, with no functional purpose since in reality, we choose to spend our free time doing those things anyway. No second amendment arguments, no Heller decision, nothing. They are just for fun.

Well, at that level they can be equated pretty much along the lines of alcohol (this is where holding up the half empty bottle of whiskey comes in handy). Especially if we equate the damage that they do to society. In fact, alcohol on a per capita AND absolute numbers causes FAR more damage to innocent people. It's killed innocent 5 year olds by the literal bus-loads. The damage alcohol does is orders of magnitude worse than guns. And we've tried to ban it in the past, but the law of unintended consequences did its thing and we realized that it was bad. Yes, you could say it was "successful" in the way that public drunkenness, drunk driving fatalities and social costs decreased, but let's not pretend that it was good for society by any stretch. Prohibition just doesn't work, and that's why we got rid of it.

We as society have decided with alcohol that we're willing to tolerate the unfortunate cost of alcohol when consumed by irresponsible people without affecting the use of it by the vast majority of people who can consume it responsibly. And this is for something that is far more damaging than guns. Yet guns, which have all kinds of additional legitimate uses, are treated differently. It's the height of hypocrisy to be arguing for a gun ban with a beer in your hand. If you want to deal with guns, treat it like alcohol. We managed to change how society treats drunken driving with social pressure, so start up a MADD for guns if you're concerned about gun violence. But Prohibition doesn't work.

You want to reduce gun violence? You can cut it in half tomorrow very simply: legalize drugs. All drugs. Treat them like alcohol too. It'll have all kinds of ancillary benefits (also known as eliminating the unintended consequences) such as balancing budgets, increasing revenue, and if the lessons of Portugal are to be believed, reducing overall drug use as well. So there. Real solutions to unreal problems.

Drink up!

[Heffay]

Calling political opponents names and making fun of their names is a juvenile and emotional response. It demonstrates anger without thought. To be fair, it cuts both ways and the loons on the far left behave the same way. One does not justify or give relevance to the other.

Calling someone a traitor might sound powerful in front of a gang of fellow patriots or keyboard commandos. If there were any factual basis for such an accusation, I think people with a lot more money, education, and influence (than any of use here possess) would have already initiated legal proceedings against her. Like the above, this accusation sets a low benchmark for critical thought, and will not influence anybody "on the fence" to come to our side.

I'll rephrase-

That was "thoughtful"

If you want to see more fun and funny examples of rhetoric similar to yours, check out frugalsquirrels.

[xd ED]

So, I've been working on my arguments against the AWB, and have had limited success with it so far. But here's the logic I'm using. Helps to do it when drinking with the people you are discussing this with, because a) props are readily available, and b) you're drinking.

First, let's assume all guns are for entertainment. All shooting. Hunting, self defense guns, zombie shoots, 3 gun competitions, trap & skeet, safe queens, and Rambo wannabes. Pure entertainment, with no functional purpose since in reality, we choose to spend our free time doing those things anyway. No second amendment arguments, no Heller decision, nothing. They are just for fun.

Well, at that level they can be equated pretty much along the lines of alcohol (this is where holding up the half empty bottle of whiskey comes in handy). Especially if we equate the damage that they do to society. In fact, alcohol on a per capita AND absolute numbers causes FAR more damage to innocent people. It's killed innocent 5 year olds by the literal bus-loads. The damage alcohol does is orders of magnitude worse than guns. And we've tried to ban it in the past, but the law of unintended consequences did its thing and we realized that it was bad. Yes, you could say it was "successful" in the way that public drunkenness, drunk driving fatalities and social costs decreased, but let's not pretend that it was good for society by any stretch. Prohibition just doesn't work, and that's why we got rid of it.

We as society have decided with alcohol that we're willing to tolerate the unfortunate cost of alcohol when consumed by irresponsible people without affecting the use of it by the vast majority of people who can consume it responsibly. And this is for something that is far more damaging than guns. Yet guns, which have all kinds of additional legitimate uses, are treated differently. It's the height of hypocrisy to be arguing for a gun ban with a beer in your hand. If you want to deal with guns, treat it like alcohol. We managed to change how society treats drunken driving with social pressure, so start up a MADD for guns if you're concerned about gun violence. But Prohibition doesn't work.

You want to reduce gun violence? You can cut it in half tomorrow very simply: legalize drugs. All drugs. Treat them like alcohol too. It'll have all kinds of ancillary benefits (also known as eliminating the unintended consequences) such as balancing budgets, increasing revenue, and if the lessons of Portugal are to be believed, reducing overall drug use as well. So there. Real solutions to unreal problems.

Drink up!

There's one major flaw in your logic being an effective argument.

Logic.