Proposed gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.
One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.
"What a joke," said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.
Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.
Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. "I can't imagine what the difference is," Hanlon said.
President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.
A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein's proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.
Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to "make crystal clear" that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.
The December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 students and educators dead forced Washington to focus on curbing gun violence, a risky political move not tried in decades.
The gun industry, which is fighting any sort of ban, says gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest it's ever been, with more than 100 million firearms owners.
Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have traveled around the country in an effort to gain support for new laws. Feinstein's proposal is the only sweeping piece of legislation designed to ban assault weapons currently being considered.
But some gun experts say the lists of banned and exempted firearms show a lack of understanding and expertise of guns.
"There's no logic to it," said Greg Danas, president of a Massachusetts-based expert witness business and firearms ballistic laboratory. "What kind of effect is it going to have?"
Feinstein's bill defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that has one of several military characteristics that are specified in her legislation. Examples of those characteristics include a pistol grip, which makes a firearm easier to hold, and a forward grip, which makes the firearm easier to stabilize to improve accuracy. The definition is similar to the one in Congress' original ban on assault weapons, which went into effect in 1994 and was widely criticized for outlawing firearms based on cosmetic features.
Feinstein was behind the 1994 law which, at the time, protected more than 600 firearms. The current bill would exempt by name and model more than 2,200 firearms by name and model.
Feinstein said her staff had worked for more than a year to draft updates for the ban that expired in 2004, and it was apparent in the wake of recent mass shootings that now was the time to introduce a new bill. She said her staff consulted with law enforcement agencies and policy experts for months to create the expanded list.
Naming firearms that would remain legal under an assault weapons ban is a politically motivated gesture that was used to help pass the original ban in the early 1990s, people familiar with the process said.
Any firearm that does not fall within the law's definition of an assault weapon would not be banned. As a result, the list gives vulnerable politicians cover from constituents who do not want to give up their firearms.
For example, a politician can look at the list and assure a constituent that the government would not ban the firearm he or she loves to use for deer hunting. Under the 1994 law and the currently proposed one, the government would not have the authority to take away guns people already legally own. The ban would only apply to specific firearms manufactured and sold after the law is enacted.
A list of exempted firearms was not part of Feinstein's original assault weapons ban two decades ago, said Michael Lenett, one of the lead congressional staffers on gun control issues in 1994. A separate bill in circulation exempted far fewer hunting and sporting firearms, Lenett said.
The purpose of creating such a list was to assure people that the government was not going after any legitimate hunting or sporting weapons. "The other purpose of the list was to have a high profile way of assuring certain folks - including legislators - that we would not be going after their weapons that they use for those legitimate purposes," Lenett said.
"It was a win-win situation," Lenett recalled, because, he said, if the list could help pick up votes needed to pass the bill and temper some of the opposition, it could assuage some opponents of the ban without making the law less effective.
But gun experts say the lists in 1994 and the expanded lists of today don't make much sense.
"The bill demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the product they are purporting to regulate," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association based in Newtown, Conn., that represents gun manufacturers. "I have no idea how they arrived at this list. It would seem to be random, bordering on throwing darts at a dart board."
For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP.
Feinstein said there was disagreement among firearms experts, law enforcement and gun safety organizations about whether to include the M-1 Carbine on the list of banned weapons.
"It has been used in multiple police shootings, and was originally used by U.S. soldiers on the battlefield," Feinstein said. "On the other hand, it comes in models that would not meet the military characteristics test." She said she decided to limit banned weapons to those that met the definition outlined in the bill.
At a Jan. 30 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said Feinstein's bill is "based on falsehoods to people that do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance characteristics of guns that they are trying to ban through that bill are different than the performance characteristics that they're not trying to ban."
The Ruger Mini-14 is a perfect example.
The model that has a fixed stock would be exempted by Feinstein's ban; the weapon was protected in the 1994 law as well. A Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible and folding stock would be illegal.
The guns fire the same caliber bullet and can take detachable magazines that could hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. The folding stock only reduces the gun's length by 2.75 inches, according to the manufacturer's website.
"It's irrelevant," Edmund Mireles, an FBI agent who survived the Miami shootout, said of the differences in features. "They're equally dangerous."
Mark D. Jones, a senior law enforcement adviser for the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said the folding stock does not affect the firearm's lethal potential.
"Given that both firearms will accept a 30 round or larger magazine, it renders the differences between them entirely cosmetic," Jones said.
Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, said the Ruger Mini-14 model that would be banned under Feinstein's legislation is easier to hold while firing because it has a pistol grip, and it's easier to hide because it has a collapsible stock. That's what makes it more dangerous that the Ruger Mini-14 with the fixed stock which would be exempted under the Feinstein bill, she said.
"And that's supposed to save somebody's life?" asked Hanlon, the FBI agent shot alongside Mireles.
Hanlon considered the differences between the two models and whether the events of April 11, 1986, would have been different if the shooter used a Ruger Mini-14 with a fixed stock. "I don't think it would have changed a damn thing," he said. "I don't see what makes that gun less dangerous."
One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.
"What a joke," said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.
Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.
Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. "I can't imagine what the difference is," Hanlon said.
President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.
A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein's proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.
Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to "make crystal clear" that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.
The December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 students and educators dead forced Washington to focus on curbing gun violence, a risky political move not tried in decades.
The gun industry, which is fighting any sort of ban, says gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest it's ever been, with more than 100 million firearms owners.
Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have traveled around the country in an effort to gain support for new laws. Feinstein's proposal is the only sweeping piece of legislation designed to ban assault weapons currently being considered.
But some gun experts say the lists of banned and exempted firearms show a lack of understanding and expertise of guns.
"There's no logic to it," said Greg Danas, president of a Massachusetts-based expert witness business and firearms ballistic laboratory. "What kind of effect is it going to have?"
Feinstein's bill defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that has one of several military characteristics that are specified in her legislation. Examples of those characteristics include a pistol grip, which makes a firearm easier to hold, and a forward grip, which makes the firearm easier to stabilize to improve accuracy. The definition is similar to the one in Congress' original ban on assault weapons, which went into effect in 1994 and was widely criticized for outlawing firearms based on cosmetic features.
Feinstein was behind the 1994 law which, at the time, protected more than 600 firearms. The current bill would exempt by name and model more than 2,200 firearms by name and model.
Feinstein said her staff had worked for more than a year to draft updates for the ban that expired in 2004, and it was apparent in the wake of recent mass shootings that now was the time to introduce a new bill. She said her staff consulted with law enforcement agencies and policy experts for months to create the expanded list.
Naming firearms that would remain legal under an assault weapons ban is a politically motivated gesture that was used to help pass the original ban in the early 1990s, people familiar with the process said.
Any firearm that does not fall within the law's definition of an assault weapon would not be banned. As a result, the list gives vulnerable politicians cover from constituents who do not want to give up their firearms.
For example, a politician can look at the list and assure a constituent that the government would not ban the firearm he or she loves to use for deer hunting. Under the 1994 law and the currently proposed one, the government would not have the authority to take away guns people already legally own. The ban would only apply to specific firearms manufactured and sold after the law is enacted.
A list of exempted firearms was not part of Feinstein's original assault weapons ban two decades ago, said Michael Lenett, one of the lead congressional staffers on gun control issues in 1994. A separate bill in circulation exempted far fewer hunting and sporting firearms, Lenett said.
The purpose of creating such a list was to assure people that the government was not going after any legitimate hunting or sporting weapons. "The other purpose of the list was to have a high profile way of assuring certain folks - including legislators - that we would not be going after their weapons that they use for those legitimate purposes," Lenett said.
"It was a win-win situation," Lenett recalled, because, he said, if the list could help pick up votes needed to pass the bill and temper some of the opposition, it could assuage some opponents of the ban without making the law less effective.
But gun experts say the lists in 1994 and the expanded lists of today don't make much sense.
"The bill demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the product they are purporting to regulate," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association based in Newtown, Conn., that represents gun manufacturers. "I have no idea how they arrived at this list. It would seem to be random, bordering on throwing darts at a dart board."
For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP.
Feinstein said there was disagreement among firearms experts, law enforcement and gun safety organizations about whether to include the M-1 Carbine on the list of banned weapons.
"It has been used in multiple police shootings, and was originally used by U.S. soldiers on the battlefield," Feinstein said. "On the other hand, it comes in models that would not meet the military characteristics test." She said she decided to limit banned weapons to those that met the definition outlined in the bill.
At a Jan. 30 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said Feinstein's bill is "based on falsehoods to people that do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance characteristics of guns that they are trying to ban through that bill are different than the performance characteristics that they're not trying to ban."
The Ruger Mini-14 is a perfect example.
The model that has a fixed stock would be exempted by Feinstein's ban; the weapon was protected in the 1994 law as well. A Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible and folding stock would be illegal.
The guns fire the same caliber bullet and can take detachable magazines that could hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. The folding stock only reduces the gun's length by 2.75 inches, according to the manufacturer's website.
"It's irrelevant," Edmund Mireles, an FBI agent who survived the Miami shootout, said of the differences in features. "They're equally dangerous."
Mark D. Jones, a senior law enforcement adviser for the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said the folding stock does not affect the firearm's lethal potential.
"Given that both firearms will accept a 30 round or larger magazine, it renders the differences between them entirely cosmetic," Jones said.
Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, said the Ruger Mini-14 model that would be banned under Feinstein's legislation is easier to hold while firing because it has a pistol grip, and it's easier to hide because it has a collapsible stock. That's what makes it more dangerous that the Ruger Mini-14 with the fixed stock which would be exempted under the Feinstein bill, she said.
"And that's supposed to save somebody's life?" asked Hanlon, the FBI agent shot alongside Mireles.
Hanlon considered the differences between the two models and whether the events of April 11, 1986, would have been different if the shooter used a Ruger Mini-14 with a fixed stock. "I don't think it would have changed a damn thing," he said. "I don't see what makes that gun less dangerous."
I have a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. It is stainless steel, and has the traditional wood stock. It's a beautiful rifle. I carry it pretty regularly around my property to keep the varmints in control so my livestock don't break their legs by stepping in a burrow. If you put my rifle next to the one in the picture, you wouldn't even think they were the same rifle, and yet they are. The Mini-14 is on the list of proposed banned weapons, and yet is such a useful rifle. I definitely hunt with it, it's just varmint hunting. I like it because it's light, reliable and accurate. If they're going to actually push this control through, they need to scrub this list a lot harder.
There is no purpose to this. None whatsoever. No rationale at all behind any single aspect of this. Seriously, are they actually stupid, or are they just trying to see how stupid they think we are? I can't tell.
Anyone politician who votes to support an assault weapons ban, such as Feinstein's should be tried and convicted of violating their oath of Office.
If anyone thinks we will just accept it if these bans go through is greatly mistaken.Â
The purpose of the "gun ban" has absolutely "zero" to do with eliminating "violence". Its to burden the sale of guns to law abiding citizens. Our highly intelligent law makers dont seem to remember what can be done with a hacksaw. Cut that wood stock down and shorten the barrel ,,, then go on your killing spree.
The photo says it all. The idiots who want gun control fail to realize that all they are legislating is cosmetics. Then they are only making criminals out of legit owners. Of course its easier to come up with BS legislation then to actually do important stuff like fix the budget.
@Common Sense The gun control is a perfect smoke screen to hide behind and avoid the REAL problems confronting this country.
'The purpose of creating such a list was to assure people that the government was not going after any legitimate hunting or sporting weapons. "The other purpose of the list was to have a high profile way of assuring certain folks - including legislators - that we would not be going after their weapons that they use for those legitimate purposes," Lenett said'.
What's 'legitimate'? Hunting and sporting as opposed to self defense?
Yer an idiot Mr. Lenett. You took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and here you are trying to destroy it.
The Constitution isn't about hunting or sporting. It's ALL about keeping sorry azzes like yerself in check.
It scares the crap outta you and your ilk and it should. It's why the founding fathers of our great nation penned it.
Idiot.
The only fact one must know is that gun laws do not work and only infringe on the law abiding. I challenge anyone to point out a place in the US where gun bans are working. And no, don't point to other countries.  Japanese or British people that move to America do not start shooting people because guns are available here.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/021213-644195-cultural-decay-not-guns-is-the-real-problem.htm
@Goodwin "gun laws do not work and only infringe on the law abiding"
Isn't it necessary for a law to exist in order for one to be "law abiding?"
"Japanese or British people that move to America do not start shooting people because guns are available here."
A couple of years ago a British man used a handgun to shoot and kill his ex-girlfriend and then himself at a building on the UW campus. Your wild assertions will not bring her back to life.
Gun bans in the US might be a tad more effective if states with minimal gun laws, like Virginia, were not next to states with stronger gun laws, like the District of Columbia. In case you hadn't noticed, there's no border control between American states. It's not much of a "ban" if you can get whatever gun you want by hopping in your car and driving for ten minutes.
@Sutekh  You have to be a resident of the state your purchasing the gun in. Identification must be produced at time of sale. False statements and identification are criminal acts and penalties are rather severe.
@Sutekh @Goodwin Yet for some reason there is less violence in liberal Virginia than in illiberal Washington DC. The same is true for Chicago--the nearby states and suburbs with more liberal firearm laws don't have the same level of violence as the reactionary and illiberal cities.
Funny about that. It is almost as if the entire gun control argument is specious.
@Sutekh  "Gun bans in the US might be a tad more effective if states with minimal gun laws, like Virginia, were not next to states with stronger gun laws"
Is there heroin and crack in DC because it's legal in Virginia? You argument is baseless and insipid. Criminals are not shooting each other in DC because guns a legal somewhere on the planet.
Your statement about the "British man" is fallacious by arguing the exception to prove the rule. In fact, as you well know, We don't have a British crime problem in America.
Lastly, thank you for proving my point. You cannot show any working gun laws. You call my assertions "wild" and use fallacious argument to distract but avoid the challenge.
Are you realy that ignorant?
To understand how extreme Feinstein is about gun control, consider the paragraph containing the words, "has worked for more than a year to draft updates." She and her staff have been working for gun bans long before Sandy Hook. And she has publicly stated that if she could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate to ban all guns, she would have done it.
What also angers me about this article is the spin in the headline, "protect more than 2,200 guns",skirting the fact that it is a ban, and the government wants to tell you what kind of peashooter you can own. Way to go, anti-gun media. Your colors are showing clear, and they are YELLOW! Â
@SargeMcC Cant you see how generous they are being ,,, my God man you have 2200 guns you can buy. What more do you want. LOL.
@SargeMcCÂ To understand Feinstein is a fools errand.
@al-wa, I've never understood how Feinstein and Pelosi keep getting re-elected, then I remember that California is nuttier than a squirrel turd. They just can't understand normal thinking.
I think we should ban and subsequently deport ALL politicians that do ANY of the following:
- fire any more than zero holes in the U.S. Constitution;
- fold, spindle and mutilate the U.S. Constitution;
- fail to READ and UNDERSTAND the U.S. Constitution;
and so on. What part of "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"Â don't they understand?????
@Crashbox Â
So does that me we can leave it to you and all your paranoid friends who seem to depend on assault weapons as if they were security blankets which you are too afraid in life to part with to tell all the families of all the innocent, innocent children that their loss was not an infringement on their rights.
I guess the fear and bad dreams my daughter and thousands of other children have when going to schools that aren't safe does not infringe on their rights.Â
What part don't you understand... is the constitution a dead, unchangeable document or did the framers understand that times change and make provisions that allow the constitution to remain pertinent?
How come sir are you not up in arms, pardon the pun, because you are not allowed to own a tank, or a stinger anti-aircraft gun, or a grenade which by reading the constitution one would think you would have that right?
Â
@counterBalance"armed (with something)knowing something or carrying something that you need in order to help you to perform a task." The 2nd amendment does not define what "arms"are specifically. You can "arm" yourself with a rifle or an axe, the choice is pretty much up to the individual. So the choice of tanks or grenade launchers is within the scope of the amendment. The citizens back then had the same weapons the Army had ,, thus so should we today.
@counterBalance, I find it ironic that the anti-gun people accuse pro-gun people of 'paranoia', when clearly the anti-gun people are showing their fear of guns to such an extent that they want to ban ALL gun. Extremism in your case is purely paranoia about guns you don't understand and people who own guns, legally I might add, with no intention to ever commit a crime, whom you've categorized by some unfounded stereotype. In short, anti-gunners show more paranoia than pro-gunners.Â
@counterBalance @Crashbox No, you are wrong on all accounts. This has nothing to do with assault weapons and everything to do with an unconstitutional assault on our constitutional rights. Do you really believe that by enacting a ban that only law abiding citizens will follow is going to make gun free zones safe? The Sandy Hook killer killed his mother first before he went to the school. What laws did he abide to? Should the school children have gotten up and yelled at the killer because he was breaking laws? Do you think the survivors would sleep better at night because that killer was told he was breaking laws?
You want to talk about fear and bad dreams try explaining to your children and family that daddy might not be able to come home soon when 3000 people died because of 4 airplanes that were used as weapons. I had to. How many laws did these hijackers break? Do you think the passengers and the victims on the ground were yelling at the hijackers that they were breaking laws? Do you think it would have made my friends family take their loss easier because someone told the hijackers they were breaking the law?
And if you are trying to make a point about changing the constitution at least read it. Have you ever heard of article V? This is how amendments are changed. The problem is you know you do not have a majority wanting change so you and your similarly deficient thinking friends try repeatedly to bypass our process of changing the constitution. You are selfish and you try to put guilt on everyone else by using Sandy Hook as your posters for change instead of clear non sensationalized congruent thinking that you and your friends are clearly not capable of.
And another example of your foot in mouth disease is your last rant about owning a tank or other items when you even quote "reading the constitution one would think you would have that right?". Yes, please read the constitution before you once again apply foot to mouth.
@counterBalance @Crashbox Actually, you CAN own a tank. And grenades. They are kind of expensive, and require a lot of paperwork, but.... But how is it that YOU and your type (whatever type that may be) are OK with clear and obvious infringements on a right that YOU don't like? Would you like it if they required government approval for churches and church attendance? What about book registration? What about automatic GPS tracking on all movements, "for the safety of the children" of course. What about requiring a government tax stamp for all published writings that fall in any way outside of certain "approved" avenues of thought, and you had to get a sign-off from the local sheriff if your ideas fell outside of those ideas? Would the fact that you could write SOME things, and go SOME places, and attend SOME churches and read SOME books mean that those rights were not being infringed?
That's dumb. Like banning the top to car models that teenagers have the most DUI related accidents in. The laws punishes legal and safe owners for the actions of felons. Simple answer, put criminals away for longer. Nearly every shooting story starts by saying the person arrested has a long record of similar offenses........
And they can't ban the mini-14, that's what the A-team used on the tv show.
It's readily apparent you have no concept of the word FREEDOM! Our forefathers were very smart men and created our Constitution based on HISTORY! People like you, who cannot learn from HISTORY, are DOOMED TO RELIVE IT! Guns KEEP the people free from the tyranny of corrupt GOVERNMENT. People like YOU deserve EVERYTHING you get. When the secret police come knocking on your door and haul you off to the death camp, you'll wish you remembered your HISTORY LESSONS.Â
why must these morons insist on targeting law abiding people?  I have every right to own a AR-15 with a 30 round clip. The asteroid near miss a few days ago should serve as a powerful reminder how easily our society could be severely impacted by a natural disaster that would cripple law and order. Earthquakes, terrorist attack. To hell with you Feinstein. I WILL NOT BE DISARMED.
@Rick4001CSÂ http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/difference-between-clip-and-magazine/ ;)
@Rick4001CS Just remember - it's not about guns, it's about control. Any benefit is incidental, or even detrimental to their goals. The LAST thing they want is a strong, independent, self-reliant population, because they don't NEED government.
Why interview an FBI agent from the 1986 Miami shootout? They blew it six ways from Sunday there - going after guys they KNEW had rifles only wearing body armor rated for stopping handgun rounds, a couple of them (the ones with the sub-guns as it turns out) who were supposed to be in the stake-out/take-down were off "entertaining" a waitress, etc., etc. Not the best source for a story. It protects some guns, but would outlaw a bunch of others that are substantially the same... Industrial strength stupid, and also proves they don't understand a simple word "infringe." Only someone dumb enough to spend a trillion more than they have, while still claiming they don't have a spending problem, could POSSIBLY think this is a good idea.
@RN1"Why interview an FBI agent from the 1986 Miami shootout?"
It's called propaganda mate. You know, tell a lie over and over and even the liar believes his own story. In this case, it's called singing to the flock.
@komoispropaganda @RN1 It was a rhetorical question :-)
She knows she has to start somewhere. This is incrementalism. Of course the end goal for Feinstein is that none of us have guns.
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
Feinstein's abortion of a bill, as written, would ban all guns.  It states that it bans guns with a pistol grip, but then it goes on to define "pistol grip" in such a way that the ban would affect everything that can be gripped. Â
She is also on record stating that if she could get enough votes that she would confiscate all guns from private citizens.
She's a traitor and deserves a traitor's fate.
@burton Which for someone privileged enough to have a California CPL is staggering hypocrisy. Of course, if it weren't for double standards Democrats wouldn't have any standards at all
I really don't understand why we cant vote for each proposed gun law, one at a time...otherwise they will lump all sorts of ridiculous things together.
@AlexWÂ My inalienable rights are not up for vote.
@AlexW Ridiculous things? When your free thinking neighbors are rounded up and placed in cattle trailers headed to a fema camp, maybe you'll figure it out. A cold slap in the face will either kill you, or save you.
If the people, and I mean everybody, don't figure out that the fascist leadership in the Oval Office is trying to completely destroy your freedoms, then my fight will be even harder considering that I'll have to take up the slack from the sheep that believe the government is all good and well.
I've got something for feinstein. It's called a militia that will put her where she belongs.
While were at it...let's make some changes to the 1st Amendment as well: how about all negative comments made about the U.S. government are illegal and punishable by law? Would that be okay too?
I noticed that the article only mentions legit reasons for owning a gun would be hunting or sporting purposes. Not one word about the legitimate need of self defense. If I had to own one gun that satisfies a legitimate hunting, sporting/recreational, and self defense purpose it would be the modern day semi-automatic, scary looking rifle. The only word about protection is in the title.Â
Lets not forget that the insane Texas clock tower shooter in 1966 that, killed 17 and wounded 31 others, did most of his damage with a high powered bolt action rifle. The kind that fits their definition of legitimate, the kind he or she loves to hunt with.Â
To Feinstein and others like you. Stay out of my gun safe, you will never be allowed in.
The scariest part of this article is that they continuously use the phrase "legitimate uses" as if it is a phrase we all already agree on. Who the hell are these folks to decide what is and is not a "legitimate use"? To gloss over that deliberately used language in your reading of these articles is to allow yourself to be brainwashed. It's too bad the skill of critical thinking isn't taught in our schools much anymore...
@GraySkies Ask them for permitting for "legitimate uses" of the 1st, or 4th, or 5th Amendment, and see how they think of it. Sadly, though, some people WOULD be fine with it.
This isn't going to be popular, nor am I making the statement to make friends or follow the herd, the time has come to draw the line. Assault weapons and assault 'style' weapons need to be pulled off the shelf. Gun owners and potential owners need to step up their game and show they are willing to be responsible for the weapons they choose to posess. I feel that if one wishes to purchase a firearm, they must pass a background check and a psyche exam. That they can clearly establish they have the proper means to store the gun safely. Safety courses need to be required as well. No matter where the gun is to be purchased, via private or public sale. Now to rub more salt in the wounds of the falsely self entitled "I should be able to own a howitzer if I wish 'cause it's my god given right as an American" people, not only should the background check, safety courses, and psyche exams, be done prior to the purchasem they should be required annually or they should loose the privelage of owning a gun. Finally, just so I feel that every NRA member is frothing at the mouth, guns and owners need to be tracked. Yes, that means keeping records. Why? unless the gun was initially stolen from a store, millitary depot, or private individual, AND the theft is reported, there is no tracking of said weapon beyond the initial buyer. Furthermore, almost every gun in the hands of those who shouldn't be allowed to have them, was origionally obtained legally.
@what? Driving a car is a privilege ,,, owning a gun is a protected "RIGHT" under the 2nd amendment. Your user name pretty much explains your ignorance. "what?. What don't you understand ,, its dog gone simple.
@what? What part of "shall not be infringed" are you incapable of understanding? The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us against a government that would try and stomp on our God Given rights. It doesn't grant us anything we didn't already have. Are you ready to have everything else you do tracked? Everything you write? Everything you say? What other rights are you willing to give up? I'm not willing to give up any of them. Too many people have died to protect those rights and I'll hold faith with them.
Oh, and to quote an old bumper sticker, "I'm the NRA, and I vote!"
@what? The Mexican government just asked Congress to pass an ACT requiring all border states to turn over any lists or registrations of gun owners in those states to Congress, who in turn will turn them over to the Mexican Government.  This was on 2/15/2013.
As the Mexican government supports its drug cartels and other illegals crossing over into the yards and ranches in those states, do you think that maybe - just maybe - it would be handy for them to know which Americans had weapons, and what kind? Â
When our Country was founded, it was decided then that Americans had the right to own weapons. Â Its the Country we were born into or obtained citizenship in. Â Texas and Arizona will not be giving the names and any registration info to any government - including Mexico. Â
@what? What do "you" consider an assault weapon?
@what? This is still America, and thankfully what you would like to see doesn't matter. Pulling all "assault style weapons off the shelves" is completely pointless. Cosmetics and a bayonet lug are the only thing that make them different then anything else. Oh, maybe the pistol grip that "makes it easier to fire from the hip". Ever tried that? It's not.
Background checks are already conducted in many of the guns sales, and many private sellers require a BOS and to see a CPL or WAC card.
"Psyche Exams" - Uhh... No. Why you ask? Because if passed it would be a perfectly "legal" way to deny a person from getting a firearm based on some officials "opinion" of a person mental health, aka controlling who buys what and when for no reason. It would be abused.
Annual checks? Also a no go. It's my right to own them, not my privileged. Requiring yearly checks infringes on that.
Keeping records? Are you getting where I am going yet, the whole right thing... The government doesn't need to know what I own. I have nothing to hide, but that sure as heck doesn't mean my door is open to everyone.
@what? So, you are really unclear on that concept of right, and are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word infringe, right? But we knew that.You also seem to have a weak grasp of history, both US and 20th C, political science, and really have no concept of freedom. You also don't quite seem to get human nature, cause and effect, and psychology.
Simple item - point to anywhere, at any time, that restricting the average persons ability to own and carry weapons has lead to a significant reduction in the crime and murder rate. You want to restrict right because you are afraid of an inanimate object, prove the proposed remedy works. Where, when, how much did it drop? None of the standard BS comparing the US to Canada or the UK; we're different. Time-series data. Hard research. Where and when?
@what? what do you propose for all the crazies and criminals that dont follow the Law?
@what? I could apply all of your doctrine to parenthood, and the requirements thereof. Your 'thinks' have no merit unless you're going to require all the armed punks and criminals on the street. How are you going to enforce all of your conditions to gang members and loonies on the street?
Your rant is just as smart as you are, not very.
@what? "Assault weapons and assault 'style' weapons need to be pulled off the shelf"  Why?
@Watcher3Â @what? Because people that are on or use Psych Drugs that kill people and kids have more rights than people that are law abiding gun owners. Guns must be in the way of the Demoratic Party. The only thing I can Think.