The sad part is the same guns she has banned , her body guards run around using. A double standard that states your life and the lives of your family are less important.

You mean trained body guards. Can every gun owner show the same qualifications?

I wonder if her "bill" will tie the hands of law enforcement officers, like that idiot Cuomo did in N.Y.

@John Plum - can you point out where the Second Amendment talks about required training?

"The 94 ban reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons..."

Well of course it did, anybody who argues that gun control doesn't work is fooling themselves, it does, in fact, bring the numbers down for gun related deaths. The REAL problem with gun control is that it boosts the numbers of all those other forms of assaulting people, bat, knife, frying pan, whatever. The problem might be solved, but it is only solved temporarily.

Soon you will have much higher death tolls for other weapons, those 30,000 deaths have to go somewhere. People will still be violent, crime will still happen. Anybody who assumes it will be safe, is also fooling themselves.

Remember this, the gun can take your life quickly, mercifully. The knife will show no mercy, as you bleed out and your killer savors their kill. If I knew I had to die, I'd rather it be quick.

@airdog

A "well regulated militia." Not regulated, not part of military = second amendment doesn't apply.

Or, JP, can you point out in her bill where training makes any difference?

Once again, you do have to thank DiFi for going for so much over-the-top she gets nothing.

Now, knowing about the 1780, semi-automatic, 20 shot Girandoni rifle, you have to wonder why the founding fathers in 1791 added "shall not be infringed"? Maybe because they meant it and saw no problems with either semi-auto or magazines (tubular in this case) having more than 20 rounds?

And for those who keep using the modern meaning of "well regulated" please go to the Wiki page on the Second Amendment and see it really means trained, familiar, and experienced. For God's sake, learn some history and that languages change.

Actually John I can and so can most of us that spent time in the military so I guess that means we should not be held to her ignorant standard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just because you are to ignorant to be able to handle a firearm does not mean the majority of Americans are not!!!!!

This cow is a perfect example of what is wrong with our government, she believes in the theory "do as I say not as I do" We need to get rid of hacks like her. We need term limits on these lying thieving pieces of garb that are in the senate and congress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets get rid of them!

Cameron; yo are a moron and have no clue what the 2nd amendment means, The militia in that time was considered every able body man!!!! So I guess it does apply to every law abiding citizen..

I am tired of libs thinking I should be punished because some criminal breaks the law... Lets just ban anything criminals have used to commit crimes with, I guess we can all just sit around and twittle our thumbs because criminals have used everything to break laws!!!! Ignorant usefulidiot libs!!!!!!!!!

Cameron, the militia is by no means part of the military.

It's like when people say the National Guard is the "organized militia."

Please. No militia gets deployed overseas to fight wars.

They are for defensive, not offensive purpose.

Cameron Ford...

The "militia" is actually the PEOPLE not part of the National Guard or the Active Army.

You really would be much better off if you educated yourself.

Preserving your own life does not require training, it requires you giving value to your life and the lives of your family. Giving up the right to self preservation , regardless of the cause of harm , is losing the value of your life and the value of your family's lives.

The real contributor to violence in America is not guns, its our drug policy. How many murders happen because of gangs? Feinstein's bill is just trying to fix the effects, rather than going after the root cause.

I wonder if her "bill" will tie the hands of law enforcement officers, like that idiot Cuomo did in N.Y.

That would be the only good part of the bill. The police should only be allowed to use whatever guns a regular citizen can legally use.

old grey wolf; It did not bring down gun crimes or gun deaths, as a matter of fact columbine happened during the so called assault weapons ban. That is why it was allowed to go away it did not help!!!

The "well regulated militia" was added because states were not contributing revenue to the federal government for keeping a military at that time. Something that has changed since. If you read the history and writing and arguments for "well regulated militia" you would all see this and no, you are not entitled to a nation guard and a militia because of this. All of you above, educate yourselves a little.

I wonder if she wears a bullet proof jacket.

John Plum - Oh you mean like trained professionals? "In 2005, (New York Police) officers fired 472 times ..., hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year." Arent police trained to shoot to kill? They were only successful 9 times out of 472 shots fired.

OR

The "Empire state building shooting" : "Police officers fired a total of 16 rounds; one officer shot nine while another one shot seven, the New York Police Department said." THEY HIT THE PERP ONCE and shot a bystander! Those must be the "trained" ones you speak of...

garrie, thanks for pointing that out early. Well, kind of. What I meant to say was something like Great Britain, an all out ban type of thing, unfortunately I ran out of time before I could edit it.

By the way, Columbine doesn't exactly account for all of the deaths during 1999 by guns. Insulting me when I'm on your side also makes you look quite foolish.

She tried to get guns banned while she was mayor of San Fransisco and all the while had a permit for and carried a concealed weapon. She is and has been a terrible Senator for CA.

BAN them... BAN every one of them... how can we allow faces like that to walk the halls of Congress....

With Feinstein, Hillary, Pelosi & Napolitano......... it could cause a war......

You mean the 1780, semi-automatic, 20 shot Girandoni air rifle? First it required special training to use. Second it took 1500 strokes of a hand pump to refill the air reservoirs. Third the country at the time was still largely untamed.

A 2004 study..found that the ban appeared to have “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Any questions?

DingleB, how DARE you come in here with official statements and trying to spread the truth, all the while not insulting anyone. *insert tasteless overused tinfoil hat joke here*

DingleB,

What 2004 study? You mean something that the NRA put out that was manufactured for a certain amount of days in a certain area that would show "no discernible reduction in the lethality . . ."? Give me a break. These guns, magazines need to go and everyone needs a background check.

A ban on assault weapons is pointless. It doesn't matter what the platform that dispenses the bullets looks like. If they want to change things, limit the ammo, plain and simple. Most rifles are already limited to 5 rounds. That seems reasonable. Hand guns are not rifles, when it comes to 1 shot lethality. Limiting the magazines to what fits flush into the grip should be enough. This is the problem you get when people that don't know anything about guns try to come up with solutions about guns.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

OK....Everybody who is anti-gun continuously gets this wrong. The comma is a substitute for "and". "and the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms" is totally separate from the first part about the militia. So quit stating which is obviously wrong! The right of the PEOPLE has nothing to do with the militia and has it's own meaning meant for the PEOPLE.

Kragg, and into that untamed country Lewis and Clark took one, 1500 strokes and all, on their 1804 expedition to the Pacific coast. The Girandoni required no special training beyond learning how to change out the air flask. It's downside was the expense of manufacture. The Continental Congress had ordered another multi-shot rifle but cancelled when they balked at the cost. Still, knowning semi-auto, mult-shot technology existed, and that it would improve, they included "shall not be infringed" and the Federal govenment did not limit further even with technological advancements of the civil war.

BTW, the Austrian army had a special mechanised pump that relieved the individual soldier from having to reill the air cylinder and the two spares they each carried (60+ rounds in all). While it did lose maximum range as the pressure dropped it was still lethal from 150 to 20 yards. Several European cities banned them (the modern equivalent of New York) but the new American government kept "shall not be infringed" as their final word.

As for AnnaBanana and the "well regulated" tax angle - go read the Wiki article on the 2nd - please - so you can stop spreading modern misinterpretations. Thank you!

OldGreyWolf

Someone will try to rationalize a new ban anyway. "Yeah, but this time it will be different, this time the ban includes only ONE military-like feature" "It will work this time for sure!" All the while these arguments will fail to take into account that the number of "assault weapons" in circulation went from 1.5 million in 110 million in less than 20 years due to the threat of a ban. These arguments will fail to acknowledge that "assault weapons" account for less than 350 deaths each year even though there are over 75 times more rifles than there was 20 years ago. The mindless rationalization will fail to take into account the illogical nature of arbitrarily banning a spcecific model of gun, while allowing another which is responsible for more than 30 times more deaths each year. But what can you do?

Is that a turquoise necklace she has on????hhhmmmmm. Remember the Wounded Knee Massacre?

AnaBanana-1782128

Try reading the article.

1) The good madame doesn't know an assault rifle from a semi-automatic rifle. She proved that last time by perusing the catalog and picking out what looked scary. Now she's going even further.

2) According to FBI stats for 2011, there were 323 murders by rifle of any kind in the entire country. There were many times that number by knife/beating/bomb/throwing out window/poison. Kindly look at the stats, and you can click in there and break down the #s for your state.

And the gang-bangers will NOT be "de-gunned" until the gang-banger issue is resolved (meaning knock off the welfare, ensure that people are working and being responsible for their children). Since the votes are bought, I do NOT see that happening.

So take your pick, shoot to stop the armed s.o.b. who's broken into your home and coming at you and/or your family, or tell him to wait a few minutes please 'cause you have to call the police.

And the gang-bangers will NOT be "de-gunned" until the gang-banger issue is resolved (meaning knock off the welfare, ensure that people are working and being responsible for their children). Since the votes are bought, I do NOT see that happening.

Lol thats what you think will make the gang bangers stop? You are funny. The gangs will start to go away when we decriminalize or legalize all drugs and prostitution. Lets make these black markets a regulated normal market. Lets send addicts to rehab instead of prison. Gangs exist because there is money to be made outside of the law, not because the government hands out welfare.

The NRA is crying there coming for your guns. Same old tired scare tactic's. Its time to change the second amendment, to meet the needs of the day. This law is over 200 years old. It is time to bring it up to date. The only reason for a militia today is to make trouble for the states. A hand full of Anarchistic that don't like who the American people elected think they can take over the Country because they have AR 15's and a thousand rounds of ammo. Who do you think you speak for? Not me, I will fight my own fights thank you. We all have seen how you fold like a house of cards when you get all mouthy and make threats against the State and Federal government. Your all talk and show. We elect our government. Our only threat comes from Big Business. They buy our Representative to do there will, not the Peoples will. If you want to do something for your country, That should be your fight. We should all work together to out law Lobbying once and for all. We must stop these big business run lobby's from bushing money into local and state Elections too. People like the Koch Brothers are the biggest Threat to these United States. They strip the land, freely pollute the water, air and land. Then get there paid congressmen to make the tax payers, pay for the clean up ,while protecting there profits. To me that Cooperate welfare. But we can't get the so called entitlements we all paid into all of our life's. Am I the only that thinks by letting big business run things here just like they did in England is wrong? We always talk about fearing our government. I say it is our government and we should take it back from big Business. That means outlawing Lobbying. And Term limits for all states. And public funded elected only. No out side money. No more Congress representing big business, but representing WE THE PEOPLE that elected them. Put Country first over party, and stop the fraud that big business has been allowed to get away with on America for so many years. These People like Insurance company's have been taking our money and not paying up when we need them. We shouldn't have to get a lawyer every time we need out insurance policy to help us when we need it. People we have real problem's to solve and these things that keeps us at each others. We sill never get this Great Country back where it should be if we don't get back to honesty. Big Business has ripped us off for years now. We can not keep a roof over our heads, food on the table and we can not afford the Med's we need to keeps us alive. Yet Insurance company rip us off every day and get away with it. I have no problem with a company making a good product and making a good profit. But with what these CEO's think they should make these days just makes me sick. They get paid for running a company into the Ground, and then demand the bonuses they were promised even if they didn't do there job. What is up with that? A worker at that same company will be fired if they come back from brake 1 min late.

The Big Bad Military Style Automatic Rifle, called by the uniformed an "Assault Rifle", when you look at the actual number of people killed by this weapon, is a teeny tinny part of the problem. Hammers/blunt objects kill 30 times more people each year, hands/fists/feet kill 40 times more people each year, knives/sharp objects kill 100 times more people each year than this weapon which has all the attention. This is par for the course though, democrats see the shinny object and can't wrap their little minds around the real problem, which has nothing to do with guns, hammers, feet, or knives. But that would address the real problem, which might make them and their job irrelevant. "But if it saves one life it will be worth it", they say. Fine, then apply that philosophy to everything we come in contact with since why should it matter if someone dies buy hands, knives, hammers, guns, or say a car accident. Yet they want to be called "Progressives", progressive my a$$.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." To clarify. The first part of this sentence sets the reason and cause. In order for the people to form a militia they must be able to provide the arms required for a militia. And because of this the right of the people to bear arms cannot be infringed. There is no amount of reasoning that would allow even the bans we have in law now. They are constitutional violations. Adding another violation is more signs that our militias to defend our nation from internal tyranny is more needed now than ever before. Many have already posted on many different forms quotes from our founding fathers clearly showing they expected the people to be equally armed with any government. It was a direct result of having to go against the law of Britain and use illegal arms to kick the tyrant out. The criminals we call founding fathers used their illegal arms to defeat the over-sized liberal/progressive government of England. We will not go back to lords and kings issuing executive orders over us poor peasants. In America each individual is a sovereign and endowed with God given self evident rights. We will defend ourselves.

Dear AnaB.:

In response to your question, the study listed in the article was a "2004 study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania for the Department of Justice". No NRA axes ground here.

Anybody who claims to hunt and says their is no need for "high capacity magazines" is obviously not a hunter.

These people just like to pretend they hunt, real hunters know there isn't just deer out there. Dangerous game like coyote and wolves are far more dangerous and normally travel in packs. Big Grizzly can take more than a few .308s and keep on trucking.

Let's conduct an experiment. Let's throw someone in a room with a table with a pistol, a bolt action rifle, and an AR-15 with a 30 round mag. On the other side of the liftable see-thru wall, there is going to be a Grizzly on the other side. I guarantee 10/10 that person is going to jump for that AR-15 and shoot that bear as many times as they can, or be killed trying.

People only like to criticize when they aren't in imminent danger. Those that are in imminent danger and don't understand why something happened, always come out with an idiotic analysis of the situation.

FACT: Most anti-gunners have never even touched a gun, yet want a force they cannot possibly understand, banned.

The same Senator Feinstein that carried a concealed pistol in San Faransisco when handguns were illegal? Fascinating, Senator please tell me more about how you want to restrict the masses but keep yourself above the law.

LaVall. You post has no meaning. The Supreme Courts has settled this argument. We have the right to bear arms. But the Government has the right to regulate what kinds of Arm's we can own. You are wasting your time, but knock your self out.

Nice flat spot right between her eyes...

We already have a well-regulated milita. It's called your local police department. Not enough? Well, we have the Coast Guard, National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Secret Service, U.S. Marshalls, DEA, ATF, Border Patrol, county sheriffs, and State Police. Quit hiding behind the well-regulated militia nonsense. Back in the 1700's, when there were far fewer of us, when we lived far apart in a rural society, when the British Navy was a threat, when we had Indians to worry about, we needed folks to be able to band together with arms. Now, the Indians own casinos and the British royals go to Vegas to party.

As far as I am concerned, they can ban all guns except, hunting rifles/shotguns and six-shot revolvers for use as home protection. Anything else is pointless, except to those who simply want to own some sick toy to satisfy their fetish. Ban the guns, give people 90 days to turn them in, then start confiscation.

Too harsh? Okay, make gun ownership expensive, REALLY expensive. Permits renewable on a yearly basis, for each gun you own, the cost varies based on the type of weapon. Make bullets really costly, too. There are so many ways you can make it onerous and costly to indulge in this sick fantasy.

If you oppose any gun control measures, then you are telling me you don't care about all of these senseless deaths. That being the case, why should I care about your rights?

I'm open to reasonable firearms restrictions that would actually help. IE not just banning assault weapons that are exactly the same as other rifles just because they 'look scary'. A ranch mini-14 and a AR-15 will do almost exactly the same damage, but only one of them is an 'assault weapon'. What next? Banning guns that are painted black cause they scare people?
I support closing the gunshow loophole and more background checks/mental health checks..

Feinstein needs to go to North Korea or some other freedom hating country.

Btw EC-2541448 why don't you just "TRY" to confiscate my gun. If you ran things you'd be responsible for millions of deaths across america.

EC, if you support repealing the second amendment then you are telling me you don't care about all of those senseless murders people couldn't defend themselves in. That being the case, why should I care about your rights?

If I can't have an AR-15, I want any and all sports cars banned. They are gas guzzlers, pollute the environment, gave me asthma, and are owned by people who want to satisfy their car fetish. Ban sports cars, we have no use for them.

By the way, you know Indians are the people in Asia, right? Try Native Americans, I'm guessing you never think about Wounded Knee like the rest of the anti gunners. You know, where my people were told they were being "disarmed for their own protection" and then promptly slaughtered.

Tecumseh once said: Flags were given to my people, and they were told they were now the children of the Americans. We were told, if any white people mean to harm you, hold up these flags and you will then be safe from all danger. We did this in good faith. But what happened? Our beloved chief Moluntha stood with the American flag in front of him and that very peace treaty in his hand, but his head was chopped by a American officer, and that American officer was never punished. Brother, after such bitter events, can you blame me for placing little confidence in the promises of Americans?

How about another quote?

"If you want my arms, come and take them. If the leader of white men himself approaches me and asks for my weapons, I will honor his courage and hand over my arms, until the time of this, I will wait for his envoys of death, and I will not let them rest until I lay with my blood staining the ground, such will many true Americans." -A quote claimed to be from one of my ancestors.

If you want these arms, they will come at a cost. You would do well to remember that.

AnaBanana-1782128

DingleB,

What 2004 study? You mean something that the NRA put out that was manufactured for a certain amount of days in a certain area that would show "no discernible reduction in the lethality . . ."? Give me a break. These guns, magazines need to go and everyone needs a background check.

The 2004 study that was commissioned by the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Ana. Not only is it referenced in this article (did you even read it before commenting?), but you can easily find the narrative of the entire report online. Since you didn't read the article though, you probably won't go look for it, so I put it right here for you: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf. Note that the federal government requested the study and the NRA had nothing to do with it. Why don't you give the rest of us a break after you read it.

SMH

No EC, that is police, not a militia. A militia in historic terms was citizen who organized fend against invasion whether from Indians or countries.

Often the militia was the front line until reinforcements from formal units could arrive assuming the units received word in time to respond. Those military units would then join the Miltia to fight the intruders.

Refer to the French and Indian wars for more on this.

For the 1776 revolution, the continental army was first made up of people who were serving in militia's who volunteered to be part of a standing army. One reason militia members did this was because the standing army would get paid, where the militias did not.

EC-2541448

You don't have to "care" about my rights. The Constitution exists whether you like it or not. (BTW, the Constitution also prohibits the harassment of citizens by their government, which is exactly what your proposed measures would be. It's laughable that you accuse those who are against the type of gun control Feinstein, Cuomo and your ilk propose of being radical, yet you're so so far on the wrong side of this, "radical" isn't even close to a description for your "ideas".)

Making Mexico pay for any and all damages and or expenses incurred by the United States or

any of its institutions or citizens by Mexican national who entered the United States illegally or

remained in the United States after their visas expired or

caused a person, such as a child to be in the United States unlawfully, or

gave birth to a child while inside the United Stated in order to defraud, or

encouraged a person to enter the United States unlawfully, or

used a non-profit organization, charity, or religion, to aid and/or abet a person who is in the United States unlawfully.

Hands and feet have killed more people so lets ban them to. Then we can all be handless and feetless.

@EC

Do you know what a militia is? It is not under the control of any Government, it exists solely for the defense of the people of their respective states... Forgive me if I dont trust law enforcement with everything, Anaheim California anyone? Police had no trouble sending attack dogs on children (video is on youtube)

All this hype is nonsense going in circles, chasing it's tail.

At the end of the day, no gun bans will happen. Nobody will be breaking down anybody's door to confiscate weapons and drag them off to FEMA camps or the like. People will get to own their weapons and all the political rhetoric will slowly fade away. Legislation that is passed will be stricken down over time. And all those gun makers and gun store owners will laugh all the way to the bank, retiring to Tahiti.

banning assault weapons will not work.. there are millions out there... and last time people just started using other guns....

since the ban expired gun violence is way down....

this is a knee jerk reaction to a complex social problem, it's a further erosion of personal rights by our government... just tack it on to FISA warrants, illegal; wiretaps, loss of free speech and all the other things that have happened since 9/11

I won't vote for anyone in our government who votes against our personal rights regardless of which amendment it is...

search and seizure, habeas corpus, free speech, right to bear arms...

when are you guys going to say 'enough'?!!!!!!!!!

Guess what our beloved Senator that wants to do away with all guns had, and maybe still does? ......... A CONCEILED CARRY PERMIT!!!!!! Indeed she did and still might. Can you say .....Hypocrit!!!!!!!!!! LOL

And more service men and women comitted suicide than died by rifles of any kind last year. Where is the outrage over that??????

Gun ownership has gone up every year for the past ten years. Violent crime has went DOWN each of the last 10 years. Unless one lives in the democratic Meca of Chicago.

Violent crime went down quite a bit after the previous assault rifle ban EXPIRED.

Ban that crap. Forever!

Sen. Feinstein introduces stringent assault weapons ban, foresees 'uphill' battle

Get rid of this idiot!! Now.

Feinstein is a traitor to America she needs to be impeached immediatly.

As a native Californian I am baffled how Feinstein keeps being re-elected.A ban will not keep anybody safer.Every time gang members are arrested nine times out of ten the cops confiscate assault rifles at their residences.

Maybe if we painted them pink with a Hello-Kitty motif on them they wouldn't look so scary.

Cameron Ford

@airdog

A "well regulated militia." Not regulated, not part of military = second amendment doesn't apply.

#1.6 -

"Ignorance is a tool of the tyrant, and they use the ignorant to do their bidding." Robert Reedy 2008

Cameron- in 2008 and again in 2010 the SCOTUS rules the 2nd is an individual right, for all those who have the Constitution all backwards.

I am born with the right of free speech, religion, self defense, (against fellow citizens, i.e. criminals, and my government) and the right to be secure in my person. These rights are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution is an enumeration of the limits upon my Government to how they can affect my rights.

The sad thing is, the AR 15 and AR10 systems were just becoming very effective hunting platforms. I have an AR 15 lower with a .243 Winchester SSM heavy barrel ,(for prairie dogs) and a 6.8mm for deer, I was going to get a .50 Beowulf for wild hogs and a .223 for OTHER.

Oh well, I guess stupid people will out.

And to all you dope smoking hippy liberals:

Up until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun), a BAR (Clyde Barrows gun) or even an M2 (all were heavily used during WWII). Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)? It was not uncommon to walk into a hardware store and buy a case of dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 80 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Without the Father, the mothers too becomes irrelevant as they are busy earn a living, instead caring for their young. This is left to the daycare and schools. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant. History is irrelevant.

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

For Anabanana, this is the site of the "what report": http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf.

Another "Sh!t for Brains" liberal acting like a commie as usual! And she carries herself. What freaking hypocrite to say the least. She actually believes that people buy assault weapons for hunting purposes only. People buy assault weapons for many reasons, one is for home protection; one is for hunting; and one is to remove tyrannical governments if it comes to that. But being a disingenuous liberal hack she may fear the later the most! That's probably why she wants to disarm the population as much as possible. I wonder how it must feel to be despised by half the nation because your a lying hack of a politician? I guess only her ilk knows the answer to that one. Like I said before, if my neighbor has a bazooka, I want to be able to have one too. And if the bad guys break into my home, I want a machine gun to repel them to hell! Imagine telling the bad guy to hold on while you reload your rifle or revolver? Yeah, right!

I wish just there was just ONE journalist who had the balls to tell Pelosi that these are not assault weapons. They are weapons that look like what politicians think assault weapons look like.

DiFi is old and senile. She needs to retire and let someone else without a brain wasting disease take over.

The following quotes are taken directly from Senator Feinsteins own Senate web site.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/12/feinstein-to-introduce-updated-assault-weapons-bill-in-new-congress

”A Justice Department study found the Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decline in total gun murders.”

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=ec4f7ec2-12e2-4f53-a4ae-0778889d49bd

“Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.”

“…our best estimate of the short-run effect is that the ban produced a 6.7 percent
reduction in gun murders in 1995. However, we caution that for the reasons just explained, we cannot statistically rule out the possibility that no effect occurred.”

“Our best estimate of the impact of the ban on state level gun homicide rates is that it caused a
reduction of 6.7% in gun murders in 1995 relative to a projection of recent trends. However, the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).”

Senator Feinstein claims that her 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for the 6.7 percent decrease in total crime, citing a DOJ study that basically states, while there was an additional 6.7 percent decrease relative to projection between 1994 and 1995, there was no conclusive evidence that the Assault Weapons Ban had any effect.

This is a LIE, They have the votes or else they would not even try. This is a ploy to make people think that the gun ban will not pass.

The Best thing that the democrats are at doing is lieing, and second best is controlling the mass media.

"Barry Soetero" from Columbia University has an ID card with "Foreign Student" on the front of it and Barrack Hussein Obama*s picture.

If Obama* was born in Hawaii, why would a college ID from New York City say "Foreign Student" on it?

why did Obama need a fake name and ID to go to college?

The 30 plus year long Cheating scandal at Harvard Law school is the reason Obama refuses to release his college transcripts. And Sotomayer too.

A "well regulated militia." Not regulated, not part of military = second amendment doesn't apply.

What garbage this claim is.

Here is the definition of "militia"

10USC311:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

 PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
    Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

..This blows your foolish assertion all to hell, doesn't it?

You mean the 1780, semi-automatic, 20 shot Girandoni air rifle? First it required special training to use. Second it took 1500 strokes of a hand pump to refill the air reservoirs. Third the country at the time was still largely untamed

It actually only took 22 strokes to fill the tank to 800psi and lasted approximately 40 shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-pqFyKh-rUI

My bad, held 22 rounds, not 22 strokes to charge. But still, 40 shots per charge.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.^[8]

1. what part of the right of the people don't you understand

2. The sandy hook shooting wasn't purported by an "assault rifle". They found it in his trunk after the shooting

3. These people don't buy these guns legally so more restrictions wont help that will just make it harder on the legal people.

4. Gun control has been shown to increase serious crime such as rape, robbery and manslaughter.

5. 350 people in eight years have died from assault weapons huh? more people die waiting to get into the hospital in a week than that. and your going to punish 2 or 3 million people that own these types of guns for a couple crazy bastards that did that to 350 people.

I don't try to take away your freedom. If you want to go get drunk, do drugs, pay for sex or anything else your little heart desires do it just be prepared to deal with the consequences. Why try to take away my freedoms when I havent done anything to get those freedoms taken away? All these people are doing is hurting the legal gun owner and turning the people into subjects of the government.

Anyone going to comment on the irony that even though drunk drivers kill and maim and destroy more families than guns do every year, not one politician has suggested trying another ban of alcohol?

Or the fact that both a medical AND a government study has shown that more deaths are occurring from prescription overdoses than from street drugs have not resulted in a single politician suggesting that doctors restrict addictive prescriptions, especially to juveniles injured from sports?

compton-7690066

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.^[8]

1. what part of the right of the people don't you understand

2. The sandy hook shooting wasn't purported by an "assault rifle". They found it in his trunk after the shooting

3. These people don't buy these guns legally so more restrictions wont help that will just make it harder on the legal people.

4. Gun control has been shown to increase serious crime such as rape, robbery and manslaughter.

5. 350 people in eight years have died from assault weapons huh? more people die waiting to get into the hospital in a week than that. and your going to punish 2 or 3 million people that own these types of guns for a couple crazy bastards that did that to 350 people.

I don't try to take away your freedom. If you want to go get drunk, do drugs, pay for sex or anything else your little heart desires do it just be prepared to deal with the consequences. Why try to take away my freedoms when I haven't done anything to get those freedoms taken away? All these people are doing is hurting the legal gun owner and turning the people into subjects of the government.

#1.73 -

@ #2 "They found it in his trunk after the shooting" Correction, what they found in the trunk was a Shotgun, (Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot,) according to the police report.

But otherwise a good post.

screminmimi

Anyone going to comment on the irony that even though drunk drivers kill and maim and destroy more families than guns do every year, not one politician has suggested trying another ban of alcohol?

Or the fact that both a medical AND a government study has shown that more deaths are occurring from prescription overdoses than from street drugs have not resulted in a single politician suggesting that doctors restrict addictive prescriptions, especially to juveniles injured from sports? #1.74

as an addendum:

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (I have read estimates between 60 and 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) Accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

Also:

Drug overdoses and brain damage linked to long-term drug abuse killed an estimated 37,485 people in 2009, the latest year for which preliminary data are available, surpassing the toll of traffic accidents by 1,201. And the number is likely to rise as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prepares to release its official statistics in December. [/abcnews.go.com/Health/Drugs/drug-deaths-exceed-traffic-deaths/story?id=14554903]

Kinda makes you wonder how that war on drugs is working out.

It is a slippery slope when the government ignores laws (immigration, recess appointments, executive orders, etc.) others start to ignore laws (states, sheriffs, etc.)

Actually not on drugs... the ATF has declared that persons holding a medical marijuana card may not purchase firearms.

Because we all know that having a medical marijuana card is the only way you can get it...

Just exactly how did the ATF get that authority anyway? Who are they to declare anything?

The question should be, will she give up her commision as a federal officer?

Ironically, the "two-feature" workaround where gun companies simply removed one of the features that made it an "assault weapon" proves that a simple feature like a flash hider, or pistol grip does not make a gun more deadly.

More guns....is the weirdo response to mass shootings.

You guys all cry our little eyes out. At least she is trying to do something. You sissy's have no spine. If you did, then come up with so idles that make sense. The masses will no longer set back and let the Crazy people run things anymore. There has been a game changer. I think if I were the parents of Newtown, I would want the pic's of those little body's shoot all to up like they were to be shown to the Country. That would be the end of this discussion. We have hit critical mass with out the pic's of those little ones. The Pic's in our minds have been enough. And we are saying ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The madness has to stop.

Uh no, I wouldn't get all emotional and wanna pass retarded feel good laws that accomplish nothing but banning 'scary looking' guns.

Chuck, you moron, doing something stupid is not a good excuse to do something. "The masses will no longer set back and let the Crazy people run things anymore..." No, you just let racists get re-elected and socialists run our Country. You let people that have no idea how to keep a nation free run YOUR life... and that of your children.

Chuck, you need to get out into the real world, take some time to understand what it take to be a free nation. Until then, you're just sheep... and now you're being led to the slaughter.

F'd up thing is... you're saying "Thanks"...

Chuck, we can all agree it's good you don't have a gun. Once you devolve into wanting to see pictures of murdered kids to falsely try to prove your point, it's time for you to see professional help. Maybe those 7 numbers in your ID have something to do with that If so, please, please, continue. Thank you!

Eric:

The point is to increase the number of people with guns that would protect children and reduce the number of guns in the hands of people that would hurt children. If you had a gun I am sure you would have done all you could to protect those children.

Eric-913730 chuck-2111043

Here are some ideas that make sense. Close the gun show loop-holes and charge a bit more for possibly stronger background checks. Use the revenue to get more mental health resources available for those that need it. Senator Feinstein must be on the campaign trail again because she sure is getting publicity, but until it is safe enough for her to do without armed guards and her weapons, this short, fat, old lady will not give up a single weapon.

Any insane idiot as smart as that guy that caused the tragedy at Newtown, CT is supposed to have been, a gun ban would not have stopped him from doing what he did. I read where he had tried to get more guns shortly before the tragedy, but he failed the background or could not wait for the cooling off period. Have you ever heard of IED's? Improvised Explosive Devices? Or molotov cocktails? What if he had just gone thru the school quietly tossing burning cocktails into every room leaving fire blocking the exits? There are many other ways of killing, a lot I do not know. The tragedy could have been much worse though, even with a gun ban. I guess Senator Feinstien would pull her pistol and fire extinguisher out and run around saving the day, huh? There are even more ways that are far worse.

I have been shot at, but fortunately never hit. Sheriff told me to get and carry a gun many years ago and I have had one since. I have never had to pull the gun or point it at a human, thank God. I do go to training class regularly and have passed multiple proficiency tests. I might have 3 items that will not be considered banned by her bill.

Answers for the problems: How about getting involved with your neighbors and kids. Hold block parties and invite the police to come. If the drugs and gangs are that bad where you live, talk to your city and state officials and ask them to send in the state or national guard for assistance until the problem is taken care of. If you know your neighbors and stay involved, you can catch signs that someone is having mental problems that could progress and be dangerous. Have you seen people in loud disagreements lately? I am not talking about the countries legislative elected and appointed officials, either. They have already proved they are not capable of decisions or handling a budget. Get off the computer and get involved with the people around you. Home school your kids. Most schools skew the grades so much now that the average U.S. student is roughly 2 years behind intelligence wise compared to other modern nations.

There are a lot of sensible solutions. The current path Senator Feinstein wants to follow seems insane, but she seems insane anyway. We need to fix the problem. Not apply a band-aid. This is my opinion.

Is anyone discussing the fact that all of the young men committing these murders seem to be on anti-depressant drugs? "May cause thoughts of suicide..." is on almost all of the warning labels.

At least she [Feinstein] is trying to do something.

Yes, she is. She's trying to ban guns, in violation of the laws.

What are you going to say when they want to change this one

10th
Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution

says you, Cameron.........an AR 15 is a only .22 rifle. People have to get off the "emotions" and come back to reality.

an AR 15 is a only .22 rifle. People have to get off the "emotions" and come back to reality.

Yeah, it's a 22 rifle that happens to have the capability of firing 30 bullets into the bodies of 20 children in under 26 seconds. Please, you'll have to forgive the parents and families of those 20 children (and the rest of us sane and decent human beings) for having "emotions" about it.

And where are your "emotions" exactly? Your side has been nothing but emotional about this whole situation -- My guns! My freedom! Me me me! You are more worried about the false notion of "someone coming to take away" your guns than the reality of the lives lost due to those very guns.

Let's see how you feel on the issue after you get forcibly sodomized on the street late at night.

Moron.

Yeah, it's a 22 rifle that happens to have the capability of firing 30 bullets into the bodies of 20 children

That's not the intended use and you know it. You and these other "give up your rights" idiots really need to knock off the sensational drama queen crap.

Cameron, as one of those "sane and decent human beings" you mention, I find your pitiful, infantile diatribe disparaging and insulting. Your accusatory assumption that "gun-owners" are cold and emotionless shows your immaturity, ineptitude and ignorance, and just how far and firmly up your ass your head is planted. Grow up and put your man-pants on!

No good reason why 1.2 MILLION children are MURDERED every year..............

That's not the intended use and you know it. You and these other "give up your rights" idiots really need to knock off the sensational drama queen crap.

These guns and high capacity magazines are designed to fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time. They are intended to eliminate many targets quickly and efficiently. When the Sandy Hook shooter riddled the bodies of 20 children with 30 bullets in under 26 seconds, he was using the rifle exactly as intended.

And a good pump shotgun can fire 100+ .24 caliber pellets in about 10 seconds......

The FACT that most murders are committed with HANDGUNS seems to elude the left.......

It's actually a .223 not a .22. .22 caliber ammo weighs 36 grains and has a muzzle velocity of around 1400 FPS. The .223's muzzle velocity for a 36 grain bullet is about 3700 FPS.

ummmm, the shooter used pistols. the AR was found in the trunk.....what about the children killed at the hands of their own parents and guardians, swimming pools, lakes, skiing, hit by cars etc.etc.etc.....use something other than Sandy Hook, my friend.

No it wasn't.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

Cameron - You do realize that this lunatic DID NOT use an "assault rifle" right? The local police confirmed that weeks ago. And there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

Yeah, it's a 22 rifle that happens to have the capability of firing 30 bullets into the bodies of 20 children in under 26 seconds.

Yeah, and a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot can put out 60 - 120 or more .24 cal pellets in under 12 seconds. What's your point?

If you are trying to maximize casualties In a confined area like a classroom the shotgun would be far more effective, yet the people who want to ban "assault rifles" argue that nobody wants to ban shotguns.

The only times that a rifle would be more potent would be in a medium to long range situation such as a sniper, or against armor were penetrating power is needed.

A real assault rifle used by the military is a select fire weapon that can be put on automatic to basically simulate the spread-fire of a shotgun at close range, and still provide long range, accuracy, and penetrating power in the same package.

That is what scares gun enthusiasts, the "assault rifle" ban is totally irrational legislation by people who know nothing about firearms. It will not stop or even slow the violence. It will just lead to the next ban, and the next, and so on. Look at England.

Yeah, it's a 22 rifle that happens to have the capability of firing 30 bullets into the bodies of 20 children in under 26 seconds.

This Lanza could've used one super-soaker filled with gasoline and a lighter to immolate the entire classroom.

Somehow I don't think you'd be calling for a ban on squirtguns, gasoline and lighters.

Your thought process is quite faulty.

What if Lanza used a shotgun? Want to ban those too?

.

Conservatism is a failed regressive ideology that constantly tries to rewrite history in an effort to some how reinvent itself...

Were you promised a new tin foil hat for copy-and-pasting that?

You crazy, psycho,lunatic. You are why we so desperately need to have limits on firearms. I will be pushing for a $15 tax on each and every bullet that is sold. This money will be used to melt down all the guns and put the people behind the bars that were made from the gunnuts guns.

No problem with the tin foil hat, CF, just loan him yours. And thank you for the tax idea, BH, that Chris Rock already had. Like his, yours is going nowhere.

support for gun control soars everywhere! well, except in the real world

>> Were you promised a new tin foil hat for copy-and-pasting that?

No, you took the last one Cameron.

We're not talking about taking away all your guns. We're not even talking about taking away your assault weapons. We're just talking about not selling you any more.

People who are not insane sometime go insane. Giving everyone a gun that can kill 10 people before they can be stopped mean that we get 10 people killed each time someone goes nuts and decides to go out in a blaze of glory.

Making it harder to get guns that kill so quickly gives some chance of having the urge pass without tragedy.

Eventually the country will either restrict such guns, or we'll all be carrying them. You and I just disagree on which is a better world.

Buckhunter1

You crazy, psycho,lunatic. You are why we so desperately need to have limits on firearms. I will be pushing for a $15 tax on each and every bullet that is sold. This money will be used to melt down all the guns and put the people behind the bars that were made from the gunnuts guns.

I'm sure that writing a post like that is like wetting your pants when you are wearing a dark suit ...... it gives you a warm feeling, but almost nobody notices.

your thoughts are in tune very much with a book called, "An Enemy Within," written by Eisenhower's sec of agriculture, Benson. The book was banned by the government for many years.

We're not talking about taking away all your guns. We're not even talking about taking away your assault weapons. We're just talking about not selling you any more.

Yes, and you're also talking about banning the sale and transfer of them as well. That means, you're effectively making it illegal to sell property that I bought lawfully. That also means when I'm old and decide to transfer my collection to my son, he'll be forced to turn in some of of my firearms or be charged as a felon in caught with them. Still think your argument is sound? Yeah... didn't think so.

Almost any firearm can kill 10 people before they can be stopped. The AR-15 is simply the vilified firearm of the moment because that's what the last few wackos had. The next guys will have handguns or shotguns. Then they'll go after those. Several speakers at DiFi's press conference said "this is just the beginning", so you know they plan to go after more. Thankfully, gun enthusiasts need not worry about this one.

There is about as much chance of her bill passing Congress as a unicorn showing up on my doorstep.

"We're not talking about taking away all your guns"

Hummmm... that's JUST what the Nazi's said before they took the guns aways from the Germans and started to round up the Jews for exterminations...

Wonder what that racist in the White House is going to do next?

no more tax

you forgot to mention that domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife along with crooked anarchist and progressive billionaire Goerge Soros are behind the latest attack on our country.

Through their organizations like communist Priorities USA, SEIC, and center for American progress along with bill Ayers anarchy Occupy movement all have had a significant impact to push their progressive agenda.

That agenda is to dismantle our Constitutional Republic,our capital free market system which made America strong and feared throughout the world till recently,dismantle our American way of life and replace it with a progressive society which is a hybrid combination of Socialism,Marxism, and Communism.

Haven't you heard puppet Obama in his speeches pushing the class warfare lie,redistribution of wealth, and the 99and 1per centers.

Every single one of these things Obama has pushed is strait from the Karl Mark Ideology.

That agenda is to dismantle our Constitutional Republic,our capital free market system which made America strong and feared throughout the world till recently,dismantle our American way of life and replace it with a progressive society which is a hybrid combination of Socialism,Marxism, and Communism.

If that weren't so absolutely laughable, it would be simply moronic. You have emotional issues, dude.

The founding of this country was based on liberal ideas coming straight out of the period of enlightenment. The founders themselves were progressive liberals, not conservatives. The conservatives were the Tories who fought them tooth and nail and had fealty to the British monarchy and empire and wanted no part in the concepts of individual liberty put forth by the founders.

Liberal:

Origin of LIBERAL

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
First Known Use: 14th century

Definition of LIBERAL

1a of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>, b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>, b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal, c : ample, full

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious

4 not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>

5 broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6a of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism, b capitalized of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

If anyone can be said to be in favor of tyranny and control over others it would be conservatives who cannot abide the idea that someone, somewhere is freely enjoying themselves without the sanction of the church, rulebook or father figure.

Thank you Senator Feinstein of California for your distorted view of using band-aids to cover up a problem instead of fixing the cause of the problem. All of the people wanting to restrict guns are going to get their wish in the most high crime areas, however, there is a bright side.

Texas legislature forwarding bills to the state government to allow all Texans with concealed carry permits to be allowed to open carry. There will be more gun freedom and less crime in a lot of areas of the country due to the control freaks.

This short fat old Texas lady thanks the narrow minded band-aid approach of Senator Feinstein for opening the eyes up of the rest of the country.

Some of this is possible, even probable, but I am not big fan of conspiracy theory, most things are explainable. That is why I tend to believe much of our issues are the work of a foreign national by the name of George Soros, a huge supporter of the Clinton administration, and a hand me down to Obama, pumping in enormous contributions, both financial and resources of many types to support a liberal agenda. George Soros biggest feather in his hat is as the man who bankrupted the Bank of England, and profited tremendously from the failure, he doesn't need the money, it's a power struggle for him, a challenge, a game, to see how big of a feather he can put on his hat, and the one he has targeted is the US, have no doubt, it is complex, so, I encourage you to Google 'George Soros' to understand the meaning of evil, Adolf Hitler, and his henchmen have nothing on this guy, he is a cancer working from within. Who do you think wrote Obamacare? It wasn't Obama, it was George Soros staff, that is why Nancy Pelosi couldn't explain what was in the bill, and said it would have to be passed before they knew what was in it, talk about a pig in a poke, this thing will bankrupt the engine of our economy, small business, we are already witnessing a reluctance to hire new employees, just because business owners can't estimate future costs accurately. It certainly seems strange to me that all of the sudden, with a reluctance on the part of the US in accepting UN and other international organizations suggestions to restrict firearm ownership, these so called massacres have occurred, there is simply no explanation for it, it is not normal, so, it is my belief that these occurrences, are possibly a part of a larger scheme. The first step is to disarm the populace, then limit access to knowledge, then enslave the people who have fallen prey to apathy, and those who have not are to be eliminated, straight out of the play book of Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. I encourage you to study world political history, while you still have the opportunity, paying close attention to cause and effect reasoning, rather than what the left or right media puts out, as it is tainted toward that particular agenda that the media supports.

The silly thing about such paranoid thinking is that if such a scheme were afoot do you think the "powers that be" behind it would have ever allowed something like the internet to ever have been invented and deployed? Rationalize that.

"We're not talking about taking away all your guns"

You lie!

Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)

Go for it "Thomas"! I have many good friends in Cal., and it seems like a good place to visit, but having one of the highest tax rates on Earth, you'd better get ready. It's almost like the "Dust Bowl", in reverse...

Jaker The Snaker

You got that right. Pay them back with a vote against anyone that votes for this bill.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

People won't be saying goodbye to their assault weapons any time soon with. Feinstein has insured that it won't pass by cutting down to only one feature and adding so many weapons to the list to be banned. This was just a "feel good" moment for her so that she could say that they tried to disarm us. If she was serious she would have watered it down enough that it could pass.

NPCDan— What part of " stick assault weapon where the sun don't shine' do you not understand.

Cameron Ford

don't blame her or Obama or "liberals." It isn't their fault. It is the fault of the people who misused those weapons. One bad apple spoils the bunch.

Only if you leave it in the barrel.

Cameron -

You should leave the discussions to the grown-ups. According to your logic, computers and the internet should be banned because some bad apples have committed hacking/phishing crimes.

Too simple, Simon.

You appear to be suffering from an issue known as the fallacy of misleading vividness. Assault rifles have accounted for a very, very small portion of the murder/crime rate in the US. Hand guns, far and away, take the top prize, outnumbering rifle usage in such crimes by a ratio of about 25:1 (depending on the year, sometimes more or less, but never much deviation).

The absence of self-imposed regulation, which you say "failed us all," is an unusual claim. You seem to be saying that the government must step in to compensate for a lack of common sense on the part of gun owners. However, the guns most often used in crimes aren't the ones being regulated by the government. They haven't even talked about hand guns because they know it is easier to galvanize people around something scary and intimidating than an ordinary, unassuming pistol.

Say goodbye to your assault weapons... and don't blame her or Obama or "liberals." It isn't their fault. It is the fault of the people who misused those weapons

Not going to happen. Only a liberal punishes law abiding people for the acts of one criminally insane person.

You better get used to seeing a lot MORE AR-15 and AK-47 type weapons.

I got mine, and there's not one thing you can do about it, Cameron.

How does that make you feel??

.

I agree, wetwhether- I have discussed the various recycled anti-gun arguments, and each time those in favor of another doomed-to-fail assault weapons ban back themselves into both a logical and factual corner. Eventually, they resort to the emotional plea, "Well, we have to do something! We can't just sit by and ignore what happened!"

Two issues with this statement that appeals only to ones sense of pity:
First, while I agree we should do something, the questions should remain; What, when, who, and how. We all know the why. But are the steps we're taken actually going to work? How does Feinstein or any other ban-monger justify the failure of the first ban, only to claim that we just need to ban different rifles, and eliminate those dangerous and recently-infamous "things on the shoulder that go up?" The ban has real historical precedence for failure. Numerically and logically, it will fair no better this time should it be passed.

The biggest problem with this first issue, however, is that these decisions are made in the heat of passion, a condition in which few good choices are ever made, in any situation. We are a lazy, reactionary people. We only take action when something grotesque or shocking compels us to put down the Cheetos and sling mud at our politics opposites online. Perhaps if we took action when we were not surrounded by a whirlwind of exaggerated media claims and rage over wrongs, perceived or actual, we would make smarter, more logical and rational decisions. But again, we love to sit in our homes pretending we are invincible in America. That is, until someone reminds us we're not.

Second issue with this piteous cry: those who make it are usually either misinformed or totally uninformed and only make comments out of emotion and fear, parroting what politicians tell them. Sometimes, those who take this "must do something" approach are trying to sooth their raw nerves. For them, taking action, no matter how misguided or ineffectual, makes them feel better about tragedy and numbs heartache. Again, this histrionic response will amount to nothing, as the next tragedy will bring all the same powerful-but-aimless emotions screaming back.

I just hope that things settle soon enough and long enough for cooler, smarter heads to prevail. But then, as a history teacher, I'm under no illusion about our inability to learn from our past mistakes.

A gun by it's very nature is a threat to someones life, that is what it was designed for. To Kill.

That include your own (suicide)!

You need to make a better argument!

That is pure idiocy. What about a long, sharp stick? By it's very nature it's designed as a threat to someone's life as well, and if history is correct, people have been killing each other with spears for far longer than gunpowder's even been around. Your point it moot.

NPCDork— If you eat or listen to your BS, it could be lethal also

Lee Crocker:

Please don't insult zionists by linking this piece of human fecal matter with them.

Netanyahu, for example is a pretty good guy.

Thank You.

I dont know who this zionist woman

Don't insert religion into this. I am one very well-armed JEW. Feinstein is a kooky liberal, just like Harry Reid, Obama and Pelosi.

Smarten up.

What are you going to say when they want to change this one

10th
Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution

Knives can do the same exact thing, only much more quietly. As well as arrows, spears, slings, darts, etc. Thanks for my daily dose of idiocy that can only come from a "progressive, liberal, idiot", which all mean the same thing...

No... I love my family.

I like and enjoy the shooting sports.

Are YOU in love with an inanimate object? A doll maybe?

This isn't about love for firearms, it's' about our Bill of Rights. Our Constitution.

Amunaka,

You are going to be a very useful slave to thise who have taken away your ability to defend yourself.

To..all of the above"""

Thanks for proving my point....

Thank you Raceraxe! That's what I keep teling people. Not only do we need to stop this, we need to be getting the Patriot Act abolished. That gutted our Bill of Rights, our rights.

While we're at it, let's ban shoe laces & subway trains. By the time we're finished banning things used to kill, we'll all be living in padded cells without shoe laces or belts.

Amunaka is there already, so this individual would never notice the difference!

To Big A - what point? That it's so easy to knock down a straw man created from one's own delusions? Please try something original that adds to the solution rather than just preaching to your own choir.

I'm far more concerned about the damage that govt does with guns than the occasional wacko shooting up some public space. There's really no legitimate comparison. Govts have killed literally millions. A well-armed nutjob can off maybe 30 people in a McDonalds before someone plugs him.

an instrument only created for the sole purpose of killing

My guns haven't killed anyone.

Are they defective??

Please chamber two rounds at the same time and pull the trigger

Duh, nevermind that more than one person may attack you at a time.

And from where do you extract your thoughts?

I'm guessing "smar-tone" has never actually been in combat. But by all means, espouse killing as the answer! Hypocrites!

Actually, I really don't care what kind of firearms YOU think I should be allowed to own.

For that matter, I really don't care about Feinsteins concept either.

Did she give up HER concealed carry permit?

smartone you are the exact reason guns need to be banned. Violence. Next time try an intelligent response, like describing the type of weapon I would let you one, how about a 50 cal. sniper rifle, that does some real damage.

XDm9mm, I don't carry or own. I do vote, so I do have an opinion. You have a right to own and carry and I uphold that right. Feinstein's an idiot can't really say the right thing on the net. If I'm going to ban guns I'm going to ban guns why play around, a lot of killings a multiple so why not take that ability away?

I would ban bubba.

Smartone was making a joke, bubba! Adding a little comic relief to your post.

2blunt4drivels Ya, Didn't get it. Needs to keep his day job or night job, in this time I hope he has a job. That's no joke. demoblat, I have already been banned from more places that you would care to know. Last place I got banned from was a woman's prison, I wanted to be a handyman.

2blunt4drivels - Im glad you saw that people are just way to serious. I was also just making the coment that No weapon can chamber two rounds at the same time.

Bubba - just because you have a redneck name doesn't mean you know everything about weapons. Maybe you keep getting banned from places because you are stupid. You are stupid for the simple reason that you think I was advocating violence. I simply said to place two rounds in the chamber and pull the trigger. (your words)If you were smart you would know that it is imposible to put to rounds in the chamber at the same time and even if you do have a double feed nothing would happen.

NPCdan - I dont think that I need to show my DD214 or prove myself to you

SmarTone > you can put two rounds into the same chamber. Happens every year when someone mixes 12 gauge and 20 gauge shotgun shells and doesn't pay attention when loading. Not pretty. And suggesting that to someone who may already think you mean them harm may be taken as an invitation to blow their fingers off. Not pretty. I'm sure it's all just a simple misunderstanding. We can get to misfires and plugged barrels later.

smartone-2729650

Ever use a double barrel shotgun? Two rounds chambered at the same time. I wouldn't advise it, but you CAN fire both at the same time (hurts like hell if it's a 12 ga!!).

And I HAVE seen a double chamber scenario. The results were not pretty, but at least no one was seriously hurt. But that's what can happen if you're not careful and have multiple handguns of varying calibers at the range at the same time.

I would ban any gun

Fortunately, you have absolutely no say in the matter.

Now, smart guy, what's your plan for disarming the criminals?

(sounds of crickets..............)

But... But, Steven... It's... It's the law... They have to do it...

As we all know, criminals abide by and respect any and all laws and are stand up-fellows who would not dare harm a fellow such as yourself.

On a serious note, why don't we actually dish out proper sentences? Some guy got 15 years for rape a couple weeks ago. I'm left leaning in that I don't agree with the death penalty in MOST circumstances (the rape guy I would have shot in the head, no problem), but if they're living in the soft, plushy jails we are turning into, I say hang the bastards. A jail is supposed to intimidate people, if you take a tour of one, the only scary ones are maximum security. No more hot dogs and burgers, it's time for slop, don't worry, it won't kill you, it tastes like dog food though!

MYTH 1:"The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls."

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor "stricter" laws when they do not know how "strict" the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law "stricter," however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:

• Oppose costly registration of firearms.
• Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.
• Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

Now why would they want to concentrate on something as trivial as the mounting national debt, chronically high unemployment, and a floundering economy? Pfft. These "progressive" liberals know what's best for EVERYONE! And if you don't believe them, then YOU'RE the idiot! LMAO!

Not to mention hogs. These bastards can reach upwards to 400+ lbs, and like to run in herds. Oh, and they are extremely unfriendly. Good luck with a single shot revolver with one of these beasts, who ruin an enourmous amount of produce. Maybe we should offer to give them some "freebies", that should settle them down! Smh...

Being far more left of center than most gun owners, I somewhat agree with that (the cosmetic features that is). However, as another of my posts stated, they should concentrate on the aspects of a gun that would actually cover 100 percent of the weapons they want to ban without ever naming a particular model. That is, ban any rifle that is semi-auto that has or was designed to have a removable magazine. Limit fixed mag capacity to (insert number here). Limit semi-auto handgun mags to 6 rounds to match the common capacity of a revolver. That would cover 99 percent of the weapons that they are talking about and I have never used the words assault rifle, AK, Bushmaster, whatever, and most actual hunting rifles would be unaffected. As far as using the hunting of a particular animal and claiming the need for higher capacities for that purpose, sometimes the requirements or desires of the few (relatively) are set aside for greater good. And yes I have several AR's, an AK variant,and several semi-auto handguns so don't go dropping the NRA, 2nd amendment, I'm a liberal ass clown commentary on me.

You are correct. I've read the statistics on the Australian Gun Ban, and from what I've gathered, it's been a collosal failure. But these "progressives" don't want to bothered by something as useless as facts.

The Emperor in drag with that hideously dark lipstick she wears.

UNLIMITED, POWAAAAAAAAA!

That sounds reasonable and on the face a good practice until you get tripped up by local PDs that reject ANY gun ownership out of hand. What does your plan do about that? You could mandate local PD acceptance once a test a passed and proficiency shown. But make onduty Police officers take the same test and training and don't be too surprised by how many don't pass.

Yes, I believe testing and training should be mandatory. The problem comes in the implementation and with an entrenched system that takes any opportunity to deny gun ownership.

Kron- I can't support everything you suggest.

One should not have to register a right with any form of gov.

I would like to see firearm safety as part of regular school programs for all ages at age appropriate levels. In MN completion of hunters safety courses are shown on the DL.

A tax exception for the cost of firearms training at advanced CWP courses would encourage more people to seek advanced training.

No easy answers. If it were easy, this wouldn't be a raging debate.

I have to register my vehicle that I own and I have a right to drive. I have no issue getting a driver's license and taking a test to prove I know how to operate the vehicle. If I get a different class of vehicle (motorcycle or commercial truck) I have no problem registering it nor taking a test to prove I can operate it safely. And I truly wish we all had to prove competence on a regular basis when operating a vehicle; I don't want to excite the people who love to spout statistics, but more people die and get injured as a result of vehicles than guns would be my guess. And, we have laws against driving impaired that don't prevent the problem. Laws preventing certain types of guns, configurations or guns or # of bullets will likewise fail.

I'm not living in fear of my government knowing what guns I own. I'm not paranoid and believing that my government has any intention of taking away any of those guns. I have no issue with supplying proof of ID to a reputable dealer/seller nor in having a gun's serial number recorded on an official document. And, I'm not upset if my government wants to make it take a little longer - or have me jump through a couple more hoops - if I want to buy more guns.

We need to move beyond fear, paranoia and emotion and get to a decision-making process based upon educated and informed decisions. A pipe dream. I know. Especially since the media exists to sell advertising and emotion drives advertising. Ah well...

Here are some facts about gun ownership in USA.

1. Ownership of firearms is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT protected by our BILL OF RIGHTS, U.S CONSTITUTION. We already have extensive background check system and waiting period.

2. Registration will lead to confiscation.

The new AWB proposal by Feinstein includes "No new sales, No grandfathering, or transfer/sales for existing semi-auto weapons." That pretty much means confiscation.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

You know, no one needs to drive a car that goes over 100 mph. We need to ban all high performance sports cars! lol! ;-)