Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced her new gun ban bill today.
She and her fellow Democrats refer to this as an 'assault weapons' ban, which translates into pretty much anything that has scary cosmetics they disapprove or. Or as Senator Feinstein tweeted in words that would make anyone with actual combat experience laugh out loud, "weapons of war that do not belong on our streets."
There's a detailed list of over 150 weapons she wants banned, and most of them aren't even close to what could be called a military weapon or even an assault rifle, as the list includes pistols and shotguns as well:
According to the bill, the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of any of these guns would be prohibited.
Although there's a provision grandfathering any of these weapons already owned, the transfer ban would prevent anyone willing or bequeathing them to anyone else. The idea, of course, is to eliminate these guns entirely over time so that no one but the bodyguards of the elites has them.
The bill also calls for a 'national registry' of anyone owning firearms, the better to confiscate them later. Because I guarantee you, this is only a first step. You see, Senator Feinstein likes the idea of turning all of our cities into replicas of Chicago, where gun violence is endemic.Because she and her fellow elites have all thr protection they require, usually at taxpayer expense.
This bill shows the typical contempt the Left has for our Constitution, particularly those whom hold office and have sworn an oath to protect it.
If they don't like the Second Amendment, there's a constitutional remedy to change it by the amendment process. But the Left never plays by those rules,because they'd lose. Instead, they'll try shoving legislation through by any means necessary, and if that doesn't work they'll get some Lefty hack wearing a judicial robe they've managed to appoint to the Bench to impose what they want.
What remains to be seen is if the majority of Americans are going to sit by passively while their liberty is taken away.
We'll see, indeed.
8 comments:
Serious question:
If I can afford a drone, or a tank, or a surface-to-air missile, can I have one?
And if you think I shouldn't be allowed to own one, why?
And if I shouldn't be allowed to own one, isn't this the start of the slippery slope that leads to 'eventual confiscation'?
In other words, either you think I should be allowed to own a drone or SAM, or you are a godless liberal who is starting us down the path to eventual gun confiscation.
I'd be interested to hear your answer. I've actually never come across a republican who's been willing to answer it without saying "Well, that's different..."
I'm surprised Feinstein didn't add the Mini 14 or the M1 carbine to the list by the way the anti-gun crowd harps on those two rifles. Of course, the Hi-point carbine is on there, but in my experience, they are just an oversized pistol.
I think the leftists, especially Feinstein want to make ALL of the US a replica of San Francisco, but they will instead get a replica of Chicago...
Let's hope this keels over and Feinstein is left looking like the idiot she is.
Well Nothing, I'm not a Republican so you may have to wait a bit for that giddy thrill.
But I don't mind giving you an answer, although (a) I doubt it will be in terms you'll understand, based on your question and (b) I'm sure it won't change your perspective one bit.
First, we have this document called the Constitution. It's been a document that has served us quite well over the years as long as the Left can be prevented from perverting it, as they've been attempting for the last century or so.
Part of that document is the Second Amendment, which says in clear language that private American citizens have the right to bear arms.
Just like every other part of the Constitution that the Left doesn't approve of, they're attempting to pervert the Second Amendment through the back door of heavily restricted legislation rather than the amendment process clearly spelled out in the Constitution. That's evil and anti-liberty on the face of it.
What the Left doesn't understand (or particularly approve of) is that the Bill of Rights restricts what government can do to an INDIVIDUAL..which of course 'progressives' hate, because they always tout the collective, AKA demos, the mob.
If I choose to want to own an AK-47 to protect my life and property, that's my right, just as it's yours to choose NOT to.
To change that right, we have an amendment process, which the Left almost always chooses to ignore, as I mentioned.
Now in regards to your specific question, a lame attempt at a straw man, here's my specific answer. First, why would you want one and where are you planning to buy it? Like tanks, F-16's and ICBMs, Predator drones and SAMs are not sold down at your local gunshop to private individuals. In fact, most countries that manufacture these goodies have strict end user restrictions and controls on whom they're sold to.Neither are Navy destroyers. They're only sold to our government and the only way YOU would obtain one ( assuming you could afford it) is by engaging in smuggling, which is illegal. So why would you waste everyone's time with what obviously is a stupid question?
I trust that answers your question.
Schmuck.
Ouch. That's gotta hurt.
Rob -
You misunderstand my question. And it's actually a real one that I would sincerely like to know your position on. And I'm not sure why I deserved being called a schmuck for simply asking you a question. I didn't call you a name or go off on some rant, I just asked you a question that many on both sides of the fence have struggled with. Maybe this time I will get a thoughtful response from you without the name-calling.
And, as background, I myself am pro-second amendment but I favor gun regulation. That, by the way is the position of over both 80% of the NRA and the Republican party. So that doesn't make really put me on the left, so to speak.
I'll ask again. In the more civil part of your response to me, you seemingly approve of gun restrictions involving military hardware. Someone can't own a tank or a surface-to-air missile. And I agree (although I would argue that I could more effectively protect myself from the government with a tank). But, if you believe that ANY gun restriction is a slippery slope to gun confiscation, where exactly do you draw the line? It has be somewhere. At what point is gun restriction out of bounds? In other words, your standard for too much gun regulation might be the banning of assault weapons. But what if I take a harder line? Does that make you a liberal who wants to confiscate guns because your idea of restrictions differ from mine.
My question isn't that different than the question about corporate regulation. Even the most hard-lined conservative has some sort of regulation that he favors. But if you take the principled stance that all regulation leads to communism (which is not an uncommon belief by many on the right), aren't 99.9% of us communists?
This is a question that I have always wanted a serious answer to. If you can't or won't answer it, fine. Just trash it and leave yourself the last (and less-than-classy) word. I suppose then you will be in effect giving me a truthful answer, even if you daren't share it with your readers. But it might be instructive for you, me, and your readers to hear your point of view here.
Nothing, I have no clue as to what you mean by saying your 'pro Second Amendment' but favor gun control. What does that mean, exactly? And why would you be in favor of it?
A generic statement like that, given the context of your other remarks would be like me saying I'm pro First Amendment, but only for people whose views I approve of.
There's a word for that.
If your goal is really to control gun violence, more restrictive controls ain't gonna do it.Nothing that's being proposed would prevent another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech.
In fact, as I pointed out in an earlier piece, it's no coincidence that these mass killings only started occurring after Mr. Bill pushed through the bill making schools gun free zones regardless of existing state laws in 2004, and blackmailed them into going along by threatening to withhold federal funds for education.
The place with the lowest rate per capita of gun homicides is Vermont,which has virtually no gun laws, and allows concealed carry.
The highest is in places like DC,Chicago, and NYC, all with the most stringent 'gun control' in the country.
We already have far too much of what passes for gun control IMO. If someone wants to own a firearm, or doesn't want to, that's a choice guaranteed by the Constitution.
If you want to try to change that right, fine. Do it as the Founders intended.But of course, you don't.
I knew you wouldn't understand that.
However, I definitely understood your question only too well, so I gave you a sensible and factual answer. Since you could only own the items you mentioned by dealing with the black market and breaking the laws against illicit arms trafficking, your question makes absolutely no sense. I therefore gave it the answer I felt it deserved.
I doubt anyone is struggling with that except you, and I actually doubt you are.
As far as what those you refer to as 'people on the right' or 'Republicans' favor, how would you know and why would you care? After all, you're the one who favors taking away their freedoms and choices, not the other way around.Especially since what you favor would do nothing to prevent gun crime and only succeed in making law abiding people defenseless.
All regulations don't necessarily lead to 'communism' ..oh, let's just substitute the word 'tyranny' just for giggles.
But the sort of legislation DiFi and this president are touting definitely trend in that direction.
Here's a quote for you to chew over, Nothing:
" When you are disarmed, you are not only defenseless, but despised." - Machiavelli
That's how the Left thinks of the average American, Nothing. Especially if they have the temerity to want to exercise their Constitutional right to defend their life and property.
-Rob-
You wanted honest answers. I say, no limit! None.
If you can afford a bazooka and find one, buy it.
If you want a stinger missile, buy one. It should be legal, it should be obtainable, and restrictions preventing that should be argued to the Supreme Court.
Why? you might ask... Because the 2nd amendment isn't about pistols, muskets or rifles. It's about 'The People" bearing arms to defend themselves against Tyranny of the government or an invading government. Therefore the people, should have access to the same weapons that the government is available to access. Rules to limit that should be unconstitutional.
Now, I'm also for a big ticket of automatic long term jail for use of weapon in criminal activity... 10 years min, in any case a weapon is used, fired or not. 2nd offense is 30 years. No Probation and no Parole is possible.
Yes, I"m NRA, Yes, I'm a gun owner and advocate.
There is your honest answer and supporting reason.
Of course, Anonymous, the problem is that without those strict arms controls on Stinger missiles, people you probably wouldn't want to have one would obtain them for petrodollars from overseas. Can you spell 'Allah-hu-Akbar!'?
A Stinger, handled right, can take out a helicopter or a commercial airline.
The arms control and end user agreements are designed to at least make an attempt to control arms like that from going to rogue governments and terrorist groups. Be careful what you wish for.
My problem with Nothing's argument is that he went to the obvious, stupid extreme to create a straw man to try and carry a point. Don't you do the same, please.
OTOH, what DiFi and the president are proposing is simply a step towards confiscation. And it won't stop gun violence.
I dislike seeing any federal laws on gun control,( my ideal solution would be to have each state make its own) but it appears we actually need some kind of national law to protect the Second Amendment from the DiFis, The Rahm Emanuel's the Mario Cuomos and other assorted idiots just as we once needed federal laws to protect the Fourteenth Amendment and end de jure segregation.
I favor laws like Vermont or Texas - CCW legal, all semi-auto firearms legal, mandatory gun safety classes and background checks and that's about it.
I agree with your positions on mandatory sentencing for the use of a firearm in a crime.As a side note, the same creeps who want to prevent law abiding people from defending themselves also favor ending Three Strikes, mandatory sentencing of any kind and advocate things like prison furloughs. In California, activist judges actually forced the state to release dangerous felons because they felt the prisons were a tad overcrowded!
Post a Comment