ExRx.net

"They are an imitation of a *current* military issued weapon and weapons used by militas all around the world." - Rucifer

There's still a BIG difference between semi-auto and full-auto, something you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Meanwhile, there's a great deal of overlap between military and civilian weapons. Many hunting rifles are based on military rifles like the Mauser, while some military sniper rifles are based on civilian hunting rifles like the Remington 700.

"Valid points. I don't claim to know the specifics of every rifle and how capable they are for spraying as many bullets as possible, all I know is in most of the mass killings as of late, these have been the weapons of choice." - Rucifer

Semi-auto firearms don't spray.

The Columbine kids used pump shotguns and pistols, while the Virginia Tech shooter used two pistols. Banning semi-auto rifles won't stop mass shootings from happening.

"People are going to react when politicans and children are gunned down by psychos, and the weapons that the psychos used were legally obtained. Expect to hear that if bad things happen." - Rucifer

The firearms used at Sandy Hook were stollen.

No one uses bazookas and grenade launchers for hunting, target shooting or self defense, nor were they ever commonly used for these purposes. Semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns ARE commonly used for all three purposes.

I might also point out that there is very little demand for black market rocket launchers and trench mortars. Perhaps criminals avoid these types of weapons for the same reasons they don't use .50 BMG rifles (which are legal in most states).

Heavy weapons aren't neccissary or practical outside of war, and they attract WAY too much unwanted attension. ... Think about it, unless a rival gang member is driving a tank, you really don't need a rocket launcher to deal with him.

"The drugs argument is often brought up, as they are made illegal and still rampant. But they are far easier to home make than what we are talking about here. Making guns and rocket launchers is not something that could be conceivably be done by anyone other than legitimate manufacturers." - Rucifer

Most of the illegal drugs consumed in the US are smuggled in from outside the country, not made here (Meth is an obvious exception). Is it unrealistic to expect that firearms could also be smuggled into the country?

"How about a bear attacking a home in the wilderness? I don't even know how to put down a bear but I am sure most guns aren't very effective at doing this, and a grenade probably would be." - Rucifer

If a person fired a grenade launcher indoors, he would most likely kill himself with the resulting explosion.

Here we go.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... -bill.aspx

Feinstein is directly quoted as saying that she and her staff worked on this legislation for over a year.

I predicted there would be a bill. I also predicted it will get less than 50% support from Democrats and never get picked up by the party's mainstream. I think I will be right again.

Just read the details, wow that's a real stinker. I think I'll go further than "less than 50%", and predict that she would be lucky to get 10% of Democrats to support this.

I'm not a history buff.
But I imagine if owning almost any gun becomes illegal in the US, it won't be passed forcefully. It will come with large populous support.

Yep, I think you're right.

That quote was evidence to my claim that there are other reasons for the 2nd amendment. And no, I don't think he was making a mistake. I believe the principle he gave for the 2nd amendment still applies today ( I didn't always), also I wouldn't say an AR 15 rifle changes that.

The more I think about it, the right to bear arms really is revolutionary. That a government would give it's people the benefit of the law, of the doubt, it's so... Revolutionary.

"I predicted there would be a bill. I also predicted it will get less than 50% support from Democrats and never get picked up by the party's mainstream. I think I will be right again.

Just read the details, wow that's a real stinker. I think I'll go further than "less than 50%", and predict that she would be lucky to get 10% of Democrats to support this." - Ironman

You expressed doubt when I suggested that the Obama administration was taking advantage of a tragedy to push an agenda that was planned for some time. However, Feinstein's comments seem to support my claim, unless of course you think the administration was unaware of what Feinstein has been working on for over a year, AND that Obama was refering to some other new assault weapons ban durring the presidential debates, AND that it's just a coincidence that Feinstein waited until after Obama's re-election to go public. To me that seems like an aweful lot of coincidence.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how many Democrats end up supporting Feinstein's plan, whether the president is among them, and how much if any of the bill will actually become law.

you need the extremes, to allow for the more moderate position to be appealing.


"Well, I don't know if Billy Bob needs an AR-15 to shoot deer, but on the other hand, we have a right to buy a gun, this is America!... Oh, hmmm... looks like Milly Moore Moderate has brought up an amendment to this Feinstein bill, now, that one makes a little more sense. We got to do something, maybe we start here..."

The Greenies were trying to do it with SUVs
SUVS were killing people. "SUV careens off the road, killing 5" . Not "Drunk driver loses control of vehicle". And, boy when we are so dependent on Foreign Oil, and you're riding around one at a time in a Ford Explorer, I mean really, shouldn't you feel bad? Maybe we make it llegal? Too far? Ok, but come on, we should at least be assessing you a tax for it. We shouldn't all suffer for your pigginess?

I find it tricky and interersting the conflicts between legislating goodness and sense, at the expense of Freedom

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

Car ownership meanwhile is a privilege, not a constitutionally protected right.

I could also point out that virtually no one is trying to ban cars, while there are a number of influential groups committed to banning firearms.

"I'm not a history buff.
But I imagine if owning almost any gun becomes illegal in the US, it won't be passed forcefully. It will come with large populous support." - Oscar_Actuary

I'm much more concerned about the gradual loss of gun rights. If the government can ban an entire class of firearms on the premiss that no one really needs them, then what's next? Is it unreasonable to expect more gun bans? Ammo bans? Licencing? Registration?