Victory: Assault Weapons Ban Not to Be Included in Senate Gun Control Package

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
  2. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Makes me happy :D
     
  3. Melanie

    Melanie
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,779
    Likes Received:
    5
    What does that mean.....does it allow lunatics to blast away school kids and other innocent citizens going about their daily business with the not unreasonable expectation of returning home. The USA is not in a state of war is it?? Just curious!
     
  4. RLBosley

    RLBosley
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    It means that the constitutional right of the American people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
     
  6. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    only slaves and subjects--but then i repeat myself--are disarmed.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    No it doesn't and it never has.
     
  8. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    BTW: This isn't a victory yet. Feinstein's bill could be added as an amendment to other legislation.
     
  9. Arbo

    Arbo
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    1
    To echo Don's point about it being over yet, it's still a possibility.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    #10 Revmitchell, Mar 20, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2013
  11. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    Correct; but say it gets added as an amendment to a bill that provides money for under-privileged kids, or benefits for veterans. That bill then becomes hotly argued because who wants to say no to the kids or vets? Then it becomes a question of whether the amendment can be stricken from the bill, or if the bill is presented in such a way that all amenents have to passed in order for the bill to pass. So it's not dead yet; merely waiting, like a rattler in the woodpile.
     
  12. Arbo

    Arbo
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    1
    Do you really think this is the last we will hear of this? It will be back in some form eventually.
     
  13. Melanie

    Melanie
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,779
    Likes Received:
    5
    What is a troll? I don't live under a bridge and harass bridge crossers, though I suppose you could call Toll Bridge collectors that where the toll gates are not automated!!!:tongue3:
     
  14. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh, don't you step on my 'Constitutional rights' Melanie! TROLL!!!! :laugh:


    And so, I will outfit my house with as many machine guns, hand guns, rocket launchers and grenades as I please!
     
  15. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    Your sarcasm is duly noted ... but for those that didn't get it, out fit the house with whatever you can *legally* obtain (which includes weapons bought with a government-issued FFL Class III license).
     
  16. Walter

    Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, what should be legal is really the issue here, isn't it? I’m as much in favor of our right of gun ownership as much as anyone else, but there has to be a limit on what kind of guns we’re allowed to own. IMHO, autoloading firearms of the type evidently used by the shooter in Connecticut should be banned, to be sure.
     
  17. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,539
    Likes Received:
    208
    As of January, it was confirmed by several different sources that an "assault rifle" was found in the shooter's vehicle; so no "assault rifle" was actually used in that situation. So, by "autoloading firearms", you mean semi-automatic pistols? Handguns are the weapon most used by criminals; are you suggesting we ban all handguns? Or only the semi-auto ones? (even though revolvers are popular and have been used in many crimes) Please clarify.

    Weapons that can fire fully automatic are currently highly regulated in the U.S.; yet, California reported at least 3 full auto weapons used in crimes in 2009. Haven't found the statistics for the entire US for the last couple of years (yet). If highly regulating them hasn't stopped them from being used criminally, why do you think banning will?
     

Share This Page

Loading...