This is what my founding fathers had in mind....

Are you a troll Miguel? If not, I'm going to cry now.

The text you posted says what about handguns? It "targets handguns"? Why, because it limits the number of bullets in magazines? But it doesn't even mention the 10 round limit with regular handguns, including yours; it's 10 rounds for weapons with fixed magazines...

No handguns are exempt because no standard handguns are affected by this bill (if you're not counting Uzis as your domestic firearm of choice, LOL). You can keep your handgun, and your magazines. I don't know how many other ways I can put that in, do you do sign language?

Dear god.
 
Here you go Miguel, I've skimmed through the actual bill for you. Best to check the source, rather than random websites with their own agendas.

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
...
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
(i) A threaded barrel.
(ii) A second pistol grip.
(iii) A barrel shroud.
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol
(v) semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons



So, in a nutshell... it changes absolutely nothing for you, but it might help save lives in the long run.
 
Here you go Miguel, I've skimmed through the actual bill for you. Best to check the source, rather than random websites with their own agendas.



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons



So, in a nutshell... it changes absolutely nothing for you, but it might help save lives in the long run.

Read my post above I admitted my mistake on the handgun but I still believe they're a target if this does get passed. And yes it still affects me as I own a rifle as well and depending how fresh they want to get with "any characteristic that can function as a grip" if left in will target far more guns than are currently listed. Also many of the "exempt" rifles contain more than one banned feature OB the list, why the double standard? Feinstein is already on record saying ARs have no legitimate personal use then exempts a few for hunting? It's a double standard for selective justice. Why are government officials fully exempt? Why can my congressman own an AR if it has no "legitimate" personal use?

Btw it will still affect me as I own a rifle as well. But like mr Stevens my guns are not dangerous, they're locked up collecting dust and cat hair untill they're needed.

Does anyone remember Katrina? When the power and food run out people act like animals. Natural disasters are just one situation where having a firearm could save your life, then again if Katrina is any indication the military will go door to door confiscating firearms and leaving people disarmed to fend for themselves in the chaos until FEMA gets there a week later.

I think you're being a bit idealistic thinking this bill will save any lives. The gun homicide numbers have been decreasing steadily over the last 15 or so years.ass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides. The VAST majority (talking 80+ here) is gang on gang violence and involves handguns. Out of every 100 gun deaths 5 involved "long guns" only 1 of those 5 on average is an AR. You're not addressing the real problems.

Feinsteins bill contains no mention of fun safety, or awareness. Feinstein and others walk around the senate halls waving rifles around with fingers on the trigger...I mean that's Rule #1 if what NOT to do with a firearm around people. Why does some bitch who doesn't know the most basic principles of gun safety have ANY say in a debate on firearms? If the goal is really to protect children educate them not suspend them for "terrorist remarks" for playing with bubble guns.

Feinstein and the propaganda machine have been successful in altering the publics definition and use of the term "assault rifles" to be synonymous with a "weapon of war"(selective fire full autos) its simply not true. If I put the body of a Ferrari on a Corvette it will still perform like a Corvette. I can tell you it's a Ferrari all I want but it doesn't change the fact my car is not in the same league.
 
I said it might save lives. Isn't that enough? You can keep your gun if you need it.

The bill is mostly a reaction to the increased number of mass shootings. The pistol grip is used when shooting from the hip. In a mass shooting, not having it makes a difference. In legitimate use (hunting, protection), it doesn't make that much of a difference.

It's not about taking away your guns. Firstly because your handgun is fine, and most rifles are probably fine as well. And secondly, the previous ban wasn't that much different, and gun manufacturers simply started making version that were legal, so again, plenty of guns for everyone to enjoy.
 
I think it's an overreaction that completely misses the mark on doing anything for the problem. I understand your feelings about saving lives but I disagree and would go so far as to say this will result in more deaths in the long run. The ramifications of this ban are immense not just for AR owners. It effectively kills an entire industry. How many jobs do you think would be lost here? How many of those would turn to crime? Every recent gun ban has correlated with a surge of violent crime afterwards. In addition to that you now have a new brand of criminals overnight. Where do you put them all? How do you start enforcement of a law those people believe is unconstitutional?

It's also the foot in the door. Once they ban ARs and people keep shooting up gun free zones with handguns what will be the next reaction?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/chris-dumm/sb-150-feinstein-tries-to-patent-stupid/

This article does a good job explaining the subtleties in the bill and the potential it has. Once the right to bear arms is infringed it won't be long till it is removed. Feinstein is on record saying her goal is complete disarmament how can you argue this? It may not happen in my life or my childrens or grand childrens but democracies have disarmed their people in the past and gone tyrannical and that's historical fact. If my generation can do anything to protect the rights and freedoms of the next generation we owe it to ourselves to try.

The founding fathers understood that fact very well and tried to protect the future generations of the country with the 2nd Ammendment.
 
Immense ramifications? Like what? Again, the ban is quite similar to the previous one.

It kills an industry? Jobs? LOL, no.
Before guns with two of those features were banned, now guns with one of those features could be banned.
Before gun makers made guns that conformed to the law, now gunmakers will make guns that conform to the law.

The article you linked to is not just severely biased, but also has errors in it, even with just a random skim over his issues. Goes with the bias I guess.
 
I guess it does come with the culture. You live your entire life with a freedom and suddenly it gets attacked you get a bit defensive. I still think you're underestimating the legalese in this bill. Remember I live in a country where a burger can sue a homeowner for injury sustained robbing their house. Sometimes the spirit of the law is abused to fit the motives of invested individuals.
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 77 7.3%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 112 10.6%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 153 14.5%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 289 27.4%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 419 39.8%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 4 0.4%
Back
Top