No assault weapons ban: Not even in dems' bill


#1

All but ending chances for an assault weapons ban, Democratic leaders said Tuesday the firearms legislation the Senate will debate next month won’t include the provision that gun-control advocates pressed for after an assault-type weapon was used in the Newtown school shootings in December.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he wanted to bring a gun bill to the full Senate that would have enough support to overcome any GOP attempts to prevent debate from even starting. He expressed concern that including the assault weapons provision might effectively block passage of any bill at all.

News from The Associated Press

Could it be the realization that people are buying weapons as fast as they can considering the reports of what the Obama administration is doing arming itself for possible citizen takeover?

I saw an article the other day talking about that private police force Obama had talked about but since Homeland Security seems to be doing this already citizens are concerned about not only spying on people but confiscation of weapons and possible prison time for speaking out against Obama.

It was not that long ago Homeland Security said that citizens of the U.S. such as rightwing groups and returning soldiers could target this administration.


#2

Eh. Its a small victory I guess. There’s still options for them to tack it back onto the bill as amendments or whatever. I will never truly feel good about this entire firearms being blamed for evil acts nonsense until the government has completely been shrunken down to the bare minimum where the politicians that are there only care about making sure the country continues to run. But since we know that will never happen…


#3

Mods may wish to merge this with my Thread on Feinstein and this bill from yesterday.

I’m happy that the feds are powerless on this…but the real danger remains in the blue states…a la Cuomo. Tellingly…he is down 17 points in NYS polling since he went after the gun owners…the court cases will follow and take him down more. Hopefully this will serve as a lesson in other blue states.


#4

Translation of Harry’s refusal to bring a bill to the floor with the Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban in it: Harry does not want to place Dem senate seats in red states at risk in the 2014 mid-terms by placing these Dem senators in the position of voting in favor of a bill containing the ban - a ban that is VERY unpopular in those states. So he throws Feinstein and her weapons ban under the bus (where she rightly belongs) in favor of passing that portion of the bill that has a more broad base of support - enhanced background checks. Harry might be stupid, but he isn’t crazy. So much for Obama’s and Reid’s chest pounding, rhetorical BS regarding a fight to the finish with Repubs over an “assault weapons” ban.


#5

What I find interesting about the assault weapons ban is rifles are used in about 3% of all murders in the US during 2010. Assault rifles being a sub-set of the rifle. So even if Congress were able to pass a comprehensive assault rifle ban, it would make very little difference anyways.


#6

The only result would be to disarm the citizenry of the arms most useful to defend itself against tyranny.


#7

And that is exactly the intent.


#8

[quote=“Susanna, post:7, topic:38737”]
And that is exactly the intent.
[/quote]Big Sis, Homeland Security has refused to answer why they are buying so much ammo. One contention would be that if the feds and the states do get the power to disarm the citizens they will be prepared to take citizen’s arms by force.

Germany