Reid: Assault Weapons Ban Can't Pass

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that a proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons has no chance of passing the chamber, but he wants to ensure a vote on it will take place. Reid (D-Nevada) told reporters he won't keep the proposed ban in gun legislation heading to the full Senate for consideration because including it would guarantee the measure would be blocked by a Republican filibuster. "I have to get something on the floor," Reid said.

Posted by REARENDHAT at 07:31 PM | 123 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

REARENDHAT

Joined 2005/06/15
Visited 2013/05/17

Status: user

MORE STORIES

To Hell With Third Party Cookies (7 comments) ...

Poll: Public Split on Gun Bill Failure (79 comments) ...

Mouseketeer Annette Funicello Dies (39 comments) ...

Reid: Assault Weapons Ban Can't Pass (123 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

There were so many problems with an "assault weapons" ban that it was just impossible to pass. Almost impossible to enforce, little or no effect on crime statistics, gigantic loopholes...it was dead before the ink was dry and everyone knew it. You know what the sad part is? It was a vastly superior bill to the ones being floated in several states, which are being enacted for one of two reasons: it might garner votes for the Governor when he makes a move to the national stage OR the state smells money to be made.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-19 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Harry Reid hates children.

#4 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-19 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

for all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth after sandy hook....and they can't even get this out of a committee.

Jesus Christ.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2013-03-19 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5 That's b/c Harry cares more about his job than the children. I said from the start once these idiots had to put their name on it the assault ban would go down in flames.

#6 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-19 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Big bummAR for the libs. You guys thought now was finally the time. VINDICATION WAS YOURS! All those gun-lovin, toothless, redneck, genetically questionable subhumans would lose their prized possessions!

As usual, the libbies get all lathered up for nothing. It's just another day it sucks to be a lib.

#7 | Posted by justanoversight at 2013-03-19 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good. It never would have got past the House anyway.

And I don't care what law they pass, they can have my SKS Commando when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

#8 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-19 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

They can have my SKS Commando when I figure out what just what an SKS Commando is and whether I in fact own one. No prying of cold dead fingers necessary.

#9 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-19 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a scoped out SKS rifle. Google SKS rifle.

#10 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-19 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

What Mustang said in post #2.

The SKS was nifty, until chicom imports stopped under Clinton. Funny, but it worked pretty much like most semi-auto rifles. :)

#11 | Posted by AKat at 2013-03-19 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, an SKS is just a rifle with a bi-pod and bayonet, but you can modify it to hold a thirty round magazine with nothing but a screwdriver* and so now it's an "assault rifle".

*that's an orange juice and vodka.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-19 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fugly Di Fi IS an assault weapon.

#13 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2013-03-19 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

There were so many problems with an "assault weapons" ban that it was just impossible to pass.

It was in existence until Dubya the Great and the kddy whackers let it expire.

OTOH harry needs to go back to Nevada and his 37 wives. He's inept and only the existence of McConnell prevents that from becoming even more apparent.

#14 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-19 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Victory! More dead children to come!"
-Republican demons

#15 | Posted by Kreator at 2013-03-19 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Victory! More dead children to come!"
-Republican demons

Bone up on your stats. The weapons ban of 1994 did little to protect children.

www.washingtontimes.com

"It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement," said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

The report also noted that assault weapons were "rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."

So IF you libs get another weapons ban in place you'll sit back in your solar powered biodegradable lounge chairs thinking you've cured all evils in the world. Far from it.

#16 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-19 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was in existence until Dubya the Great and the kddy whackers let it expire.

Uhh, no it wasn't. But you thought it was, and that's all that really matters to the politicians.

#17 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-19 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL. Liberals are mad "the other side" is actually going to vote how their constituents want them to and not like a liberal...

Awwww...

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-19 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Harry Reid said Tuesday that a proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons has no chance of passing the chamber..."

Well, no kidding. Who ever thought it would?

#19 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who ever thought it would?

Liberals and Democrats. They assumed most americans wanted to give up their security for liberals feel good initiative...

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-19 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

...and they can't even get this out of a committee.

Jesus Christ.

#5 | Posted by eberly

He could get it out of committee at any time and put it to the Senate for vote right now.

But, it needs enough votes to overcome an (automatic) republican't filibuster.

As of yet it does even have enough votes to pass much less overcome a filibuster.

It is all about the timing. We get another massacre (and we will) and I bet it could pass.

And I'd leave Jesus Christ out of this. I am quite certain He would approve of a military type Assault Weapons ban.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-19 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Liberals and Democrats. They assumed most americans wanted to give up their security for liberals feel good initiative..."

You can provide proof of that? Or are you just assigning posititions to people you don't know?

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 08:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23 | POSTED BY REDIAL
natick.patch.com

This work for you?

#24 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can provide proof of that?

The bills gonna die, isnt it?

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2013-03-19 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could have told you that, Harry. Are you just throwing a bone to that idiot Feinstein?

#26 | Posted by willowby at 2013-03-19 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This work for you?"
#24 | Posted by Federalist

No. Not relevant.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

#22 what a joke, how twisted can the left get to make excuses? The left don't want to go on record against assault weapons.

Get it dude, they lied. All of them from the top down. And now you blame the right because you are either ignorant, or so horribly partisan you actually can not reason.

#29 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-03-19 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The bills gonna die, isnt it?"

I don't know.

In any case, how would that prove that "Liberals and Democrats... assumed most americans wanted to give up their security for liberals feel good initiative..."?

#30 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The bills gonna die, isnt it?"

Probably so, and 57% of the American people will watch as their opinions are ignored. Guns have big money so they can buy more Congressmen....be proud gun nuts!!! Doesn't make you right, doesn't make you the representatives of the majority, it makes you the one's with the most money and the Congressmen and Senators with the least character. Be proud! You are the antithesis of what America is supposed to mean. Be proud!

#31 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-19 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | POSTED BY REDIAl

You should know.

#32 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#31 | POSTED BY DANNI

Do you think gun laws will stop the killing in D.C., Chicago and Detroit? Gun laws are only followed by honest law abiding citizens. Any Law made will not stop anything from happening.
The law deals with the results. Hell otherwise we could pass a law that no one would ever be hungry. There will be no more Snow on Tuesdays.

#33 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You should know."
#32 | Posted by Federalist

Did you read your own link?

How does it prove that "Liberals and Democrats... assumed most americans wanted to give up their security for liberals feel good initiative..."?

#34 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you think gun laws will stop the killing in D.C., Chicago and Detroit?"

Immediately, of course not, but are you opposed to an initiative to slowly and steadfastly to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country. REalize, Switzerland is now dealing with the same issues. It will not go away, we need to find solutions and, I'm sorry, the NRA isn't part of the solution, they are part of the problem. I don't want to deprive anyone of their rights but I also don't want some idiot to shoot me because he thinks I cut him off in traffic. I do consider those who place gun rights ahead of other rights to be fools who will actually cost some Americans their lives this year and every year until we enact reasonable gun controls. Kids will grow up without parents because of the immaturity of too many Americans. There's your truth. Immaturity! Laughable if it didnt' cost so many Americans their lives and children their parents and parents their children. Grow [...] up America.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-19 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you read the link? Give up HIPPA laws. Give up your right to keep your long rifles in your own possession. Submit to a mental screening before applying a gun license. So lets see give up your 2ed and 4th amendment rights. And pay to do it. Then if the masters decide you are worthy pay a registration fee every year and an tax on top of sales tax for the ammo you purchase.

What part did you miss. Oh maybe the local Democratic party had this Democratic state rep speak at their weekly meeting. He has a bill in the Massachusetts legislature right now.

#36 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | POSTED BY DANNI

It will work as well as the war on drugs and poverty. Winning!

Why do we need to pick up trash on the highways? It is against the law to litter.

#37 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What part did you miss."

The part about how any of that proves that "Liberals and Democrats... assumed most americans wanted to give up their security for liberals feel good initiative...".

#38 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why do we need to pick up trash on the highways? It is against the law to litter."

and the point goes to federalist.

#39 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-19 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Grow [...] up America.

Part of growing [...] up is resisting the impulse to ban certain inanimate objects simply because they can be used by bad people to do bad things.

Heed your own advice.

#40 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2013-03-19 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

reasonable gun controls

We have reasonable gun controls.

I'll go to jail if I get caught with a shoulder-fired SAM or an automatic rifle.

That's pretty reasonable.

#41 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2013-03-19 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Part of growing the f**ck up is resisting the impulse to ban certain inanimate objects simply because they can be used by bad people to do bad things."

Then I guess RPGs should be legal, 50 calibur machine guns, mortars, cannons, atomic weapons???? We can't decide on reasonable limits? That's ridiculous.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-19 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Be proud!

#31 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-19 09:28 PM | Reply

I'm trying. Sometimes it's hard and sometimes it isn't.

#43 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-19 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals are mad "the other side" is actually going to vote how their constituents want them to and not like a liberal...

Funny how voting "how their constituents want them to" is OK when one agrees with it but not when it involves passing something like a social program.

Do try to at least be consistent in respecting the constituency's wishes.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

They assumed most americans wanted to give up their security for liberals feel good initiative...

Most Americans aren't gun owners boaz.

If you're going to crow about something at least be accurate in doing so.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am quite certain He would approve of a military type Assault Weapons ban.

Is there any other type of "Assault Weapon" that isn't military-type?

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I listened to a State Rep in Mass. speak last night on gun control. Rep Linsky who I referenced earlier in this thread.

He said on the right to bear arms. And I quote. ""Absolute rights are not absolute." Linsky added the addition that "You cant yell fire in a crowded theater." As some kind of explanation.

Well you can yell fire in a crowded theater. You pay a price and have to face the consequences. Just like anyone would if you used a gun improperly. So if removing all guns will keep everyone from improper use of a gun I guess removing everyones tongues would keep them from yelling fire in a crowded theater. That would take care of the 2ed and the 1st amendment.

#48 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 10:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Be proud! You are the antithesis of what America is supposed to mean. Be proud!

LOL riiiggghhhhht.

God I hate it when someone claims to speak for America.

I don't want to deprive anyone of their rights...

BS.

but I also don't want some idiot to shoot me because he thinks I cut him off in traffic.

Funny how scare some anti-gun folks are of things they're likely in close contact with on a daily basis to no detriment of themselves.

I do consider those who place gun rights ahead of other rights

Actually, they're place equally, danni.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want to figure out a way to limit gun access to criminals and crazy folks.

The problem is doing it without penalizing those who've done nothing wrong, an issue at the heart of all "reasonable" gun control measures put forth that I've seen and an issue generally ignored by those who are a little ignorantly overly-zealous in their desire to enact "reasonable" gun control.

There's your truth. Immaturity! Laughable if it didnt' cost so many Americans their lives and children their parents and parents their children. Grow [...] up America.

Funny how you rant about immaturity and growing up while you squeeze a few salty crocodile tears in an overly-emotional, self-righteous diatribe.

Maybe you'd be taken seriously if you actually displayed reasoned opinions on the topic? Oh, and a little knowledge might help too.

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just like anyone would if you used a gun improperly."

Unfortunately that is not true.

Idiots who "accidentally" shoot themselves or others seldom face legal consequences.

#50 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

He said on the right to bear arms. And I quote. ""Absolute rights are not absolute." Linsky added the addition that "You cant yell fire in a crowded theater." As some kind of explanation.

The funniest thing about this line of reasoning is that it seems to assume that 2nd amendment rights are currently unlimited or unregulated.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

We can't decide on reasonable limits? That's ridiculous.

Here's a clue danni, we have.

It's the reason your post is laughable absurd.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

#45 | POSTED BY JPW.
I think its around 47%. And that is legal owners. You might want rethink that.
en.wikipedia.org

#53 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Yea if they off themselves we should punish their family. I'll email Rep. Linsky and give him your idea.

#54 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think its around 47%. And that is legal owners. You might want rethink that.

First off, how does your link support your statement?

Second, the rate varies by who takes the poll.

There was an entire thread on this not too long ago.

www.drudge.com

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 10:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ah yes Harry Reid showing that he has no backbone. He would not want the voters to know what democrats would vote for a ban. Let them vote on it Harry, show that you do indeed have backbone. I won't hold my breath.

#56 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-19 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | POSTED BY DANNI

The NRA is definitely the solution to the foaming at the mouth anti gun nut problem.
Nobody is putting certain rights over others, except you.

#57 | Posted by willowby at 2013-03-19 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yea if they off themselves we should punish their family. I'll email Rep. Linsky and give him your idea."
#54 | Posted by Federalist

Did you miss the part about "accidentally"?

I don't think anyone who is irresponsible enough to shoot themselves or anyone else through carelessness or stupidity should not suffer consequences.

Must be just me though.

#58 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then I guess RPGs should be legal, 50 calibur machine guns, mortars, cannons, atomic weapons???? We can't decide on reasonable limits? That's ridiculous.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-19 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everything but the last one is legal to own if I want one. Maybe not an actual RPG but a 40mm or some variation,105?
Take a look if you don't believe me.

www.youtube.com

rwd

#59 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2013-03-19 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then I guess RPGs should be legal, 50 calibur machine guns, mortars, cannons, atomic weapons???? We can't decide on reasonable limits? That's ridiculous.

#42 | Posted by danni

certainly the 1st Amendment allows you libs to DEBATE reasonable limits all ya want...
however, 2nd Amendment prohibits you libs from IMPOSING your silly shi* on law abiding American citizens

btw, 50 cal Browning Machine Gun (BMG) for sale on GA
50 cal BMG

they DO take VISA/ Discover...
a) can u legally own a firearm?
b) can u pass a NICS background check?

#60 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-19 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are limits on every right.
SCOTUS already ruled that limits are legal and constitutional.
The last law banning "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines was legal and constitutional. It didn't go away because of any court ruling.

#61 | Posted by YAV at 2013-03-19 10:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

thx 4 the 75mm link RWD,
the guy in the next vid was having a ball blowing up cars with that cannon

just boys having fun

#62 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-19 10:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61 - thx for the insight,
now why don't you and danni debate and leave the adult law abiding citizens alone

perhaps invite corky & Yav and have a "mass-debate"

#63 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-19 11:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then I guess RPGs should be legal, 50 calibur machine guns, mortars, cannons, atomic weapons????

No, Danni. Those weapons are, for the most part, illegal for individual citizens to own---because we have reasonable gun control laws in place.

Part of your frustration is the mentality requiring you to frame the gun control issue in terms of public "health & safety"--- rather than the ideology behind it. You're an aging woman who grew up in an American era when its domestic leftism could still be packaged and have a happy face slapped upon it.

Humanity cannot be subservient to the state and properly managed or engineered so long as the provincial yahoos think they can take matters into their own hands.

#64 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2013-03-19 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#64 - hey, I resemble that comment! (I think)

ummm... is a "provincial yahoo" good or bad?

#65 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-19 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those weapons are, for the most part, illegal for individual citizens to own---because we have reasonable gun control laws in place.
#64 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2013-03-19 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

No they are not.

I wouldn't own a french one that's for sure.

~GASP~ LOL

French missile technology at its best

www.youtube.com

rwd

#66 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2013-03-19 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#66 - damn, u should'a posted a warning with that vid
I may have ruint my keyboard w/ spillage!

#67 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-19 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

No they are not.

But are they freely available to anyone based on a simple background check?

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by Jak_Se

Great seeing you back around again. You've been missed! : )

#69 | Posted by CalifChris at 2013-03-19 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#61 | Posted by YAV
The last law banning "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines was legal and constitutional. It didn't go away because of any court ruling.

True but none of the legal challenges were in the Supreme Court. None of the challenges were on Second Amendment grounds, at least the ones I am aware of. The challenges were states right, equal protection, commerce clause and a couple others I don't remember. When those were made the last Supreme Court case was 1939. The two recent ones are strong Second Amendment cases.

#70 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-19 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#69 Wrote "Posted by Jak_Se" = left off "Mao" by mistake

#71 | Posted by CalifChris at 2013-03-19 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

But are they freely available to anyone based on a simple background check?
#68 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The question is, legal to own. If you have cash and pass the requirements to own one, you can legally own one. Just because the average person can't fork over 24k to by a BMG doesn't mean their right is limited.
Look at the vid I posted, you can't hear the guy because of all the automatic gunfire going on. Presumably all legal.

rwd

#72 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2013-03-19 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey you left wing liberals, how many of these people, most of whom were not all there mentally, do you think would stop and say "gee this is against the new law to have this gun, guess I will have to find a gun that is legal" before they shoot and kill the people at the school or movie theater?

Problem is two fold, one the mentally ill are not properly restricted. The left wing concern about their rights has allowed them to be pretty much free in society and able to do these kind of crimes.

Second, think about this, the entertainment industry has pretty much banned tobacco products from TV and movies. Why do you ask? Becasue they feel very strongly that the repeated use of these products in movies and on TV lead to children using tobacco products. There are actually studies that verify this. Yet violent video games that glorify killing people and sex has no effect..... What is wrong with this picture????? Think about it.

Unfortuanely more gun laws will not stop this, the problem is not the guns it is how we program people and the mentally challenged.

#73 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-19 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Problem is two fold, one the mentally ill are not properly restricted. The left wing concern about their rights has allowed them to be pretty much free in society and able to do these kind of crimes.
#73 | Posted by gtjr

because the Dems need voters who will believe their silly schemes, scams, & shams?

#74 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-19 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

The question is, legal to own.

But restricted.

In other words, danni can sleep soundly tonight knowing she can cut someone off tomorrow without fear a 75mm howitzer round up her [...].

#75 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-19 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#75 | POSTED BY JPW

Yes but 32 oz. drinks are still in play.

#76 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Problem is two fold, one the mentally ill are not properly restricted. The left wing concern about their rights has allowed them to be pretty much free in society and able to do these kind of crimes."
#73 | Posted by gtjr

Don't the mentally ill have 2nd Amendment rights as well? FEDERALIST listed "Submit to a mental screening before applying a gun license." as one of the evil provisions of a proposed gun bill in his #36.

That same bill "Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course". I guess one can properly learn firearms safety and buy a gun without actually ever having fired one?

#77 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-19 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

But are they freely available to anyone based on a simple background check?

#68 | POSTED BY JPW

They are illegally available to anyone. Just like pot, cocaine, hookers and large sodas.

#78 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-19 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#73 | Posted by gtjr
...one the mentally ill are not properly restricted.

That's rather harsh. Mental illness, in and of itself, does not justify "restriction" nor does it indicate predisposition to criminality. As it relates to gun laws, most would agree that some tightening of reporting is in order, subject to some review for errors and cure.

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-19 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

#77 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Yes they do just like the right to vote, drive, ski, snowboard and play miniature golf. All ow which actions could hurt or kill someone else besides or as well as themselves.

#80 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-20 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"without actually ever having fired one?"
#77 | POSTED BY REDIAL
Who was there your firs time?

Grandma!

#81 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-20 12:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess one can properly learn firearms safety and buy a gun without actually ever having fired one?
#77 | Posted by REDIAL

you guess correct
safety, handling, & marksmanship are NOT conditions for purchase or ownership

but it may be illegal to text message while completing NICS form F4473

#82 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-20 12:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

#77 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Boy after being on this thread for awhile I can only imagine who gets to choose the level of mental illness. Lets leave it op to Obamacare.

#83 | Posted by Federalist at 2013-03-20 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

We all knew it would never pass, but the democrats had to go through the motions anyway.

When I was in the army, most soldiers I knew where democrats (because we where poor, black, hispanic, etc....) and we still enjoy shooting recreationally today.

Also, a lot of rural residents vote democrat. And they need guns.

Where I live, you can buy a machine gun (or even a mini-gun), but only with the written permission of the Chief of Police, whom interviews you in person. I've been told that in some states, like Colorado, you can buy a cannon if you have a need to shoot snow overhangs to prevent avalanches by triggering them early with an explosion.

So it's hard for me to see any kind of gun legislation passing, especially ideas like Fienstien's where veterans with PTSD are denied their second amendment rights. Because that basically takes away gun rights to all combat veterans....

#84 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2013-03-20 12:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"...safety, handling, & marksmanship are NOT conditions for purchase or ownership..."

I know. I think they should be.

But that's just me.

#85 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-20 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the PIGs get the weapon then so do the people... that's the 2nd amendment. Otherwise the Military violates the posse comitatus act (wiki sucks _).

BUT, the assault on the constitution has been attempted and now dismissed as though its no big deal.

Well it is a big funking deal - anyone who opposes the constituion is a felon - guilty of treason against the citizens of this united states.

Have you noticed the trends of succession? That's what happens with failed leadership... its what the bible reveals in Kings and Chronicles.

Didn't read that? Well then your DOOOMED to repeat that pathetic history - and get tortured. Go dark 30 for it... you want to... watch the 'assault' on your child while missing your 'assault' weapon.

If the POLICE have a weapon then its criminal govt to prevent the people from having the same. Want a bazooka? well then the people too.

#86 | Posted by reitze at 2013-03-20 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Boy after being on this thread for awhile I can only imagine who gets to choose the level of mental illness."

Ask the NRA... they were all over it after the last mass shooting.

#87 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-20 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the PIGs get the weapon then so do the people... that's the 2nd amendment. Otherwise the Military violates the posse comitatus act

Good luck with that one.

#88 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-20 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Immediately, of course not, but are you opposed to an initiative to slowly and steadfastly to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-19 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol. You sound like Nixon talking about the war on drugs.

#89 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2013-03-20 07:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Reitze, you're off base with posse comitatus. It applies only to the military (those subject to TITLE 10), not the police, DHS, Coast Guard, Obama's private shock troops, etc...

#90 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-20 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

#79

Et Al

Yes it is harsh but unfortunately life is harsh and the world is even harsher. Face it there are people in society that cannot take care of themselves, been to San Francisco lately? Homeless, many of whom would have been in mental hospitals years ago are roaming the streets. This is true in every major city in America, and why? Because the bleeding heart liberals have forced the mental hospitals to let them go. It is not right or fair to put these people on the streets. I live in NC and I can tell you this state has perhaps the worst system to deal with mental health I have ever seen.

Obviously not all mentally challenged people belong in the hospital but the bleeding hearts and ACLU types have pushed the pendulum too far to the left. So we have people shooting up movie theatres and grade schools. The people that are doing this are not all there mentally. Can we stop it all, of course not, but there are steps we can take to lessen the occurrances. One way is to address mental health. As is true of everything, we need some moderation, some common sense reforms, not just emotion driven laws that accomplish nothing.

#91 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-20 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#83

Federalist

Yes it is a thorny issue one that if congress had any intelligence, fat chance of that happening anytime soon, would be left to medical professionals who understand mental health. Of course some dumb a-- senator from California or Arizona could not let people who understand mental health structure a program, nah that would make too much sense and I could not toot my horn to the voters. But that is why we have disfunctional goevernment, like Obummercare, where you have idiot bureaucrats decide what course of treatment is needed rather than a medical professional. After all they only have nine years of training what would they know?

#92 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-20 08:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by gtjr at

You're going to have popular will backed by money to make a dent in the mental health problems currently extant. In North Carolina, as one example, there is little or no will because no one wants to spend the money.

Saving money, because it was possible with a new class of psychoactive medications, was the major reason for clearing the mental hospitals, by the way. A thoroughly Randian solution, made in large part in expectation that many would die. Because, as you know, that's what people do.

#93 | Posted by Zed at 2013-03-20 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think they should have tried to leave it in so it would be on record who needs to be fired in the next election.

#94 | Posted by bph320 at 2013-03-20 09:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

BPH320

You don't really think Harry Reid has the backbone to have the senate stand up be counted do you? He is a total weasel incapable and unwilling to take a stand. His picture is above the word slimeball in the dictionary, or it should be.lol.

#95 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-20 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Zed

Perhaps this is the kind of catalyst that will get it done. I know for a fact in NC there is virtually no mechanism to get a bi-polar individual stabilized, they just let them go. I do not know if you are aware of what happens when someone has bi-polar disease, and yes there is effective medicine, but unless you have a mechanism to hold the person until they are stabilized there are all kinds of bad things that can happen to them.

But if they are allowed to check themselves out of the hospital without medication and having not been stabilized because the law does not allow it what can a hospital do? My experiences with this and other articles I have read have led me to believe the mental health in NC is badly broken.

It also appears that is the case nationwide as well. If the political hacks would quit using emotion to pass frivolus laws banning guns and concentrate on the real issue perhaps it can be resolved. What we do not need is more restriction of guns, but a better way to control who has access to them, by that I mean law abiding citizens and a check for any mental health issues, get rid of this stupid no gun zone rules. Sensible steps not radical.

#96 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-20 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Harry Reid hates children.
#4 | Posted by Dalton

On the contrary. Reid doesn't want to be associated with the Democrats war on women and children.

#97 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-20 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

While I don't support the ban as written, I also don't support Reid once again not calling a vote because of what he thinks about a bill. That is not his job.

#98 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-20 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Part of growing [...] up is resisting the impulse to ban certain inanimate objects simply because they can be used by bad people to do bad things.

Heed your own advice.

#40 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao

So you didn't think Saddam having WMD was any reason to invade?
Iran with a nuke is nothing to worry about?
Lil Kim in the same boat?

Well?

#99 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-20 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Because the bleeding heart liberals have forced the mental hospitals to let them go.

Yeah, the fact the right doesn't believe in providing health care has nothing to do with it. Don't you find it mildly amusing that the same people who want to make guns easily available to crazies are the same ones who refuse to fund treatment for the same crazies.

On the bright side, foreign gun makers are raking in the bucks from the crazies and the gunnies. America kids for foreign profits, it's the conservative way.

#100 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-20 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Immediately, of course not, but are you opposed to an initiative to slowly and steadfastly to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country.

Conservatives believe american exceptionalism means Americans can't not shoot each other and various random classrooms like the rest of the civilized world. Why do conservatives think Americans are so stupid?

#101 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-20 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

are you opposed to an initiative to slowly and steadfastly to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country

Depends on the initiative. Removing the hands of all people born would reduce gun violence, but I hardly think anyone would get onboard with that plan.

#102 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-20 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#101 | Posted by northguy3

Liberals believe that that changing the amount of ammo in a clip will make everyone and various random classrooms safe. Why are Liberals so stupid?

#103 | Posted by wisgod at 2013-03-20 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Because the bleeding heart liberals have forced the mental hospitals to let them go. It is not right or fair to put these people on the streets.

You're confused, Ronnie Raygun was the one who was so efficient at emptying mental hospitals and Marine barracks.

#104 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2013-03-20 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

On the bright side, foreign gun makers are raking in the bucks from the crazies and the gunnies. America kids for foreign profits, it's the conservative way.

#100 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-20 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

The AR-15s selling like discounted viagra are all American made. The overhead for going into manufacturing them is relatively low and assembly is under an hour per rifle. The most popular high cap mags in the world come out of Colorado. Americans are really good at making great firearms.

#105 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2013-03-20 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good. There's no reason to believe a limitation on the number of plastic accessories attached to a gun will make it less deadly. This was nothing more than politicians trying to look like they were doing something about a problem they have no interest in solving.

It's amazing how many weepy holes out there fall for it every time.

#106 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-20 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great video demonstrating what Live or Die is talking about here: Mini-14 versus AR-15.

www.youtube.com

Guess what? There's a 7.62mm version called the Mini-30.

#107 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-20 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#107

Maybe the appearance of the wooden stock will calm the children's little hearts before the gun blows their faces off just the same.

#108 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-20 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#107

Maybe the appearance of the wooden stock will calm the children's little hearts before the gun blows their faces off just the same.

#109 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-20 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

It might not calm the little children's hearts, but it apparently calms the fears of the morons writing gun legislation at the state and federal level, because without all those spooky attachments, the Mini-14/Mini-30 isn't classified as an assault weapon and would not be subject to the ban. And guess what? Once you've purchased and registered your non-assault weapon Mini, you can buy an aftermarket kit to add all those spooky plastic attachments. Takes almost no time at all, with nothing more than a screwdriver.

#110 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-20 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had a mini-14. The "spooky plastic attachments" are crap.

Much better rifle with the original stock.

#111 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-20 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#101

Northguy3

Perhaps it is because nobody has ever gone broke in the U.S. under estimating the intelligence of the American public.

Just look at how our government schools are dumbing down our students, that should be your first clue. Turning out graduates that cannot function in the real world, hell most high school graduates cannot balance a checkbook, a basic function that consumers do every day, unless of course you ahve graduated in the last 10 to 15 years.

#112 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-20 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#104

Wrong again, Reagan had a liberal democrat congress to deal with, in case you never learned this, the congress passes the laws and the president enforces them. The congress passed the legislation and if you went back and looked it probably was bipartisan. You certainly cannot blame that on Ronald Reagan.

#113 | Posted by gtjr at 2013-03-20 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guns are for wussies with small reproductive organs. Gun owners live in fear their whole lives thinking someone is about to attack them at any moment.#114 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB AT 2013-03-20 05:27 PM

Then the only difference between the gun owner and the gun control loon is the gun.

The loons actually think plastic accessories are a threat to their lives.

#115 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-20 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

And I'd leave Jesus Christ out of this. I am quite certain He would approve of a military type Assault Weapons ban.

#22 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Curious then, that Jesus hasn't. Isn't it? he would ban military assault weapons, according to you, but hasn't?

Why is that?

#116 | Posted by brilliantbart at 2013-03-20 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guns are for wussies with small reproductive organs. Gun owners live in fear their whole lives thinking someone is about to attack them at any moment.

#114 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

And some of us live our whole lives in fear of actually thinking. You might be one.

#117 | Posted by brilliantbart at 2013-03-20 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#114 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB

We need something to protect us from the invisible UFO's that you see or what the alien factories on the Moon that you see are making.

#118 | Posted by willowby at 2013-03-20 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

True Americans love accurate, high quality firearms. There is nothing more Merican than that.
Modern, civilian style AR 15 s (the only kind you can buy) are about the most accurate, reliable, dependable, and overall high quality guns ever made. When you consider who is demanding such a good product, that should be easily understandable.
So stand up and testify. Are you are a good American or are you a surrender-monkey? If things come to a fight, do want to win or do you want to die with a good excuse for losing on your lips - which no one will care about.
Americans who want to survive and prevail prefer expensive models of ARs with very expensive tactical sighting systems.
And if Nancy Pelosi has a Hot Flash because of it....just remind her of what is the best cure.

#119 | Posted by Rum at 2013-03-20 09:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals believe that that changing the amount of ammo in a clip will make everyone and various random classrooms safe.

Not all liberals.

Change "liberals" for "idiots" and you're dead on.

#120 | Posted by jpw at 2013-03-20 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or try to explain to Americans why some small arms are "too good for them" and that they should remain content owning guns that:
hurt more to shoot because of more painful recoil
Burn your hand when the barrel heats up.
Misses the target because the stock cannot fit properly and the best sort of sights no longer fit on the no longer existing Gilley Rail.
While you thugs are at it; why not ban the use of ear protection when firing certain guns? How is that different than banning (vision protecting) flash hiders or recoil/pain reducing stocks.
Genuine Sadists, once identified, should not expect mercy.

#121 | Posted by Rum at 2013-03-20 10:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

I toted a M16,(the military version of the AR15) for 30 years, It is not that good- the chamber fouls as a part of it's action and it has a lot of small parts that are easy to loose in the field. It is so light it is borderline flimsy. I had a chose and I bought a Mini 14. It has never jammed on me once- something I can not say about the M16.

#122 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-21 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

#122 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Yah, the old A1's were a bitch with the rounds the army provided.

If you were lucky you'd get one with a star stamped on the barrel, meant it was chromed and you could fire just about any round thru it, but if not, the carbon would build up and the round would literally not fit and the receiver wouldn't lock. Wasn't really a "jam" issue as that's usually a misfeed from the mag or a stovepipe during the ejection.

The work around was the forward assist to ram the round through all the gunk to seat it, so still happened, but you didn't have to clear the weapon 99% of the time, just give the FA a smack or two.

#123 | Posted by Lohocla at 2013-03-21 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Removing the dice in the mirror, chrome rims, stereo system, and flame paint job off a car do not make it slower. Like wise, adding those same elements to the soccer moms minivan wont turn it into a speed demon. IMO the 2nd amendment serves as a preventative measure to ensure that tyrants never attempt to impose their will on the people. Perhaps the founding fathers realized that writing angry letters, with angry words, expressing how angry they were to the king didnt quite work too well.

In country wise, my SKS seems well adapted to rough terrain and harsh elements. Ive got a pre Clinton Ban chicom, but really want eastern block version with threaded barrel. Plus there only about 10 real parts to the reciever, and the cleaning assembly kit fits nicely in the stock.

#124 | Posted by aescal at 2013-03-21 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

SKS and AKs in general are not very accurate, tho I have never seen one of these beefed up and customized- we put one, a Czech version, supposed to be one of the best made and the spread was 14 inches at 100 yards while fixed to a vice. I like the 223 because the ammo is much cheaper than the 7.62X32 and you can fix a 22 subcal device and save a boat load of money to ether the AR15 or a Mini14. The sights on all of the AKs I have seen are awful. AKs are true assault weapons, short range, high volume, short and lite. The results I have seen is the users usually end up dead when they face some soldier with a M16. Pray and spay ain't much compared to aim and squeeze. Now, if you want an accurate eastern block weapon, look at a Dragonoff?, 7.62X52R.

#125 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-21 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

SKS is a true partisan weapon, meant mainly for guerrilla warfare where spray and pray (suppressive) fire is the norm, and easily maintainable by inexperienced militia. I have a couple of nagants chambered in 7.62x54, maybe its the cold war era ammo (4 cents a round cheap), but they kick worse than a 12gauge slug shot. I'd love 7.62x54 scoped rifle, but stopping wise the 7.62x39 mushrooms and hits harder than .223. Penetration wise a .223 seems better, but for bear, mountian lion and any other varmit that looks at you as lunch, engagements will prob be under 100 yards and you want your shots to stop, not thru and thru. Back in the day 7.62x39 was going for $100 case of 1440, prob corrosive but if you dont mind cleaning not a bad deal.

#126 | Posted by aescal at 2013-03-21 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, I have seen several SKS rifles that would shoot 3" groups at 100 yards. Not tack drivers for sure and not quite as good as the AR rifles I have shot. But I would give the SKS higher marks for reliability, especially in harsh environments. The sov block Dragonov rifles friends have are pretty good out to 600 yards or so but I would prefer a decent Garand to them. YMMV. :)

#127 | Posted by AKat at 2013-03-21 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Democrats claim that Americans actually want most guns banned. Well fine. Pass a Constitutional Ammendment......I thought not.

#128 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2013-03-21 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The very best rifle I have ever fired is a M14, I am not that good a shot but I was able to put thee of five in the top of a trash can lid at 800 meters. Apparently a lot of folks agree, a M14 is one of the most expensive military surplus weapons out there, around $2500 last I checked, too rich for my blood.

#129 | Posted by docnjo at 2013-03-21 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag: