Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate committee poised to approve assault weapons ban.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Senate committee poised to approve assault weapons ban.

    WASHINGTON

    _________________________________________

    “True unalienable rights do not require one to trample other unalienable rights.”
    ―J.S.B. Morse

  • #2
    The AWB won't be enacted.
    Hail Homer! Blessed is he among men and blessed is the fruit of his loins Bart.

    Comment


    • Another Brick
      Another Brick commented
      Editing a comment

      TubeAddict wrote:
      The AWB won't be enacted.

      That's how I feel.  Not enough (white) children have died.


  • #3
    Probably won't even pass the full Senate.

    Comment


    • TubeAddict
      TubeAddict commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Probably won't even pass the full Senate.


      Most likely not.


    • Zooey
      Zooey commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Probably won't even pass the full Senate.

      The full Senate won't even vote on it (that's what the 60 votes are needed for).


  • #4

    quickie1 wrote:

    WASHINGTON

    Comment


    • #5

      quickie1 wrote:

      Foes of barring the weapons say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.

      Feinstein's bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.


      2nd amendment right doesn't say you can own assault weapons. It only says you can own weapons.  Govco can allow you a musket and they'd still be following the constitution.

      I agree with limiting the rounds. Feinstein also has an unfortunate reputation when it comes to gun laws.

      Comment


      • rbstern
        rbstern commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        quickie1 wrote:

        Foes of barring the weapons say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.

        Feinstein's bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.


        2nd amendment right doesn't say you can own assault weapons. It only says you can own weapons.  Govco can allow you a musket and they'd still be following the constitution.

        I agree with limiting the rounds. Feinstein also has an unfortunate reputation when it comes to gun laws.


        Since courts examine original intent, and the founders stated, in various contexts, that citizens should have personal arms similar to those carried by professional soldiers, I don't think your take on the 2nd Amendment's scope is particularly valid.

         

         


      • Disemboweler
        Disemboweler commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        quickie1 wrote:

        Foes of barring the weapons say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.

        Feinstein's bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.


        2nd amendment right doesn't say you can own assault weapons. It only says you can own weapons.  Govco can allow you a musket and they'd still be following the constitution.

        I agree with limiting the rounds. Feinstein also has an unfortunate reputation when it comes to gun laws.


        It says the right to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed. And actually, I CAN own assault weapons. The real kind, as in machine guns. I just have to pay a $200 dollar fee and go through a check. As for the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, I don't get those rights from gov't, I get them from me, because I am willing to die from US government bullets for refusal to give them up.


      • moogerfooger
        moogerfooger commented
        Editing a comment

        moonlightin wrote:

        quickie1 wrote:

        Foes of barring the weapons say law-abiding citizens should not lose their Second Amendment right to own the weapons, which they say are popular for self-defense, hunting and collecting.

        Feinstein's bill would also ban large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, which she and her allies say allow shooters to inflict more casualties before pausing to reload, which is when they might be stopped. Adam Lanza, the Newtown gunman, was said to have had 30-round magazines.


        2nd amendment right doesn't say you can own assault weapons. It only says you can own weapons.  Govco can allow you a musket and they'd still be following the constitution.

        I agree with limiting the rounds. Feinstein also has an unfortunate reputation when it comes to gun laws.


        sorry but you're just dead wrong. the second ammendment say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. limiting the type of weapon or amunition  is infringment by definition, 


    • #6

      I am all for it-Ban Handguns also.

      Comment


      • #7
        Rogue: That's about all the GOP is good for at this point.

        Comment


        • #8
          It'll likely get filibustered.

          I'm more focused on the Background Check Bill. That one has a better chance of passing, and a better chance of actually doing some good.

          Comment


          • NOS68
            NOS68 commented
            Editing a comment

            BA.Barcolounger wrote:
            It'll likely get filibustered.

            I'm more focused on the Background Check Bill. That one has a better chance of passing, and a better chance of actually doing some good.

            It won't get the chance to be filibustered Reid will never bring it to vote, Nevada is very pro-gun and he knows it.

             

            And I don't see how the feds can do anything about background checks as that intrastate commerce where they shouldn't be meddling. I'm not against requiring all sales to need a check BTW.


        • #9
          Zooey: The states should be free to enact bans if they wish. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a restriction upon the states....just the federal government.

          Comment


          • Zooey
            Zooey commented
            Editing a comment

            mauser wrote:
            Zooey: The states should be free to enact bans if they wish. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a restriction upon the states....just the federal government.

            True, and pointing that out usually drives 2nd Amendment proponents into a perplexed rage.  But it's moot now, as you know, because the 2nd was incorporated in 2010 through the McDonald decision.

            I think the issue we have now is the scope of the 2nd Amendment is just not as broad as many think it is.  I would go as far to say that many states have laws far more protective of gun rights than the 2nd Amendment will ever be.  Many state and federal laws have been challenged since the Heller and McDonald decisions and except for the laws directly at issue in those case and ones identical to them, no regulations have been invalidated.

             


        • #10
          It's amazing how consistently wrong moonlight is on the gun issue, despite being corrected multiple times by people on both sides of the argument.

          Comment


          • #11

            Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. has been on a kick to outlaw firearms for some time.  Maybe she should look at how ineffective the Brady bill is.

            For those saying the states can out law weapons:
            14th Amend. US Const.:
            "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


            If nothing else, the Heller holding supports this - No state shall make or enforce....

            Comment


            • #12
              Norm: Incorporation sounds great, doesn't it?

              Comment


              • normh
                normh commented
                Editing a comment

                mauser wrote:
                Norm: Incorporation sounds great, doesn't it?

                Isn't it amazing how close the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are to Articles of Incorporation.


            • #13
              Zooey: 2nd Amendment proponents aren't always proponents of states rights.

              Comment



              Working...
              X