Feinstein calls for banning more than 150 types of firearms, including pistols and shotguns.

That is a fair response. All I will add is that I believe that many would like an eventual ban on a majority of firearms. You are right that it is not an official platform like the Republicans with abortion.

 

Not really snarky, but stating what I believe he would say. For those with a great deal of experience the reload time is very small.

 

Ahh rapture. We all die. Nice

 

It seems like gun collectors would want these weapons banned so the value of the ones out there would skyrocket.

 

There is no slippery slope. Cool. Then keep regulation as is.

 

Like I said fortunately she ain't no decider. I can make wish lists too.

 

How am I supposed to hunt without my Izhmash Saiga 12? I do high volume duck hunting, so a banana clip on my shotty is a must!

Next thing they're going to tell me is that I can longer use my M203 for hunting blue quail in West Texas...

 

Hey gunnies, here's a clue. Quit trying to say things would have been better for the Jews, the slaves, and the Sioux at Wounded Knee if they had only used guns. It's not helping your cause. And really, if John Lewis had pulled a gun (in the middle of a NON-VIOLENT protest), he would have been dead for decades now.

 

I wonder what Rush thought of these black guys with guns in the 60's

 

There's just no end to the stupidity.

 

Power to the people?

 

That's back when the NRA was in favor of gun control...

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cgpQBZF2sZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I just put a couple of these bad boys on order just in case this liberal witch hunt for freedom is somehow passed.

 

So...do you think current gun laws have already gone too far? Should we be able to buy belt-fed M249 light machine guns? How about shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles? At what point do you draw the line, if your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is for the public to be able to counter the USA Armed Forces?

There has, for many years, been precedence stating that it is okay to restrict the 2nd amendment in certain ways (machine guns have been prohibited for a long time), just like it's okay to restrict the 1st amendment in certain ways (yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater or libel laws). Precedence rules, my friend.

 

Testimony from a survivor of the Texas Luby's shooting during the original assault weapons ban hearings.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6sEYGcXSmpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOYno0TTWl4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOYno0TTWl4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

1975, couldn't find it in english. Just a tangent, the Duke being cool should not imply a stance on my part.

 

I've seen this stupid video posted by every gun nut I know. Why is that any time reality seems to rum amok with conservative logic that it just takes an anectodal facebook post or video by just anybody to refute actual research, science, expert opinion, facts, etc.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8QjZY3WiO9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You haven't even seen the proposed legislation, but you are an expert on all of its provisions and how it will be iinterpeted. Do you realize how embarrassingly silly a post like this makes you look? It's things like this that lead you to be mocked and laughed at.

The ignoramus here is you, who claim that weapons designed by and for the military are "not military weapons" - again, you should be embarrassed to post something so openly and obviously ridiculous.