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

I'm sure all these red state Dem Senators love this show she's putting on.

Manchin already got an earful at a townhall meeting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/u...lk-of-new-laws.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2&

 

can't people just print AK-47s, isn't this legislation useless?

I don't like straight bans at all. i don't think this will work, actually, at all. but I can understand why Feinstein is trying so hard.

 

There's "nothing "military"" about the weapons on that list? There's "nothing military" about the AR-15, the AK-47, and tactical shotguns?

I'll make sure to not select those loadouts then next time I play Call of Duty black ops then. GTFOH with that stupidity.

 

As I've said before I am not a big fan of an "assault weapon" ban that is based on particular models and appearance. I would rather them be based primarily on function.

 

If clips are so easy to change I wonder if special agent Jezioro can answer why the military and law enforcement use expanded clips to begin with?

 

In addition to the specific weapons listed, here is the rest of the proposal:

• 158 specifically named military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons.

• 2,200 specifically named hunting and sporting firearms would be exempted from the ban. (In '93, that number was 375.)

• Other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with one characteristic of military assault rifles (such as pistol grips and telescoping or folding stocks) and detachable magazines. (The earlier ban required a firearm to have at least two such features to be proscribed.)

• Magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds

• "Slide stops" that can transform a semi-automatic AR-15 and its clones into a rifle that fires rounds almost at the speed of an automatic

• Firearms with fixed magazines containing more than 10 rounds

• Firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons.” (These features were added by manufacturers to get around the 1994 ban.)

• Unlike the expired ban, Feinstein's has no sunset provision.

 

To save a second...

 

So again we see that nobody is asking to ban all guns.

 

No surprise.This Feinstein b**** has always been against all guns whatsoever. What does a telestock ban actually do for the good of the public?
This is over the line bullcrap, but it will be thankfully fought. The b**** is not the decider.

 

For the record I would like to see her proposal amended. I agree with Roxran about about the telestock.

However, even this ban proposal doesn't call on banning all firearms.

 

I don't think that many people believe that all guns would be banned all at once, but over time. It is similar to the abortion issue. The Republicans tout a bill to limit access or conditions on the right to abortion and the fear is the slow destruction of the right to choice. The argument is the same but the parties are switched.

 

The limitation on the right to arms has done wonders in Mexico.

Frankly, Feinstein doesn't know much about firearms based on her "list".

 

I've heard the slippery slope argument, I just didn't see any evidence of it.

If it's analogous with the abortion debate than I would be in favor of restrictions. I certainly am in favor of restricting almost all 3rd term abortions, yet I don't believe that doing so is merely a step to outlawing abortion.

 

Great we can still have 1911 combat pistols...now just to find the ammo during the public at large crazy buying frenzy. Kidding but serious

 

One key difference is that the GOP's stated goal is to ban all abortions - so their bills are not a slippery slope. Their members basically universally support that goal, and the bills are intended to move in that direction. There is no evidence of the same on the Dem side - few (if any) Democrats support a ban on all guns. There was no movement to ban more guns after the 1994 ban.

 

Not sure if this is a snarky reply but taking it at face value as someone who has fired a semi auto including reloading a clip the practical time between shooting is more than a second. With a semi-automatic the advantage is you can keep on aiming while firing but once you reload you have to take your eye off the target while no longer pointing the gun at the target. Further that 1 second load time is based on standing at a gun range with another magazine on a counter. Not trying to fish out another magazine from a pocket while moving.

As been pointed out repeatedly Jared Loughner was only stopped when he had to reload after firing 30 shots from a high capacity magazine.

 

Exactly. Why does she have to be the voice even. All she does is create even more of a buying frenzy when she opens her mouth.

 

Good - the fires of Mount Doom will burn ever so brighter after we toss these newly confiscated weapons in and can forge the rings of Daily Kos power.

 

Today was not a good day, evil democratic socialists who want to stop mass killings,
are trying to take my AKs away! =(

 

The slippery slope argument is quite dumb - it's like responding to proprietary trading restricitons contained in the Volcker Rule, as embodied in Dodd Frank, by saying "Well one day you will outlaw all derivatives and securities exchanges and stock certificates and ALL OF CAPITAL MARKETS AND THEN ITS SOCIALISM" - there is really nothing that follows from that, and you don't really see anybody credible ever arguing that kind of a point.

But in the paranoiac universe of the gun-thusiast, these inherently low-cred arguments are the ones that are flogged the loudest and the longest - I would think in part because the gun nuts devote most of their appeals to emotion rather than reason.