The secessionist movement would reach a tipping point without a grandfather clause. I'm just glad I don't have guns anymore so I don't have to worry about it.
Whoa...
Let's bring some factual discussion back into play and leave the emotion on the table.
First off, AWB bills have been introduced regularly on a yearly basis since the last one expired. They haven't gotten far. Why? Because CongressCritters are mainly interested in reelection. When the emotion of this situation dies down, the vitriol will subside. And even if it passes the Senate, it then needs to pass the House, then the two separate bills reconciled and then voted on again. By that time, it will be reelection time and folks will be looking to history to see if this is worth staking their Congressional career on. The calculus says no, but we shall see. Even if it does manage to go through, even Feinstein's bill explanations goes to great lengths to state that it is NOT a RETROACTIVE bill. As in, will not confiscate existing weapons. So breathe a little bit. Now, consider the Constitutional protections against government takings. The only thing that prevented the previous AWB from being shot down on this front was that it did have a sunset. The gov cannot just seize legal property without compensation.
So what about an Executive Order? Yep, he could do that. But the House provides all the funding and the House has certainly failed to fund EO's in the past. Could easily happen again, too. This is all political brinkmanship that is pornographically capitalizing on the blood of children in order to posture and point fingers. In the end, I think we will be right back where we started.
Let's bring some factual discussion back into play and leave the emotion on the table.
First off, AWB bills have been introduced regularly on a yearly basis since the last one expired. They haven't gotten far. Why? Because CongressCritters are mainly interested in reelection. When the emotion of this situation dies down, the vitriol will subside. And even if it passes the Senate, it then needs to pass the House, then the two separate bills reconciled and then voted on again. By that time, it will be reelection time and folks will be looking to history to see if this is worth staking their Congressional career on. The calculus says no, but we shall see. Even if it does manage to go through, even Feinstein's bill explanations goes to great lengths to state that it is NOT a RETROACTIVE bill. As in, will not confiscate existing weapons. So breathe a little bit. Now, consider the Constitutional protections against government takings. The only thing that prevented the previous AWB from being shot down on this front was that it did have a sunset. The gov cannot just seize legal property without compensation.
So what about an Executive Order? Yep, he could do that. But the House provides all the funding and the House has certainly failed to fund EO's in the past. Could easily happen again, too. This is all political brinkmanship that is pornographically capitalizing on the blood of children in order to posture and point fingers. In the end, I think we will be right back where we started.
And with regards to the possibility of banning and making high capacity magazines illegal, I hear your concerns, but this is a little hard to believe though logistically. I have no way to know how many hi-cap mags exist in the US, or how many people own them, but just for grins let's estimate. I've heard claims there are 300M - 500M guns in the US. Let's take the middle - 400M. Let's go conservative and say that 20% are evil black guns or pistols. That gives us 80M evil guns that likely came with at least one magazine, probably two. And everyone I know that has an evil gun has bought 2 to 20 more mags, but let's say they only bought 2. That's 80M guns X 4 mags (2 original and 2 extra) = 320M mags. Likely owned by 20M people. That's around 7% of the population of the US.
The US prison population today is right around 2M. Do you think they would criminalize 20M people overnight or by some arbitrary date?
Also, 320M mags * $25 avg cost = $8B confiscated by the Feds? Think there might be some lawsuits over that?
I think you'll see an attempt to stop the import and sale of them - the attempt. Let's stop them.
The US prison population today is right around 2M. Do you think they would criminalize 20M people overnight or by some arbitrary date?
Also, 320M mags * $25 avg cost = $8B confiscated by the Feds? Think there might be some lawsuits over that?
I think you'll see an attempt to stop the import and sale of them - the attempt. Let's stop them.
All the hubub about something that has not worked , numerous times before.
Without a complete take over of All guns the AWB is just B,S.. Why would it work this time?
Are "They" really this dense?
I Know!
Without a complete take over of All guns the AWB is just B,S.. Why would it work this time?
Are "They" really this dense?
I Know!
The politicians may know full well this, most are intelligent, well educated people. However, they count on the fact that the uninformed public doesnt, but wants to see 'action'
That's not what's being proposed by Feinstein.
"Feinstein plans to introduce her bill on the first day of the new Congress, January 3, to make more than 100 types of firearms illegal. Those that are already owned legally would be grandfathered in."
Link
Basically she wants to reinstate the expired AWB except this time try to make it permanent with no automatic expiration date.
I appeciate your optimism Jesse(and i hope you are right) but, i believe it may be different this time. I have had conversations with gun carrying 2A supporters that are questioning our having these weapons and even just having semi-auto's in general. Elected officials in Congress are more worried about getting reelected than solving problems. They will do whatever they think will get them the most votes and that is, in their minds, to appease the most immediate needs of their constituants. Even if its not the best course of action.
I think even the majority of politicians are too smart to have a mandatory turn in. Lot's of Federal agents would learn the real meaning of "from my cold dead hands". This isn't Australia, we're f*cking America.
folks, i am aware of all this. i said i was just thinking with my fingers. this is the article that sparked my thoughts. i'm just wondering if there will be any major changes in the old AWB
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:43pm EST
WASHINGTON(Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school.
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of an assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, said she would introduce new legislation this week. Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said lawmakers would hold hearings on gun control, and several others said they would devote new attention to the long-ignored issue.
"I think we could be at a tipping point ... where we might get something done," Senator Charles Schumer, another top Senate Democrat, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Any effort to restrict access to high-powered weapons is likely to face fierce opposition from many Republicans in Congress who say restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution's right to bear arms.
Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Most Republicans and many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are firm allies of the group.
Opinion polls have found Americans to be divided on the issue even after other high-profile shooting incidents.
U.S. lawmakers have not approved a major new gun law since 1994.
Feinstein said her planned legislation would outlaw the high-capacity magazines and military-style assault rifles that have factored in many recent mass shootings, including Friday's massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. People who own such weapons now would not be required to give them up, Feinstein said.
She said she would introduce her bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate soon, and a companion bill would be introduced in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Connecticut's Democratic governor and two senators, one a Democrat and one an independent, voiced support for an assault-weapons ban or restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
'AN ARMED PEOPLE'
A Republican lawmaker signaled ongoing opposition to gun control.
Asked on "Fox News Sunday" why Americans would need to own semi-automatic weapons, Republican Representative Louie Gohmert said, "Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government, if they know that the biggest army is the American people."
Gohmert added, "Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? ... Gun laws don't work."
President Barack Obama campaigned on gun control in 2008, but he has expanded gun rights in his first four years in office, signing legislation that would allow people to carry weapons on Amtrak trains and in national parks.
He tearfully called for "meaningful action" to prevent further tragedies on Friday, but the White House has declined to say what measures he would support.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken gun-control advocate, said Obama will have to make the issue a priority to get any new laws enacted.
"It's time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do - not go to Congress and say, 'What do you guys want to do?' This should be his number one agenda," Bloomberg said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, who has met with families of the victims of Friday's massacre, spoke of the need for new gun control steps.
"These are assault weapons. You don't hunt deer with these things. And I think that's the question that a lot of people are going to have to resolve their own minds: Where should this line get drawn?" Malloy added.
(This story was fixed to correct spelling of first name of Senator Feinstein in second paragraph: Dianne instead of Diane)
(Addtional reporting by Todd Eastham, Deborah Charles and Mohammad Zargham; Editing by Will Dunham)
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:43pm EST
WASHINGTON(Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school.
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of an assault-weapons ban that lapsed in 2004, said she would introduce new legislation this week. Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said lawmakers would hold hearings on gun control, and several others said they would devote new attention to the long-ignored issue.
"I think we could be at a tipping point ... where we might get something done," Senator Charles Schumer, another top Senate Democrat, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Any effort to restrict access to high-powered weapons is likely to face fierce opposition from many Republicans in Congress who say restrictions violate the U.S. Constitution's right to bear arms.
Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Most Republicans and many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are firm allies of the group.
Opinion polls have found Americans to be divided on the issue even after other high-profile shooting incidents.
U.S. lawmakers have not approved a major new gun law since 1994.
Feinstein said her planned legislation would outlaw the high-capacity magazines and military-style assault rifles that have factored in many recent mass shootings, including Friday's massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. People who own such weapons now would not be required to give them up, Feinstein said.
She said she would introduce her bill in the Democratic-controlled Senate soon, and a companion bill would be introduced in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Connecticut's Democratic governor and two senators, one a Democrat and one an independent, voiced support for an assault-weapons ban or restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
'AN ARMED PEOPLE'
A Republican lawmaker signaled ongoing opposition to gun control.
Asked on "Fox News Sunday" why Americans would need to own semi-automatic weapons, Republican Representative Louie Gohmert said, "Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government, if they know that the biggest army is the American people."
Gohmert added, "Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop? ... Gun laws don't work."
President Barack Obama campaigned on gun control in 2008, but he has expanded gun rights in his first four years in office, signing legislation that would allow people to carry weapons on Amtrak trains and in national parks.
He tearfully called for "meaningful action" to prevent further tragedies on Friday, but the White House has declined to say what measures he would support.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken gun-control advocate, said Obama will have to make the issue a priority to get any new laws enacted.
"It's time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do - not go to Congress and say, 'What do you guys want to do?' This should be his number one agenda," Bloomberg said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, who has met with families of the victims of Friday's massacre, spoke of the need for new gun control steps.
"These are assault weapons. You don't hunt deer with these things. And I think that's the question that a lot of people are going to have to resolve their own minds: Where should this line get drawn?" Malloy added.
(This story was fixed to correct spelling of first name of Senator Feinstein in second paragraph: Dianne instead of Diane)
(Addtional reporting by Todd Eastham, Deborah Charles and Mohammad Zargham; Editing by Will Dunham)
Similar threads
