• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Assault Weapons" Ban shot down in Senate

What do you guys think of the outcome?

  • The Constitution will live another day!

    Votes: 22 81.5%
  • Congress is cowardly!

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Dont give a rats a**

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • What assault weapons bill?

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Total voters
    27
Far too many guns qualify as "banned" (for new sale) under this bill. The following, Taurus PT638, modest caliber semi-auto pistol is not an "assault weapon":

Taurus PT 638 Handgun - Gander Mountain

taurus pt638.jpg
 
The AWB is not dead yet. It is my understanding that while the language has been removed from the actual bill, Senator Feinstein has been promised the ability to attempt to add it as an amendment to the bill after initial passage. In fact this whole thing is a trick from what I can see..... Try to get the Senate to pass a watered down bill and then add the AWB and Gun Registry back in after the fact via the amendment process.
 
The AWB is not dead yet. It is my understanding that while the language has been removed from the actual bill, Senator Feinstein has been promised the ability to attempt to add it as an amendment to the bill after initial passage. In fact this whole thing is a trick from what I can see..... Try to get the Senate to pass a watered down bill and then add the AWB and Gun Registry back in after the fact via the amendment process.

That will not happen. If Reid had the votes it would have been included. What will pass is "universal" BG checks, expanded (maximum) sentences for straw purchases and gifts of borrowed money to the states for school security (pork). What will be interesting is that this must be called an "emergency bill" to not require budget offsets under the "pay as you go" rules.
 
That will not happen. If Reid had the votes it would have been included. What will pass is "universal" BG checks, expanded (maximum) sentences for straw purchases and gifts of borrowed money to the states for school security (pork). What will be interesting is that this must be called an "emergency bill" to not require budget offsets under the "pay as you go" rules.

All of which both of us know will do absolutely nothing to change anything.
 
The AWB is not dead yet. It is my understanding that while the language has been removed from the actual bill, Senator Feinstein has been promised the ability to attempt to add it as an amendment to the bill after initial passage. In fact this whole thing is a trick from what I can see..... Try to get the Senate to pass a watered down bill and then add the AWB and Gun Registry back in after the fact via the amendment process.

Damn bastards... off with their heads!!! :sword: :kitty:
 
I've noted before that this section ‘‘APPENDIX A—FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013" is especially problematic for at least a couple of reasons.

  1. Rather than restricting certain weapons it lists what's allowed. Nothing new would be allowed to be developed and no manufacturer would try.
  2. When working with an established list of what's allowed, lawmakers would be able to whittle away at it more easily rather than trying to define what they're against & why.

Remember the Cruz / Feinsten confrontation the other day?
Cruz was drawing a parallel between the 1st and 2nd amendment and limitations on each.
He wasn't suggesting there couldn't be some reasonable restrictions on each.
But here's the thing ... can you imagine if Feinstein or anyone else came up with a law restricting speech to what's on a list they developed and anything else would be in violation?

It would never pass SC muster.
 
I've noted before that this section ‘‘APPENDIX A—FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013" is especially problematic for at least a couple of reasons.

  1. Rather than restricting certain weapons it lists what's allowed. Nothing new would be allowed to be developed and no manufacturer would try.
  2. When working with an established list of what's allowed, lawmakers would be able to whittle away at it more easily rather than trying to define what they're against & why.

Remember the Cruz / Feinsten confrontation the other day?
Cruz was drawing a parallel between the 1st and 2nd amendment and limitations on each.
He wasn't suggesting there couldn't be some reasonable restrictions on each.
But here's the thing ... can you imagine if Feinstein or anyone else came up with a law restricting speech to what's on a list they developed and anything else would be in violation?

It would never pass SC muster.
My point exactly in post #7.... unconstitutional.
 
All of which both of us know will do absolutely nothing to change anything.

It will make us pay more, as surely the FFL dealers are not going to provide "free" NICS BG checks or forego keeping records of all "private" gun sales. I have problems with the text of the universal BG check portion of the bill.

Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

‘(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--

‘(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and

‘(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).’.

This is crearly national registration, one gun transfer at a time. Note that the amount of the fee is left wide open.

Another bizarre requirement is immediate reporting of a lost or stolen gun to the US Attorney General:

SEC. 203. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING.
(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end--

‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.’.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s374/text
 
We need a well organized web site showing EVERY Congressman's vote and why(a hundred words or so)..
We also need non-lethal means of self-defence.
The masses, the people, do NOT need WMDs.
We do need to be protected from the insane, the semi-insane , and the criminals......and the NRA !
We are soon to have the quality of government to do this....but today ?
Obviously NOT.
 
It will make us pay more, as surely the FFL dealers are not going to provide "free" NICS BG checks or forego keeping records of all "private" gun sales. I have problems with the text of the universal BG check portion of the bill.

This is crearly national registration, one gun transfer at a time. Note that the amount of the fee is left wide open.

Another bizarre requirement is immediate reporting of a lost or stolen gun to the US Attorney General:

Which is why many of us would simply ignore the law.
 
Far too many guns qualify as "banned" (for new sale) under this bill. The following, Taurus PT638, modest caliber semi-auto pistol is not an "assault weapon":

Taurus PT 638 Handgun - Gander Mountain

View attachment 67144738

This is the inherent danger to allowing government to define its own terms, be out assault weapons or terrorists. They will always abuse it, they will always take it too far; this is innate behavior to government. This is the reason we are to control it, we are to restrict it, and we are to make the definitions. But it takes work to keep the Republic and too many are unwilling to put forth the effort.
 
The democrats thought they could rush this bill through while people were so upset about the most recent school shooting but once again have failed, thank God.

Again....damn bastards!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! :sword: :kitty: :clap:
 
Which is why many of us would simply ignore the law.

Which is why this is simply step one in the process. ;) It accomplishes very little but at added cost to all "legal" gun sales, note that the "fee" is for ANY gun transfer from a FFL dealer to a non-FFL dealer. In CA that fee is now $35. The bill makes no mention of any of that fee going to the gov't - simply a bonanza for FFL dealers.
 
That will not happen. If Reid had the votes it would have been included. What will pass is "universal" BG checks, expanded (maximum) sentences for straw purchases and gifts of borrowed money to the states for school security (pork). What will be interesting is that this must be called an "emergency bill" to not require budget offsets under the "pay as you go" rules.

Reid is more interested in retaining the Senate in 2014 than passing an assault weapons ban. Up for re-election in 2014 that a vote for the assault weapons ban might doom their changes for re-election are red state democrats: Begich AK, Landrieu LA, Baucus MT,Hagan NC, Johnson SD. These 5 wouldn’t be helping their chances of re-election with an AYE vote. Better that Reid never brings up the ban for a vote than take a chance of either these 5 losing in 2014 or voting their constituents wishes by voting against the ban. Then throw in Tester MT and Heitkamp from ND who ran last year on as pro gun, anti gun control, you probably have at least 7 Democratic Nay votes in the Senate. Then there are at least 3 more that their yes vote would be probable. No having 10 Democrats vote against the bill would be an embarrassment, which he could live with. Having those senators up for re-election in 2014 vote for the bill and lose, that Reid can’t live with

Best strategy for Reid, Do not bring up the assault weapons ban at all.
 
Reid is more interested in retaining the Senate in 2014 than passing an assault weapons ban. Up for re-election in 2014 that a vote for the assault weapons ban might doom their changes for re-election are red state democrats: Begich AK, Landrieu LA, Baucus MT,Hagan NC, Johnson SD. These 5 wouldn’t be helping their chances of re-election with an AYE vote. Better that Reid never brings up the ban for a vote than take a chance of either these 5 losing in 2014 or voting their constituents wishes by voting against the ban. Then throw in Tester MT and Heitkamp from ND who ran last year on as pro gun, anti gun control, you probably have at least 7 Democratic Nay votes in the Senate. Then there are at least 3 more that their yes vote would be probable. No having 10 Democrats vote against the bill would be an embarrassment, which he could live with. Having those senators up for re-election in 2014 vote for the bill and lose, that Reid can’t live with

Best strategy for Reid, Do not bring up the assault weapons ban at all.

Of course, he's a politician who is thinking about his own skin. Wish Dianne Feinstien would stak example though. But you got to give it to her though, despite the political suicide and hatred she will incur, she stuck with what she thought was "right".
 
The democrats thought they could rush this bill through while people were so upset about the most recent school shooting but once again have failed, thank God.

That's immediately what I thought. I believe that they sensed their time to "strike while the iron was hot" was rapidly running down, so they fumbled through with a bunch of grossly overreaching bullet points (no pun intended) with the idea that it'd be a blue party rubber-stamp.

I'm both shocked and thrilled that it was defeated.
 
I've noted before that this section ‘‘APPENDIX A—FIREARMS EXEMPTED BY THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013" is especially problematic for at least a couple of reasons.

  1. Rather than restricting certain weapons it lists what's allowed. Nothing new would be allowed to be developed and no manufacturer would try.
  2. When working with an established list of what's allowed, lawmakers would be able to whittle away at it more easily rather than trying to define what they're against & why.

Remember the Cruz / Feinsten confrontation the other day?
Cruz was drawing a parallel between the 1st and 2nd amendment and limitations on each.
He wasn't suggesting there couldn't be some reasonable restrictions on each.
But here's the thing ... can you imagine if Feinstein or anyone else came up with a law restricting speech to what's on a list they developed and anything else would be in violation?

It would never pass SC muster.

Good morning, Bubba.

1. Very sneaky loophole those attorneys have come up with. I wonder if the public is aware of this?
 
Who could possibly be surprised by this? I posted the day after the massacre of the infants in Connecticut that nothing would be done legislatively, because the NRA sets gun policy in this country, and the NRA has been taken over by survivalists and the black helicopter crowd.

Nothing to see here. Just move along.
 
Who could possibly be surprised by this? I posted the day after the massacre of the infants in Connecticut that nothing would be done legislatively, because the NRA sets gun policy in this country, and the NRA has been taken over by survivalists and the black helicopter crowd.

Nothing to see here. Just move along.

So was the NRA OK with banning so called assault weapons before it was taken over as you put it?
 
Wasn't aware that the NRA had so much sway over Senate Democrats.
 
Wasn't aware that the NRA had so much sway over Senate Democrats.
Absolutely, they do. The NRA has been taken over by the black helicopter and survivalist crowd, i.e., senate democrats. Who knew? Before that it was populated with normal folks.
 
Absolutely, they do. The NRA has been taken over by the black helicopter and survivalist crowd, i.e., senate democrats. Who knew? Before that it was populated with normal folks.

Careful. The last conspiracy theorist who said something similar to what you said? We neeeeeeeeeever heard from him again.

Quick. Destroy all recording devices.
 
Back
Top Bottom