Feinstein Introduces Effort to 'Remove Weapons of War' From the Streets .....

Well Feinstein is at again. Intro"d legislation to ban Weapons of War she says. Yep what the Demos call an Assault Rifle. This will get crushed quite quickly. See, give a Demo an inch and they will take a mile. Of course with anyone elses money other than their own. What say ye about the Anti Gun nut out of California that can't get over her buddy being shot?



Dems Again Introduce Bill to Ban Assault Weapons.....


Four days after the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX, Senate Democrats have introduced another bill to ban assault weapons. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is leading the charge.

NBC Politics

✔ @NBCPolitics
JUST IN: Sen. Feinstein and Senate Democrats introduce bill to ban assault weapons
10:15 AM - Nov 8, 2017

In a companion tweet, Feinstein listed a number of recent mass shootings from the past few years to add urgency to their bill.

Sen Dianne Feinstein

✔ @SenFeinstein
San Bernardino. Aurora. Newtown. Roseburg. Orlando. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. These mass shootings all involved military-style assault weapons. It's past time to remove weapons of war from our streets.
11:17 AM - Nov 8, 2017


The Democrats' gun control agenda is unlikely to gain much support from law abiding gun owners. Rep. Henry Cuellar (R-TX), whose district includes Sutherland Springs, noted that Sunday's massacre won't change his constituents minds' on guns.

Cuellar is, however, working with his colleague Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on legislation that would strengthen background checks......snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortn...ntroduce-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons-n2406650

 

Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, so I say go for it

 

Doubtful it will pass, but I'm tending to agree that there needs to be clear classifications between civilian type weapons/mags, & military style assault weapons/mags.

The former being ok for civilians w/o a permit.

The latter, only with a permit.

 

But they aren’t trying to ban and/or take your guns!

Don’t forget that!

 

no use banning assault weapons if semi-autos that shoot .223 rounds are still legal.

 

Huh?

Why stop at that caliber? How's about .50?

 

The next time liberals grab power in America they will impose drastic gun control measures

 

What’s an “assault weapon”?

Also, what about 5.56?

 

The problem is that so called "assault rifles" are essentially the same as military rifles except that military rifles have a full-auto feature.
When I was in the military, we were issued 20 rd. magazines while I can currently buy 30 rd., 40 rd. magazines & up to 100 rd. drum magazines

When it comes to pistols, civilians can buy the same pistols (or better) than are commonly issued to the military.

The truth is that Feinstein etc simply want to ban all semi-auto rifles & pistols while the country is currently flooded with them & I won't live to see the day when semi auto firearms are banned.
I also don't buy green bananas but that's another issue.

 

Yeah, those lever action rifles need to be banned.

 

An assault weapon is any firearm that makes liberals pee in their pants

 

They call them ‘assault style’ rifles so the ban is again about cosmetics. They are not used by the military.

 

AR 15s are not military issue, therefore they are not "military style". They are not select fire therefore they are not assault anything.
Words have meanings. IF you don't understand (and your comments indicate you don't) educate yourself first, then speak. Please.
1911 style pistol: made for the marines.
m1 garand: used in ww2, the .gov sells them now.
^^ These are ACTUAL weapons of war. Are you going to ban a semiautomatic action? Single stack magazines? En-bloc clips?

 

NO one needs a sharps carbine... those fiendish weapons of war!

 

Shall not be infringe

How much clearer did the founders need to be? Yet those sworn to uphold the Constitution continue to attack our 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment has no restrictions yet our government applies them. Voting has restrictions and our government argues proving one meets those restrictions unfair. It is clear in cases like these, it's not about what is right, but what the agenda requires.

 

No surprise here, but I'll bet Diane fully supports the pentagon giving local police all manner of military equipment. The "weapons of war" used against the populace she is all for.

 

not without 60 votes in the Senate.

 

you have a problem with SWAT teams being able to use tactical weaponry?

 

limiting magazine sizes, limiting gun attachments, limiting how often you can buy a gun, requiring gun safety and tactics courses, are not infringements.

 

Where do you get that? Are there many lever action weapons in the military, that aren't military versions, of civilian weapons design?

 

Honestly, I couldn't care less what gets banned. I can't legally own anyway.

About as valid a response, as your comment dictates.

 

It depends on how they are used. REASON magazine's current issue tells the story of a case near Denver in which a shoplifter fled a Walmart into the house of a nearby subdivision. In response, the police went nutz with their 2 Bearcat vehicles, 50 SWAT officers, multiple explosive devices and more. In the end the man's house was destroyed. Nobody died, but the man's house was destroyed and the city doesn't want to pay.

That leaves me wondering why is it that all common sense evaporates with the command structure of a police department? Why do they so often behave like a pack of dogs chasing a hog?

I don't know the answer, but if they had not possessed all that military equipment, the outcome would have been vastly different.

Imagine if they had mortars given them by the pentagon. They could have destroyed all the houses on the block.

 

thats why police only use explosives in very special situations

 

It may only take 51 votes if the dems choose to go that route

 

never gonna happen