This bill makes possession of these types of guns illegal in a generation. From what I understand when you croak it will be illegal to "transfer" ownership to any surviving family member. Possession is only legal for the duration of the owners life.

majorspark;1374115 wrote:The target is not criminals.

Exactly.

Dianne Feinstein so out of touch with reality. Ban this ban, ban that everything but want is the problem. Punish responsible citizen, limit those who follow the laws, flagrantly disrespect the Constitution and interject political agenda over the rights, liberty and freedom of the America Citizen.

The FBI recently issued a set of statistics regarding crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States. The numbers are alarming.In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegal aliens. At least 83% of arrest warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. The number climbs to 86% for Albuquerque. The most wanted lists for each of these cities is comprised of at least 75% illegal aliens.

The problem of prison overcrowding in California has been in the media many times over the past few months. Governor Schwarzenegger has attempted to gain relief from the overcrowding problem by shipping inmates to facilities in other states. Nearly 25% of the California prison population is comprised of illegal aliens. In Arizona, illegal aliens make up over 40% of the prison population and in New Mexico, the number is nearly 50%.

Illegal aliens account for nearly 30% of prison populations nationwide. This includes both state and federal prisons. The cost to house these illegal aliens is more than $1.6 billion dollars each year.

Statistics from 2005 indicate that over 75% of automobile thefts that occurred in Arizona, Nevada, California, Texas, and New Mexico were either stolen by illegal aliens or used to transport illegal aliens. Almost half of the drivers stopped in California for traffic violations have no driver's license, insurance, or registration. 92% of those are illegal aliens. In Arizona, 63% of those stopped have no license, registration or insurance and 97% of those people are illegal aliens. New Mexico's percentages are 66% stopped with no license, insurance and registration and 98% of those are illegal aliens.

Each year nearly 400,000 babies were born to illegal alien parents in the United States. Being born in the United States automatically makes you a U.S. citizen. Illegal aliens who come to the United States and give birth to children are referred to as having "anchor babies." These illegals will not be deported because they are now 'anchored' in the United States by their American born children. American taxpayers foot the bill for over 97% of these births.

I don’t see Feinstein, Democrat Party, Obama agenda banning Illegal Alien why is that?

WebFire;1373780 wrote:The future struggle is having rights taking away. It didn't start with guns, and it won't end there. If you can't see it, you're part of the problem. And if you read quotes from the guys that helped write the Constitution, you'd know they absolutely wanted citizens to be armed, and not just to have an "army" like you are suggesting.

I'm so tired of people who can't see what a big deal taking away our rights is.

The writers of the Constitution wanted citizens armed for what? I believe they wanted them armed because at that time, an armed citizenry would be the most effective defense against a hostile force. That is not the case today. And with regard to people who believe the right to have a gun has to do with protecting the citizens from an overzelous government, my reply is that it is about two centuries too late for this to be reasonable. The US government/military, were it to unlawfully try to take away a citizen's property of bodily safety, would not be deterred by that citizen owning a firearm. The weaponry in the military's hand far outweighs what any one or one thousand private citizens have in their gun rack.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1374341 wrote:The writers of the Constitution wanted citizens armed for what? I believe they wanted them armed because at that time, an armed citizenry would be the most effective defense against a hostile force. That is not the case today. And with regard to people who believe the right to have a gun has to do with protecting the citizens from an overzelous government, my reply is that it is about two centuries too late for this to be reasonable. The US government/military, were it to unlawfully try to take away a citizen's property of bodily safety, would not be deterred by that citizen owning a firearm. The weaponry in the military's hand far outweighs what any one or one thousand private citizens have in their gun rack.

The fact that We the People have weapons is the protection of an overzealous government and the idea that military weapons outweighs citizen weapons is true but American Military against American Citizen .... What government office, individual or political party would authorize such treason.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1374341 wrote:The writers of the Constitution wanted citizens armed for what? I believe they wanted them armed because at that time, an armed citizenry would be the most effective defense against a hostile force. That is not the case today. And with regard to people who believe the right to have a gun has to do with protecting the citizens from an overzelous government, my reply is that it is about two centuries too late for this to be reasonable. The US government/military, were it to unlawfully try to take away a citizen's property of bodily safety, would not be deterred by that citizen owning a firearm. The weaponry in the military's hand far outweighs what any one or one thousand private citizens have in their gun rack.

So let me get this straight. You think an armed citizen or citizen army is no much for the government's army (which I think everyone would agree). And that is good enough reason to justify taking away the amendment and make citizens surrender their guns?

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1374341 wrote:The writers of the Constitution wanted citizens armed for what? I believe they wanted them armed because at that time, an armed citizenry would be the most effective defense against a hostile force. That is not the case today. And with regard to people who believe the right to have a gun has to do with protecting the citizens from an overzelous government, my reply is that it is about two centuries too late for this to be reasonable. The US government/military, were it to unlawfully try to take away a citizen's property of bodily safety, would not be deterred by that citizen owning a firearm. The weaponry in the military's hand far outweighs what any one or one thousand private citizens have in their gun rack.

In 2008 the Supreme court ruled in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller that Second Amendment is about more than maintaining a well armed militia but that an individual has the right to posses arms not connected to any militia and for any lawful purpose inclusive of protecting themselves. This right shall not be infringed upon.

Belly35;1374345 wrote:The fact that We the People have weapons is the protection of an overzealous government and the idea that military weapons outweighs citizen weapons is true but American Military against American Citizen .... What government office, individual or political party would authorize such treason.

I agree with your last point. And I think it to be true whether or not the citizenry is armed with assault rifles or not.

Belly35;1374345 wrote:What government office, individual or political party would authorize such treason.

The Kent State shooting comes to mind.

The writers of the Constitution wanted citizens armed for what? I believe they wanted them armed because at that time, an armed citizenry would be the most effective defense against a hostile force.

AAAAAgghhh...what ivory tower college professor filled your head with such crap! It is tragic that kids come out of school knowing more about Marx, than John Locke, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. The Constitution and our Bill of Rights is the ultimate document that stands for the rights of the individual against not only kings and despots, but also the rights of an individual against tyranny imposed by a majority.

You spoke earlier in the thread about "societies evolving"...but I submit to you that the inalienable rights of the individual and the protections of those rights do NOT change with time. Can there be anything of higher value than that? Every law that takes us away from that is not 'an evolution'...it is a devolution. The abolition of slavery and civil rights legislation were corrections that increased the rights of man and was consistent with the intent of the document. Other laws are not so noble...and some positively onerous.
The second amendment is quite clear in outlining the right for citizens to bear arms....."shall not be infringed." That's pretty clear as well as emphatic.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1374701 wrote:I agree with your last point. And I think it to be true whether or not the citizenry is armed with assault rifles or not.

You've even bought into the language of tyrants. If you haven't assaulted anyone, then it's just a rifle. Just because it may have semi-automatic firing capability, doesn't mean it has only even been used, or only ever will be used, to assault someone.

And most homicides with firearms are committed with handguns and pistols, so by the left's definition these are the most dangerous "assault" weapons.

Let clarify the differnce between "assault weapon and semi auto weapons"
Assault weapons are weapon that once you pull the trigger and hold the trigger back the weapon continues to fire at a rapped speed until you let go of the trigger.

Semi auto weapon are those that require the pull of the trigger each time to fire a round, the quicker you can pull the trigger the more round are fired

So in this conversation let be clear of was is an " Assault weapon an what is a semi auto weapon" they are not the same and the over all fire power rounds per minute/seconds are not equal in performance

You've even bought into the language of tyrants

...and the ever broadening definition.

...and why do something useful when you can push the envelope of government usurpation of power at the expense of individual rights and protections. There is a definite pattern of this by this administration....and still the MSM let's him and his ilk skate without protest or questioning.

So in this conversation let be clear of was is an " Assault weapon an what is a semi auto weapon" they are not the same and the over all fire power rounds per minute/seconds are not equal in performance

...exactly what I meant by the "ever broadening" definition.

...and the media continues to 'assault' the NRA....as if they had anything to do with the massacres, and only because they fight for the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.
None of the murderers who committed these heinous crimes were NRA members or supportive of the NRA in any way.

Belly35;1375016 wrote:Let clarify the differnce between "assault weapon and semi auto weapons"
Assault weapons are weapon that once you pull the trigger and hold the trigger back the weapon continues to fire at a rapped speed until you let go of the trigger.

Semi auto weapon are those that require the pull of the trigger each time to fire a round, the quicker you can pull the trigger the more round are fired

So in this conversation let be clear of was is an " Assault weapon an what is a semi auto weapon" they are not the same and the over all fire power rounds per minute/seconds are not equal in performance

Where is this definition of assault weapons? That's the first I've seen it defined as fully automatic weapons.

Here's a nicely summated 'history' of weapons classifications.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

HitsRus;1375031 wrote:Here's a nicely summated 'history' of weapons classifications.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

Thanks HitsRUs. The below quote supports what Belly is saying is an "assault" weapon, but doesn't describe civilian guns, which is the the topic of today.

The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.

So the term started as a military definition, which were full auto. But has spun-off to the civilian world to describe a myriad of different guns.

An AK style rifle is not necessary for hunting or self protection. If the second ammendment was intended to protect the right to own such a weapon, why not take it a step further and say the second ammendment guarantess my right to own a shoulder held heat seeking surface to air launcher? That is an "arm", is it not? So why shouldn't we be allowed to own these. Or grenades, or napalm bombs, etc?

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1375272 wrote:An AK style rifle is not necessary for hunting or self protection. If the second ammendment was intended to protect the right to own such a weapon, why not take it a step further and say the second ammendment guarantess my right to own a shoulder held heat seeking surface to air launcher? That is an "arm", is it not? So why shouldn't we be allowed to own these. Or grenades, or napalm bombs, etc?

Now you are getting it. Any law that prevents us from owning any arms that can be used against us is illegal, and therefore void.

The Supreme Court has also made clear that Congress and State legislatures may impose regulations on our fundamental rights outlined in the Bill of Rights so long as they are narrowly tailored and the People have a compelling public interest for doing so.

We've done this a lot.

For example, The Republican Congress and President Bush passed the "Stolen Valor Act" making it a federal crime to say that you've been awarded military decorations when you have not.

This is clearly a regulation of speech and yet freedom loving conservatives up in arms over attempts to stop mass gun violence (when the public clearly has a compelling interest in doing so), had no qualms about imposing regulations on another inalienable right.

You'd think they'd at least try to come up with some solutions as opposed to just throwing up their hands "murdered children are the cost of freedom."

If pro-gun folks would seriously get on board with trying to make sure insane people/dangerous people had a harder time getting guns, "assault weapons" ban legislation wouldn't see the light of day. They'd rather continue the narrative that big gubmint democrats just want to take down the Constitution and exploit a crisis :rolleyes:

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1375272 wrote:An AK style rifle is not necessary for hunting or self protection.

A Lamborghini that can go 190mph isn't necessary either.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1375272 wrote:why not take it a step further and say the second ammendment guarantess my right to own a shoulder held heat seeking surface to air launcher? That is an "arm", is it not? So why shouldn't we be allowed to own these. Or grenades, or napalm bombs, etc?

Go ahead. You going to pay for it with this week's paycheck?

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1374341 wrote:The writers of the Constitution wanted citizens armed for what? I believe they wanted them armed because at that time, an armed citizenry would be the most effective defense against a hostile force.

Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. The hostile force feared most at the time was the formation of a central government and its own potential standing army. Both Hamilton and Madison fell all over themselves to assuage the peoples fear of it to promote ratification of the Constitution. The term "well regulated militia" or "militia" during the time referred to the citizen armies of the states. Under the Constitution the president is commander in chief of the "militia".

The purpose of the bill of rights is to emphasize certain rights the people (individuals) hold against (federal at the time) now all governing authorities. If you look at the 5th amendment you clearly see the constitutional recognition of the terms "people" or in this case "person" as an individual and "militia" treated as two separate entities. Subject to different rules under the Constitution.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of any government. Commas mean something. That reality being known, the rights of the people to bear arms outside of the government's army shall not be infringed. In the context of the bill of right it makes completel sense.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1374341 wrote:That is not the case today. And with regard to people who believe the right to have a gun has to do with protecting the citizens from an overzelous government, my reply is that it is about two centuries too late for this to be reasonable. The US government/military, were it to unlawfully try to take away a citizen's property of bodily safety, would not be deterred by that citizen owning a firearm. The weaponry in the military's hand far outweighs what any one or one thousand private citizens have in their gun rack.

Who would have thought a citizen army could defeat the most powerful military on the face of the earth at the time. Today we have been trying to subdue peasants with small arms and crude home made weapons in Afghanistan for how many years now.

BoatShoes;1375366 wrote:The Supreme Court has also made clear that Congress and State legislatures may impose regulations on our fundamental rights outlined in the Bill of Rights so long as they are narrowly tailored and the People have a compelling public interest for doing so.

We've done this a lot.

For example, The Republican Congress and President Bush passed the "Stolen Valor Act" making it a federal crime to say that you've been awarded military decorations when you have not.

This is clearly a regulation of speech and yet freedom loving conservatives up in arms over attempts to stop mass gun violence (when the public clearly has a compelling interest in doing so), had no qualms about imposing regulations on another inalienable right.

You'd think they'd at least try to come up with some solutions as opposed to just throwing up their hands "murdered children are the cost of freedom."

If pro-gun folks would seriously get on board with trying to make sure insane people/dangerous people had a harder time getting guns, "assault weapons" ban legislation wouldn't see the light of day. They'd rather continue the narrative that big gubmint democrats just want to take down the Constitution and exploit a crisis :rolleyes:

I agree with you here and the reason pro gun people won't get on board is because legislation isn't going to change or keep insane or dangerous people form getting guns.

Let get back to what is really doing harm to America ... See the FBI stats I posted
"illegals" kill, harm and endanger more Americans and I see no banned on Illegals. Why not?

You'd think they'd at least try to come up with some solutions as opposed to just throwing up their hands "murdered children are the cost of freedom."

If pro-gun folks would seriously get on board with trying to make sure insane people/dangerous people had a harder time getting guns, "assault weapons" ban legislation wouldn't see the light of day. They'd rather continue the narrative that big gubmint democrats just want to take down the Constitution and exploit a crisis :rolleyes:

This is really drinking the kool-aid. Since the beginning, the proposal from the NRA and others has been to increase security at schools. It is the gun grabbers who won't get on board with the only solution that has an effective chance of providing our children real protection from those that would do them harm.

If you are going to herd defenseless sheep in a pen, and wolves are attacking with pitchforks and taking advantage of that vulnerability, you have to arm the shepherd with more than a sign that says 'no pitchforks allowed.' Bad people who want to take advantage of the vulnerable are going to find a way to do so. The anti gun legislation that has been proposed is NOT an effective solution, and simply will create a black market where the criminals will still get guns, and the law abiding citizen will become even more vulnerable.

HitsRus;1375451 wrote:This is really drinking the kool-aid. Since the beginning, the proposal from the NRA and others has been to increase security at schools. It is the gun grabbers who won't get on board with the only solution that has an effective chance of providing our children real protection from those that would do them harm.

If you are going to herd defenseless sheep in a pen, and wolves are attacking with pitchforks and taking advantage of that vulnerability, you have to arm the shepherd with more than a sign that says 'no pitchforks allowed.' Bad people who want to take advantage of the vulnerable are going to find a way to do so. The anti gun legislation that has been proposed is NOT an effective solution, and simply will create a black market where the criminals will still get guns, and the law abiding citizen will become even more vulnerable.

I think it's worth trying because anything is worth trying but look at the evidence. Gun massacres have occurred at schools that employed police officers and at universities that employed full time police forces. One just happened in Texas for example at a University with full time police and security guards.

There's also the fact that this is lip service once again from the conservatives. They say, "why haven't democrats introduced legislation with our ideas about appropriating monies to put police officers in school" because they can't jump on that sword and increase gubmint spending....they just complain when democrats don't write up bills with their preferences in them (we saw this same behavior during the fiscal cliff debate when they supported "spending cuts" in the abstract but wouldn't put specifics on the table).

On the other hand, gun massacres have largely ceased to exist in places that have imposed strict gun control despite your intuition that there would be a black market in which mass murderers would get there guns. With that it mind, it ought to be Republicans who put their own ideas on paper rather than just whining about what the democrats do while they do nothing.