Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapon legislation summary

[03 red vert]

Does anyone know if the Police released information as to if Nancy Lanza kept her firearms locked up/secured and/or how they think Adam acquired access to them?

I remember a couple days after the shooting a couple of Nancy's friends were interviewed on CNN. They had stated Nancy did keep her guns locked up when they were not in use.

Just curious.

 

[blubyu87gt]

Sure they can... If you have s safe made from tin foil.. If you have a large-ish collection and a 1 foot thick, 1 to 2 ton safe, I would image most gun thieves don't have the tools to steal them....

Sooooo, by your words, if I were to break into your house and take your guns, that were stored in a glass display let's say, and then use those weapons to kill someone, you should not be held accountable?

Jesus man leave you keys in your car, let it get stolen and you are held accountable....

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

This guy is a damn idiot.

Your saying that if I take your car keys off your counter top after I'm done banging your wife, steal your car, and go run a bunch of people over with it. That YOU should be responsible for it because your didn't lock the keys up or put a boot on the wheel? Holy hell man.


Maple syrups getting to your head man.

 

[ssj4sadie]

Does anyone know if the Police released information as to if Nancy Lanza kept her firearms locked up/secured and/or how they think Adam acquired access to them?

I remember a couple days after the shooting a couple of Nancy's friends were interviewed on CNN. They had stated Nancy did keep her guns locked up when they were not in use.

Just curious.

Haven't heard a single thing about it. I bet that info gets released at a convenient time or never at all...

 

[Machdup1]

This legislation is, in effect, the modern day attempt at a poll tax. It will deny access to arms to those who cannot pay the tax or get the signature of the CLEO in their area. They will keep their arms illegally, eventually get caught and incarerated. The poor and minorities will be greatly affected by this legislation. It is entertaining that it is being pushed by the democrats who are elected by these groups.

 

[rezarxt]

This legislation is, in effect, the modern day attempt at a poll tax. It will deny access to arms to those who cannot pay the tax or get the signature of the CLEO in their area. They will keep their arms illegally, eventually get caught and incarerated. The poor and minorities will be greatly affected by this legislation. It is entertaining that it is being pushed by the democrats who are elected by these groups.

I understand what youre saying, but its not denying them arms. They can still own firearms, but not so called "Assault Rifles".

They can still defend themselves with a handgun. I dont believe the comparison is warranted.

 

[ssj4sadie]

I understand what youre saying, but its not denying them arms. They can still own firearms, but not so called "Assault Rifles".

They can still defend themselves with a handgun. I dont believe the comparison is warranted.

Putting all weapons under the NFA will require a $200 tax per weapon. Which is one of the big things in that bill.

Edit: Plus the CLEO thing. There is someone in the Gun Porn thread that has a CLEO that will not sign off on NFA stuff because the CLEO doesn't like them (the weapons). That is a total fail.

 

[UncleDan]

Not quite sure that's what your forefathers meant. It was written at a time when it took you forever to fire and reload a weapon... and I highly doubt it was meant - screw it everyone should be armed to the hilt...
If that was truly the case then I would suggest they were idiots... give everyone guns, and at some point all hell well break lose.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

You're an idiot.

We're right, and you're wrong. End of discussion.

 

[Machdup1]

I understand what youre saying, but its not denying them arms. They can still own firearms, but not so called "Assault Rifles".

They can still defend themselves with a handgun. I dont believe the comparison is warranted.

It is a clear and evident comparison. They could still vote, they just had to pay the poll tax. What was the big deal?

If they currently own a legal firearm that falls under the definition of the legislation, they will have three choices. Give the firearm over for destruction, go through the process (if they can come up with the money and the CLEO signature) or become a felon. I believe that it is either a five or ten year time out for violating this type of law.

By any reasonable definition, this new legislation is racist in the same way that the poll tax was racist.

Putting all weapons under the NFA will require a $200 tax per weapon. Which is one of the big things in that bill.

Edit: Plus the CLEO thing. There is someone in the Gun Porn thread that has a CLEO that will not sign off on NFA stuff because the CLEO doesn't like them (the weapons). That is a total fail.

There are many jurisdictions (I live in one), where the CLEO will not sign any NFA forms. Expect that to be a common place tactic to deny citizens access to legal firearms.

Make no mistake, the intent of the new law is to deny you access to certain classes of firearms and they will use all tactics to accomplish their goals.

 

[Machdup1]

Not quite sure that's what your forefathers meant. It was written at a time when it took you forever to fire and reload a weapon... and I highly doubt it was meant - screw it everyone should be armed to the hilt...
If that was truly the case then I would suggest they were idiots... give everyone guns, and at some point all hell well break lose.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

The intent of the 2nd amendment was not to give the people the ability to hunt and target shoot, but rather the means to stop government if it was no longer in the interest of the people.

Clearly they meant for the people to be armed with the same type of weapons as the government.

They were not idiots, they recognized that a government that forgot the interest of the people would have to be abolished by force.

An idiot is a person who does not believe that governments will take away the liberties of the people because it suits the government to do so. What does that make you?

 

[bglf83]

Leos will not sign off on my area either.

Uncledan, so when you read the second amendment, what limitions do you see there?

I do not see anything like"except cannons", so they clearly intended no limit.

Also, what assault weopans have you fired and operated? Please name at least 3. Tired of people trying to impose their opinion when they cannot tell the difference between a Glock and a 1911.

 

[slidai]

If the Taliban can manage to fight the entire might of the US military with not much more then AK-47's and home made explosives, what makes you think an American populace with a stronger value for human life, liberty and freedom and realistically a fighting force that will be 10 times the size as the Taliban over a country 5 times the land mass of Afghanistan can't do the same or far better?

I think the theaters are different and we don't have military equipment supplied to us like they did by the US because they were fighting Russia. When the amendment was made, it was basically musket vs musket. Now a days If the military wanted to do something, and lets just assume the soldiers went along with it, there wouldn't be much we could do about it.

 

[po-po 5.0]

Not quite sure that's what your forefathers meant. It was written at a time when it took you forever to fire and reload a weapon... and I highly doubt it was meant - screw it everyone should be armed to the hilt...
If that was truly the case then I would suggest they were idiots... give everyone guns, and at some point all hell well break lose.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

It doesn't matter what particular weapons were available at the time. It mattered that regular citizens had equivalent weaponry to the government so that citizens could oppose a tyrannical government. Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense in light of what was happening at the time: England dispatched the military to the colonies to enforce taxes. Had American civilians not had equivalent weaponry, America could not have won it's independence.

That essentially craps all over the age-old "they only had muskets back then" illogical line.

 

[bglf83]

I think the theaters are different and we don't have military equipment supplied to us like they did by the US because they were fighting Russia. When the amendment was made, it was basically musket vs musket. Now a days If the military wanted to do something, and lets just assume the soldiers went along with it, there wouldn't be much we could do about it.

You forget about cannons I guess :bash:

 

[ssj4sadie]

I think the theaters are different and we don't have military equipment supplied to us like they did by the US because they were fighting Russia. When the amendment was made, it was basically musket vs musket. Now a days If the military wanted to do something, and lets just assume the soldiers went along with it, there wouldn't be much we could do about it.

Completely wrong. Even if us (as in me and some other people in the topics), military "went" with it, there are tons of things US citizens could do to disrupt the military.

I personally would be more concerned about cops than the military.

 

[bglf83]

Completely wrong. Even if us (as in me and some other people in the topics), military "went" with it, there are tons of things US citizens could do to disrupt the military.

I personally would be more concerned about cops than the military.

Yes, however a lot more people will die on the opposition side without guns. Which would make it very likely that they will not have a very large group.

 

[Smileyboy]

I think the theaters are different and we don't have military equipment supplied to us like they did by the US because they were fighting Russia. When the amendment was made, it was basically musket vs musket. Now a days If the military wanted to do something, and lets just assume the soldiers went along with it, there wouldn't be much we could do about it.

Pretty sure the Iraqis and Afghans have been doing a pretty good job at messing with the U.S. military. Now multiply the population about 10 times, increase the area needed to be controlled and add more firearms to the mix and you have an idea of how well they could control the population.:shrug:oke:

Also, if someone breaks into my house with a pistol, shotgun, or a AR of their own i don't want to meet them with a pistol, i want fire superiority. Either a shotgun or my Ruger grant me that as i have more rounds at my disposal and something that is far more intimidating or at least matches what they have since we have already determined criminals follow gun laws so well.

 

[Machdup1]

I think the theaters are different and we don't have military equipment supplied to us like they did by the US because they were fighting Russia. When the amendment was made, it was basically musket vs musket. Now a days If the military wanted to do something, and lets just assume the soldiers went along with it, there wouldn't be much we could do about it.

This is a common misconception. The might of the US war machine is considerable, but what you have described is called asymmetrical warfare. Do you think that US citizens are going to just stand together and get mowed down. You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of AW before commenting further.

 

[Draiter]

Guys so you know he clearly doesn't know much about firearms or firearms law in Canada or less so about American laws and does not speak for Canada.
He invokes the defeat of our long gun registry on one hand but fails to realize save for a few rifles restricted or prohibited by name (AKs, Ar-15s) the "defeat of the registry" takes many rifles that he would consider "assault rifles" off the governments confiscation list. Mini-14, ACR, SU-16, Robinson XCR and the list goes on.
Canadian requirement for non-restricted semi-automatic centerfire rifles to have a barrel length of at least 18.5 inches and 26 inch OAL
On a side note I wish I could hunt with an AR up here it would make a perfect coyote gun. The ergonomics are so nice, now I just have to save money for an ACR or maybe a TAVOR.

What's your point? The guy said Canadians have no backbone to stand up against their government, I proved him wrong. Once again, where did I say BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS? Jesus man... Take the tinfoil off your head.

This guy is a damn idiot.
Your saying that if I take your car keys off your counter top after I'm done banging your wife, steal your car, and go run a bunch of people over with it. That YOU should be responsible for it because your didn't lock the keys up or put a boot on the wheel? Holy hell man.
Maple syrups getting to your head man.

Keys in your house, is different from keys in your car... Leave your keys IN your car, and if it gets stolen, your are certainly going to be held accountable.... Twist my words any way you want.... No problem..

You're an idiot.

We're right, and you're wrong. End of discussion.

Yes, this statement makes me the idiot right? LOL

The intent of the 2nd amendment was not to give the people the ability to hunt and target shoot, but rather the means to stop government if it was no longer in the interest of the people.
Clearly they meant for the people to be armed with the same type of weapons as the government.
They were not idiots, they recognized that a government that forgot the interest of the people would have to be abolished by force.
An idiot is a person who does not believe that governments will take away the liberties of the people because it suits the government to do so. What does that make you?

So what is it for, the 2nd amendment? To protect you from each other or from the government?

It doesn't matter what particular weapons were available at the time. It mattered that regular citizens had equivalent weaponry to the government so that citizens could oppose a tyrannical government. Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense in light of what was happening at the time: England dispatched the military to the colonies to enforce taxes. Had American civilians not had equivalent weaponry, America could not have won it's independence.

That essentially craps all over the age-old "they only had muskets back then" illogical line.

Yes, to protect the citizens from the government... Sure, agree with you there.... But does carrying a concealed weapon to shoot a guy at a theater or library or where ever, fall under protecting citizens from the government?

 

[x99blacksnakex]

I notice how it's all foreigners running their mouths when it comes to gun control. You Canadians and people from the UK like Piers Morgan sure do have a lot to say about topics that have zero effect on your lives.

How about ya'll stay in Canada, and deal with your own problems, and the USA will continue to be the greatest country in the world. You guys can still ride our coat tails in Canada, and be America's hat.

See, unlike all you other fully Socialist, soft, panzy countries, we still have a chance that we won't go full retard, which is full on Socialism like the EU. We need our right to bear arms and that includes "assault weapons" as you sheeple Canucks and anti 2A sheeple like to call them.

The 2nd amendment is there to protect from all evils, including tyranny. It is not up for debate, it is our God given right. Period end.

 

[bglf83]

The second amendment is to allow people to protect themselves from the government and each other.

A legal gun owner can carry concealed into many places, I carry every day, everywhere and I have not shot anyone. Deadly force is only justified if you or someone around you has their life in danger. That is much different than shooting someone for fun, as you suggest in your last post.

In fact there is another thread on here, where a Texas citizen, shot a guy that was attempting a Theater shooting last week. Had she not been armed, it could have been a Colorado shooting all over again.

Are you suggesting that we should have had a mass shooting in this scenario?