Categorized | Politics

The Proposed 2013 Great Gun Grab…Why Sen. Dianne Feinstein is Full of It

The Proposed 2013 Great Gun Grab…Why Sen. Dianne Feinstein is Full of It

Washington, DC – (SatireWorld.com) – Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison.

On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

PHOTO INSERT: During 2012 the Obama administration’s efforts to curb illegal gun purchases by gangs of illegal aliens, drug runners, straw purchasers, criminals, felons, and the mentally ill fell by 40% over prior years, Yet this same Administration says you, Mr. Honest Citizen, must register all firearms, pay a registration tax, or destroy your private gun collection because you and 80 million other gun owners can’t be trusted.

Read the rest of our gun debate series here:
Florida Teachers Take the Heat, Won’t Pack It
Pro-gun Lobby Calls for State-Level Ban On Schools
God Categorically Denies Telling Local Man to Shoot His Family
Answer to Gun Control Problem; Americans Now Buying Chinese Guns
Raise Your Hands For Gun Control! Then..Drop Your Pants!
Sensible Gun-Control Proposals Obvious, Impossible
The Proposed 2013 Great Gun Grab…Why Sen. Dianne Feinstein is Full of It
NRA solves gun violence problem: Bullet-proof vests for every American
The National Rifle Association Revises Its Proposal
NRA Finds Just the Man for Their Propaganda Ministry

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

• Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

• Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

• Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.
•Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

• Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

• Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

• Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

• Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

• Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

• Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

• Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

• Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

The Department of Justice study. On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

“Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends. From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s—all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”—rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

Traces: Feinstein makes several claims, premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (relatively infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

Millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” and tens of millions own “large” magazines, for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting.

Share

This post was written by

- who has written 119 posts on GlossyNews.com.

Hello, I'm Bargis Tryhol and currently live somewhere in the southern part of the USA. I have been writing humor for quite a few years and love to make fun of the liberals who in recent years seem to be falling by the wayside in droves. My online following is fairly large now, so a big 'shout out' to all who have embraced my lopsided humor. I do appreciate the support. You can visit my website Satire World for more outrageous humor.... SatireWorld.com Comments or retribution? Bargistryhol@aol.com

.

34 Responses to “The Proposed 2013 Great Gun Grab…Why Sen. Dianne Feinstein is Full of It”

  1. Brian White says:

    There will be no "great gun grab" this time around. The country is too divided, and the anti-Obama crowd has been screaming that he'll take their guns for five years now, so it would be too soon to come true.

    No, what we'll get is a half-measure which will be hard-fought, bitterly opposed, and ultimately do nothing.

    I, for one, put my money where my mouth is. I got rid of both of my guns since the Sandy Hook tragedy. I have no use for them, I would never carry, and I'd just as soon be rid of these things. I'm strong enough to admit I'd be powerless to stop the government, and I'd never be caught dead (literally) trying to… what about you? Will you go to the grave fighting what you think America is or isn't? Personally, I love my country. I consider myself a patriot. I didn't care for Bush, but I still considered myself an America-loving patriot then. I still do. What about you?

  2. Thanks for publishing the story and letting others know the other side of the album….Per our previous private conversations concerning the gun debate, very little that the the anti-gun establishment publishes is totally factual or correct, most time it’s deceiving with the banner of ‘common sense regulation’ fluttering above their hidden agendas.

    I published this story to highlight that the implications go far and above simply keeping firearms out of the hands of mass murderers and borders on a conflict with the Second Amendment.

  3. rfreed says:

    One thing that keeps the big debate going is that the NRA refuses to give an inch or show any consideration at all for opinions other than their own. If they would be more flexible there wouldn’t be this big issue. But they have to go on pretending to be the big men and that it would kill them to give way on things once in a while. They are their own worst enemies and making more external enemies for themselves all the time. If you were to boil the organization down to its marrow you would find them to be nothing more than a media manipulator and shill for the guns industry who doesn’t want to lose a cent no matter how many innocents must die to support them.

  4. Ian Morris says:

    Brian, you've missed the point. if the american people are allowed to keep their guns and left alone by the goverment you wont need to fight. the simple fact that they want to take them at all should alarm you. "the beauty of the second ammendment is that you don't need it until someone tries to take it from you" -Benjamin Franklin.

  5. Simply not true.

    The NRA has and always will continued its commitment to training, education, child safety, and marksmanship. During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government, developed training materials, encouraged members to serve as plant and home guard members and developed training materials for industrial security. NRA members even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants. Incidentally, the NRA’s call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain’s defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).

    The NRA is about ownership and use of firearms that are particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to, defensive purposes not only improves the ability of good Americans to defend themselves against criminals, it maintains the tradition of Americans being trained in the use of arms in the event they are called upon to serve the nation, and it leads to improvements in marksmanship, firearms handling techniques, and firearms and their accessories.

    In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. This is the same view of the amendment held by the framers of the Bill of Rights, the most universally respected legal scholars of the 19th century, the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today, most Americans throughout our nation’s history, and the Supreme Court in earlier decisions. It is also the view advocated by the NRA for decades.

  6. Jim Ruiz says:

    OK experienced gun owners. TELL ME… WHAT IS "WRONG' WITH THIS PICTURE?
    Feinstein has no experience with firearms. She has her finger on the trigger in the middle of a crowded non shooting environment That in itself is ignorance about what she is trying to legislate. She is NOT qualified as an expert to ban guns! Every gun owner knows she is out of order in this picture.

    http://www.bonzerwolf.com/storage/DiFi-gun.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1356226664784

  7. rfreed says:

    Yeah, I get it.
    All that matters is your *&^^% guns.
    Nothing and nobody else matters.
    I have two guns too but I sure don’t feel like I have to ram them down everyone else’s throats or clutch them desperately like I’m going to get lynched at any moment.

    Since your so stimulated by this please send some money to the Sandy Hook School to help bury the kids there.

  8. Brian White says:

    Jesus imaginary Christ, you're hurting my head. First of all that quote is traditionally attributed to Thomas Jefferson, and second of all, it NEVER EXISTED prior to 2007.

    People have been left alone with their guns, and a lot of people died. If you can't propose a solution to the dead babies, you're not part of the solution.

  9. Brian K. White says:

    Hey Jim Ruiz… perhaps you don’t know how government works. Sen Feinstein is qualified because she is a legislator. How many women were on the panel charged with women’s reproductive rights? Zero. All men over 60. I assume you were up in arms about that too. (crickets)

  10. solomon chandler says:

    Response to Mr White, I have used a gun in protection of others and myself. You Mr White have no choice if confronted with deadly force, you will be a victim. I will not have any problem using deadly force to defend you or anyone if that is the only option. A pen shoved in the eye or heart kills like any other weapon so I guess you should turn in your pens and pencils.

  11. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called ‘children’ most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper.

    School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper. In 2007 (from all causes including accidents)there were 1520 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group (out of 74,340,127 children) and 3067 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1547 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. In other words, in 2007 most “child gun death victims” were actually adults. Historically, the anti-gun lobby lies about most fatalities figures.

    So comparing 1520 gun deaths of children versus a high of over 1.2 million which is the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. The killing of children by other means is vastly understated, un-mourned, almost a political third-rail as far as discussion, and hardly mentioned. (Two independent sources confirm this latest trend: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute (GI), which was once a special research affiliate of abortion chain Planned Parenthood.)

    The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 613 by 2007, out of the 301,579,895 people in the USA, according to the CDC. For comparison, there were 29,846 accidental deaths by poisoning in 2007, again this is according to the CDC.

  12. Jim Ridgway says:

    There are many patriots who went to their grave fighting for what they thought America should be. They were citizens like you and I who fought for a just cause. To throw off the yoke of a tyrannical government led by King George III. If not for the fact the average Colonist had weapons, George Washington would never have been able to establish the great U.S.A.

    Nobody disparages you for not wanting to be a gun owner — there were plenty of people during Revolutionary times working behind the scenes without guns. We just don't want others telling the rest of us and trying to impose their will.

    Citizens in possession of guns keeps the Government from becoming dictatorial. and they know it. Which is why they would ultimately, through a careful series of measures, end up confiscating weapons — if they could.

  13. Brian White says:

    There is no way that you and I will see eye to eye on this. I'm okay with that. Let me ask you, is there any changes that should be made regarding gun rights? Is the level of gun violence, accidents, etc acceptable at current levels?

  14. Jim Ridgway says:

    I don't think anyone would have a problem with:

    1 Making any current or prospective gun owner gain certification in safety, use, responsibility and knowledge of the laws.

    2 Making all gun owners keep their firearms locked up at all times when not in use — in a certified safe.

    3 100% background check — no loopholes. I'd even accept a short waiting period.

    Those items alone would go a long way. Perhaps some others too. I haven't really seen the first two proposed. I think if the powers that be would sit down and discuss in a civil manner — a workable solution can be found. Nothing will be perfect.

  15. Jim Ridgway says:

    I wanted to mention also that we require certification of expertise and law to have a drivers license or to operate dangerous machinery but not to own firearms —- and if firearms were required to be locked up when not "being supervised" — under penalty of law if not — then this last mass shooting would not have happened.

  16. Ahhhhhh Jim….I do keep most guns locked away in a very good safe…But all guns??? I don’t think so. How would you protect yourself or your family? The main reason I carry a gun is because carrying a cop is too heavy.

    As far as the mother of the crazy kid that caused 26 deaths, she had the income to buy a very good safe too. She also had a crazy kid living with her but didn’t bother securing them in a responsible manner. You cannot regulate or legislate laws against stupidity.

  17. Hey Brian, let me re-run a previous post to show again why ‘kid control’ is way more easier to do than gun control.

    When I was in high school, my buddies and I packed our long guns in the trunk of our cars and after school spent a few hours hunting rabbits, pheasant, whatever was in season. Had a disagreement with another student? Involved in a fight? No, we didn’t run to our cars and withdraw a weapon…We slugged it out and usually healed the riff later. Unlocked gun cabinets in other kids homes? Sure! We knew they were off limits and respected them.

    So, what has changed? Guns in homes have been around forever and it’s only been in recent times they’ve been abused to a degree where children are involved in an open season warfare o themselves and others. So, what’s really changed in the last 30 years…….The person behind the gun has changed.

    Recent university studies by respected behaviorists have proven that our violence plaqued society is a direct result of mass produced media that glorifies violence in order to obtain a suitible and satisfactory outcome to a given situation. Bad guys in the game? Blow them up. Then take a break in the kitchen with a PB&J sandwich and go back and blow some more up. Need to settle a score? Well, mow ‘em down because vigilantism is OK’d by Hollywood.

    Hey! It’s make believe, right? Or is it?

    A typical gamer plays hardware/software that rivals the best military simulators.

    The adrenaline rush a gamer feels is very close to what a combat soldier feels. This adrenaline released through a person’s system is believed to be the switch that turns Post Tramatic Stess Symdrome in soldiers. Could it effect adolescents as well? Could the intense thrill of the kill and winning at all odds cause this to happen to a tenager or early twenties guy? Young male brains aren’t fully developed emotionally until early twenties, so something is happening here!

    Movie directors glorify blood letting to such a degree that youngsters are de-sensitized to these events. The average child in America is subject to over 12,000+ brutal murders on the TV and big screen by the time they are 18 years old. Directors like Robert Rodriquez and Quentin Tarrantino (and others) have made personal fortunes feeding gore and brutality to eager viewers looking for their morbid adrenaline rush of beheadings, rapes, maimings and other atrocities that would make even the most hardened Taliban blush.

    De-sensitized adolecents are more common than one might think. Blood spattered gore as entertainment? What would a rational person think the outcome would be when a kid is subjected to this as a form or relaxation, a learning experience, or a way to help with his emotional one on one dealings in life?

    The best way to deal with extreme violence (and guns are only the tools) is to take the reward of a successful murder out of the equation of dealing with a deeply personal problem or physical encounter.

    During the whole discourse on this subject, the positive actions of using a personal firearm are never discussed. Like saving lives in particular. Last year (2011) personal firearms were used 1.2 million times to protect life and property. Of course, shots weren’t fired every time and the actual ‘show of force’ of the firearm was sufficient to stop or curtail an escalation. Supppose their was an armed citizen in that Newtown school that morning. Maybe things would’ve turned out a lot different.

  18. Skoob1999 says:

    Happy New Year Bargis!

    You’re the reason why I rarely ever use this site.

  19. Hi Skoob..and you’re the reason I now practice birth control!

  20. P. Beckert says:

    Happy New Year everyone!

  21. P. Beckert says:

    I’ll only say one thing on this after reading Jim Ridgway’s comment. I would hate to have to be a person who is so paranoid as to be afraid that my government is out to harm me. I got no beef with them and I’m pretty sure they have no beef with me as long as I do my best to just try and be a good citizen. To think that the leaders of this country are running scared of a militia? Hell, I’m more scared of the militia-types than I am of my government. True dat.

  22. Happy New Year Patti! Have to agree with you on that. Most militia-types I’ve ever run into scare me too!

  23. Jeanina Marie Owens says:

    if you want to see a lot of people die, go ahead and take the guns because I promise you only law abiding citizens will turn them in or give them up, who does that leave with guns? Thugs,murders and the like. Hey while your at it why don't you go ahead and ban crack, heroin and meth maybe the criminals will give that up along with their guns that are not registered!!!

  24. rfreed says:

    I think a lot of the NRA people are Borgs- able to comprehend things at a human level but emotionally not human at all. They show only the required superficial iota of interest about what happened to the kids at Sandy Hook and the rest is screaming about how someone is trying to ruin their playtoys. A gun of military grade lethality is not needed by anyone except as a dangerous playtoy.
    But Borgs won’t listen to that. Their minds are already full of the mental implants the NRA wants them to repeat ad nauseum.

  25. A novel approach to the gun ownership issue.

    Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
    Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state.

    Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as ‘a clear mandate to do so’.

    He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent..”

    Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”

    Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.

    Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state …. it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

    ” America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

    This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
    Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

  26. rfreed says:

    Why do gun owners have to be such crybabies about some degree of gun control? We are not talking about all guns, we are talking about guns of mass destruction.
    The extremists are like a new form of Chicken Little yelling “They’re taking our guns! They,re taking our guns!” at every little critsism.

  27. define ‘mass destruction’ guns?

  28. rfreed says:

    Just as it sounds- any gun that can kill multiples of people, have rapid fire, shoot exploding bullets, can cause a lot of destruction even with the accidental touch of a trigger. The standard that is wanted to be banned- ten bullets or more, sounds like a good starting point. Machine guns are the perfect example of a GMD. If a person can’t take care of an assault on his person with an eight shot handgun then he is dead meat anyway. Also I don’t think you need to hunt ducks with an assault gun.

  29. Nice effort, but totally inaccurate.

    If your description of ‘any gun that can kill multiples of people’ were included in any proposed law it would ban all guns. Exactly the aim of the anti-gun crowd.

    Exploding bullets have been outlawed for decades and aren’t even a factor in anyone’s equation. Even the US military has no such thing as an exploding bullet for small arms. (Geneva Convention)

    Ten bullets or more? With this reasoning all shotguns capable of using buckshot would be banned since each shell contains .32 caliber round projectiles in excess of ’10 bullets.’

    Machine guns have been under Federal restrictions since 1934. In previous posts I’ve outlined how 180,000 are legal and in private hands…Of course, if you want to plunk down $15K you can buy one as long as you pay the Federal Tax Stamp, pass the same FBI background check as you would for a .22 rifle.

    An assault gun that you refer to is really a semi-automatic. 1 trigger pull = 1 shot. Banning this mechanism just because it ‘looks bad and real scarey’ would ban almost all hunting rifles that are semi-automatic.

    8 Shots are enough? Suppose there’s more than 8 perpetrators? Silly answer but it’s in response to a silly statement!

    Pistols and semi-automatic rifles are used daily for target practice, various sanctioned 3-gun matches, and even duck hunting when the season allows.

    The ‘aim’ of those on the other side of the table who are proponents of full gun control is a full ban on all shooting weapons. I’ve read their supposed ‘secret agenda’ in banning all guns from the US.
    They’ve been at it for several decades.
    It won’t work and honest, patriotic Americans who love liberty, have defended liberty with their blood and sacrifice, will not stand for those who have little knowledge of firearms to take away a freedom that was fought for by so many.

    Nice try RFreed and I know you intentions are earnest, but you have little knowledge of the subject other than what you read or see from liberal sources. Try looking at the whole picture and the true ramifications of having a liberty taken away or regulated to such a degree that the true intent of that freedom is a mere thread of what oit was intended to be.

  30. Brian White says:

    It worked in Canada. Sure, America is no Canada, but it's also no England, and it's worked there too. I'm willing to hear you out. What do you propose to stop the 12,000/yr gun deaths in the US? (UK had 55 last year.)

  31. According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

    This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats’ feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

    However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

    Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

    And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

    For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

    While the FBI makes is clear that some of the “murder by rifle” numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded rifle.

    BTW…..Since total gun confiscation in Britain, stabbings have reached a ten year high this past year.
    So Brian, what next ….knives without a point? Plastic knives? Special knife owner permits? Register all knives, hammers, bats, and crowbars with Joe Biden?

  32. Now, about that 12,000 number…………..

    Let’s take a hard statistical look at that 12,000 ‘deaths by firearms’ number.

    According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2/3 of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm. Over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Safe-storage laws do not appear to affect gun suicide rates or juvenile accidental gun death

    That leaves 6,000 murders.

    Research has found some policies, such as gun “buy-back” programs and assault-style weapons bans are particularly ineffective as shown by the 1994 Brady Bill which did nothing to lower US murder rates between 1994 and 2005. (FBI annual report)

    During the 1980s and early 1990s, homicide rates surged in cities across the United States. Handgun homicides accounted for nearly all of the overall increase in the homicide rate, from 1985 to 1993, while homicide rates involving other weapons declined during that time frame. The rising trend in homicide rates during the 1980s and early 1990s was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males. Youths and Hispanic and African American males in the United States were the most represented, with the injury and death rates tripling for black males aged 13 through 17 and doubling for black males aged 18 through 24. The rise in crack cocaine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period.
    People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.
    The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

    There were between 6,300 and 15,300 reported nonfatal, legally permissible woundings of criminals by gun-armed civilians and 1,800 fatal shootings by citizens defending themselves in the US.

    That leaves 4,200 from that 12,000 number.

    The number of accidental shooting deaths in the United States has been slowly declining for many years, although there was a slight jump in the number of deaths in 2008, the last year for which we have statistics. In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the US.

    That leaves 3,520 from that 12,000 number.

    Firearm murders committed by illegal aliens is 6% of all gun-related murders and stands at 720 murders committed by people not supposed to be in this country at all.

    That leaves 2,800 from that 12,000 number.

    Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings.

    The last figures for gang related murders with a gun are in 2007 where 18% of all murders were committed by gang related gun violence. Today, that nationwide number (504 deaths) would be considered low taking into consideration the 500+ gang related murders just in one city (Chicago) this year alone.

    So if we add that number of 504 gun historical murders by gangs in the US and factor in the 500 homicides caused by gang violence just in Chicago this past year.

    The actual death by other gun violence would be around 1,800 from the 12,000 figure stated

  33. rfreed says:

    Come now, Bargis, you know exactly what I meant when I said “guns of mass destruction” when I said it in the first place. No, I no not know all the terminology and types and makes of guns and I don’t need to. When I say GMD it means exactly that, the type used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook and Aurora- ones that can shell out a massive amount of bullets in a very small amount of time. And whatever you want to call the bullets used on the kids at Sandy Hook, lets call them ‘confetti’ if you want them to be specifically named, penetrated the kids bodies and shredded or shrapnelled or what ever you want to call it meaning that they tore up the inside organs and there was no way even a wounded child would survive.
    It seems the NRA people will do everything possible psychologically to keep themselves in good with their gun manufacturer masters. They will say and do anything to have their self-centered, greedy way. They are a plastic front for the arms manufacturers.
    As I have said before and it keeps getting forgotten (or intentionally overlooked) I am not against all guns. I am in favor of individuals having small guns (I’ll wait for a moment to let you get over your heart seizure)………………….and , believe it or not- hunting rifles. Yes, PEOPLE DO NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
    That said, no one needs GMD’s. Too many gun people, most in fact, want overly powerful guns to have control over others. They feel they have an entitlement to lord over others. They want to intimidate others. They want to be able to be the King of the Hill. The Pharaoh of their community. The Big Man. And they want to be it whether you like it or not. And a gun is a cheap way to do it. Mao Tse Tung said (roughly)’the power of the government comes out of the barrel of a gun’. What a wonderful guy! And how many lay dead because of him?

  34. OK…so, how many rounds do you think everyone else should be allowed to have? Just curious.

    On my end, I believe they should regulate and register writers, authors, publishers, editors, artists, singers, performers, and their aliases as well. Make them all apply for a license to write and express.
    In order that mis-spoken words, half-truths, unpopular expressions, and innudeno won’t hurt people or cause others to take rumor as a part of a planned mis-directed action.
    In fact, maybe we can make it totally illegal to criticize any US President by word, movie, press, or email. I mean, if we’re going to move a few things around in the Constitution might as well make everyone happy!
    Why should Second Amendment fans take all the heat? Fair is fair! This is the USA..Home of the brave and where freedomm rings!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply


We are also looking for a satire editor
and a Clever Photoshop Guru...
Glossy News Fake Commercials!


-- (SEE ALL GlossyNews.com Videos) --



More Great Satire:

Check out links to even more of our friends...
Want to see Your Link Here?



Visit the “Old Version” of our Site

     
Still want more? Find thousands of buried satirical gems in our archives on the old version of Glossy News!

Check This Out!

Our Top Authors (last 30-days)

13 posts
6 posts
5 posts
2 posts


All of Our Categories:

Top Stories - Top Stories; Politics - Top Stories; Serious Commentary - Top Stories; World News - Top Stories; Biz News - Top Stories; War Zone | Horoscopes
Entertainment - Entertainment; Celebrity Gossip - Entertainment; Television - Entertainment; Music - Entertainment; Internet Tubes - Entertainment; Books, Newspapers & Misc - Entertainment; Movies
Society - Society; Health - Society; Crime - Society; Travel - Society; Crooked Cops - Society; Education - Society; Strange People - Society; Religionism - Society; Human Interest - Society; Kidz Zone
Science and Technology - Science and Technology; Science - Science and Technology; Technology - Science and Technology; Gadgets & Gizmos - Science and Technology; Environment
Sports - Sports; Scandals - Sports; Athletes - Sports; Events | All the Rest - News in Your Briefs - Making Headlines - Opinion/Editorial