Obama supports new bid to ban assault weapons.

[slammin.e28]

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Have you guys taken a look at this yet? Kinda makes me want to move back to California just to vote her out.

She really shouldn't need voting out. She should have been out long ago. She's 79 years old. Really? Just go home.

Congress needs term limits to keep idiots like this limited.

[smooth]

Dumb ass broke DC law even after being denied permission from the cops, and put it up on a national news site for all too see. He should be subject to the maximum fines and penalties anyone of us would be subject too if we were caught with a Large capacity ammunition feeding device in DC, since they were told specifically that it would be illegal . As arbitrary and illogical as the definition is and regardless of the intentions the law was still broken.

what good is an inalienable right to own and carry firearms or even report about them if you're going to follow any kind of local law that prohibits them? just because someone thinks he's a liberal he isn't entitled to the rights to bear arms and freedom of speech?

[slammin.e28]

what good is an inalienable right to own and carry firearms or even report about them if you're going to follow any kind of local law that prohibits them? just because someone thinks he's a liberal he isn't entitled to the rights to bear arms and freedom of speech?

He broke the law. Hands down. He should be in cuffs. I know for a fact if I ran around DC flashing a high cap mag I'd be on the ground, cuffed in 2.5 seconds and on the news 5 minutes later being slandered with a trumped up, fear mongering story that in no way resembles what happened.

[Q5Quint]

The tragedy at sandy hook and at the theater in CO are horrible- disgusting to say the least. White children dying always gets the media up in arms.

Since most gun crime involves minorities in the city shooting each other with pistols, and most gun deaths involves white dudes in the suburbs offing themselves, how will this aesthetic 'ban' actually do anything at all? Some have mentioned a stepping stone and I believe that, but from most of my liberal friends opinions I think they honestly see it as protecting kids.

I became a sort of gun-supporting democrat since I have started to worry about both 'right-wing nazis' and 'left-wing communist' breaking down my door in the middle of the night. The thought of putting my aging parents up before a death committee since they are costing universal health care too much, or the thought of god-loving tea-partiers coming for me in the night because I believe in a flying spaghetti monster and love lesbians is unnerving to say the least.

It is my personal opinion that citizens should be armed with an equivalent firearm to our military personnel.... for the whole checks and balances issue. Our country was founded on individual rights and liberties, and either side that tries to take it away from another individual needs to be ready for war. Luckily we haven't used our own military on our own people in a while, but we have certainly done it before.

If I was a strategist for the right-wing-nutters I would let this ban go through. Then I would support a ban and confiscate as many weapons as I could. 15 years later with a disarmed population you can lead the jews/atheists/gays/blacks/hispanics/whoever/liberals straight into the gas showers since they don't have guns anymore. It worked for the nazis and it looks like it will work for most democrats too.

We all want to help and protect these kids, and our citizens, and that is the bottom line of this argument. Locks wont help if you can shoot out a window, and guns cant protect you from a madman with a truck full of fertilizer or an airplane full of fuel. What to do? I am not against more permits and training and trigger locks as long as I can still have a weapon to defend myself from my neighbors/brothers if need be.

It is hard to imagine that around 30 kids per year get shot in schools, 40-50 people get killed by lightning, and 20-30 hurt in shark attacks (only 1 or so killed).

I think we should talk about these issues and figure out what we can do to reduce the 'nanny state' and increase personal responsibility. I am going to be pretty mad when my ruger 10/22 with a folding stock becomes an 'assault weapon' when I can still buy a semi-auto 12g shotgun at the wal-marts. It is time for people to admit when they are wrong.

[Exodus_2pt0]

I think we should talk about these issues and figure out what we can do to reduce the 'nanny state' and increase personal responsibility.

increase personal responsibility.

Exactly.

[mrsleeve]

what good is an inalienable right to own and carry firearms or even report about them if you're going to follow any kind of local law that prohibits them? just because someone thinks he's a liberal he isn't entitled to the rights to bear arms and freedom of speech?

um LOCAL DC law prohibit CCW and "High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices" within their jurisdiction. They cant ban hand guns anymore thanks to the Heller decision.

I agree that laws baring Carry ( you know bearing arms) and possession of anything are should be struck down as unconstitutional but as we all know the NFA.GCA, GOPA all have stood up in front of the SCOTUS many times regardless of the original intent of the 2a.

All that said if I were to move to DC, I would have leave 1/2 or my firearms outside the city because I cant even Possess them there. Would I do this, yes because I am a law abiding citizen I would resided outside the city limits. I would follow the laws whether I like them or not. This Jackass from MSNBC BROKE THE LAW no matter how stupid or trivial he broke it, and he can not claim ignorance since he called DC police to try and get permission. I as a CCW holder that travels all over the place have to be well versed in where I can and cant have a weapon the laws of many states. Because if I get caught with that weapon I am fucked with felony Weapons charges, and as you know IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A LEGITIMATE DEFENSE.

So my question to you is, Why should shit bag MSNBC host get a break for knowing and willfully breaking the law and putting it up for all the world to see. When if you or I did this we would have our asses in a sling on the interwebs or not??


The DC police chief has already given them selves an out on this to not press charges and let MSNBC off, by investigating if the "mag was a REAL ONE" or if the segment was "actually filmed" in DC.

[SGT4677]

This ^

[smooth]

So my question to you is, Why should shit bag MSNBC host get a break for knowing and willfully breaking the law and putting it up for all the world to see. When if you or I did this we would have our asses in a sling on the interwebs or not??

Because he's a reporter exercising his freedom of speech about a 2nd amendment issue.

If you're going to follow any and all laws no matter whether you like them or not and if it doesn't matter to you whether they violate basic principles the country was founded upon, then those "rights" amount to nothing.

There's no point in having a free press if reporters can be arrested for discussing certain facts. The only time we actually need a protection of the press is when it's going to do something the state doesn't like. There's no need to protect the press when it's simply reporting things the state already allows!

Likewise, you don't need a 2nd amendment if the state doesn't care when you or how you carry. It's only necessary when the state tries to restrict your rights regarding firearms. If the state doesn't care when or how you carry then you don't need a 2nd amendment. But when the state starts to say what kinds of magazines you can purchase and use or whether you can obtain bullets, that's the time the 2nd amendment needs to be most protected because that's when citizens need to wield it against the state most!

[mrsleeve]

Because he's a reporter exercising his freedom of speech about a 2nd amendment issue.

I see so if I get a press pass as a free lance photographer or writer, and I take my CCW into DC with me and get caught with it. It would be ok for me to cite my 1st amendment rights to free speech as a defense.

NO of course it would not be. I would be in jail up on felony weapons charges. Next the shit bag on MSNBC did not need a Mag there to hold up, he could have just shown a picture of one, or had the broadcast flash to an image of one. there was no need for him to have a Prohibited item to get his point across.

If you're going to follow any and all laws no matter whether you like them or not and if it doesn't matter to you whether they violate basic principles the country was founded upon, then those "rights" amount to nothing.

I agree with this, I dont like having to disarm when I work in NY, NJ, MD, or when I drive though certain states. I do it because its a condition of my CCW permits, and in many cases my job. I under go more FBI back grounds in a year than I care to admit too some years, my employment is contingent upon it.

The problem is the SCOTUS has up held the massive gun control legislation of the past and if you wish to keep out of jail and paying a huge fine then you abide by the rules. I am a firm believer in Judged by 12 rather than carried by 6, but that will not protect me form an overzealous Barny Fife, and a routine traffic stop. So I abide by the laws laid out for the state I am in or traveling though.

There's no point in having a free press if reporters can be arrested for discussing certain facts. The only time we actually need a protection of the press is when it's going to do something the state doesn't like. There's no need to protect the press when it's simply reporting things the state already allows!

And he needed a physical mag to speak about it??? NO there was no reason to break the law, other than a stunt.

Likewise, you don't need a 2nd amendment if the state doesn't care when you or how you carry. It's only necessary when the state tries to restrict your rights regarding firearms. If the state doesn't care when or how you carry then you don't need a 2nd amendment. But when the state starts to say what kinds of magazines you can purchase and use or whether you can obtain bullets, that's the time the 2nd amendment needs to be most protected because that's when citizens need to wield it against the state most!

You will get nothing but a nod of my head in approval with this.

[mrsleeve]

Huh this happened 2 days after Sandyhook but not hardly a whisper in any of the national news out lets.

Counter to the agenda that is being painted by our crop of anti firearms legislators and media out lets maybe. Good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun.

Two people were wounded late Sunday when gunfire erupted at a local movie theater, sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover, police and witnesses said.

A lone suspect was in custody after being wounded by an unidentified law enforcement officer, a Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokesman said.

Conditions of the two people wounded were not immediately released, nor was it disclosed where they were when they were wounded, or the type of gun that was used.


Witnesses said numerous shots were fired inside and outside the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex on Southwest Military Drive around 9:25 p.m., setting off the scramble to safety before police and EMS arrived. The complex was evacuated and sealed off for several hours.

Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sherriff's Office, said the shooting began at a nearby China Garden and “carried on into the theater.”

At one point, the suspect fired at a San Antonio Police Department patrol car, Antu said.

“He was shooting at a marked unit,” Antu said. “He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder.”

After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him, Antu said.

“She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu said.

Tara Grace, who was getting a drink from the concession stand when the shooting began, ran into the bathroom and locked herself in a stall with five other patrons to avoid the mayhem.

“We thought we were going to die,” she said.

A person at the scene, an employee from a different location of the restaurant, said the gunman initially may have targeted a coworker before making his way to the theater, though Antu could not confirm a motive immediately.

The shooting immediately sparked fears of a mass slaying like the one in July that killed 12 people and injured 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Cassandra Castillo, waited anxiously outside the theater for her son, a projectionist at the theater.

“It brings back memories of the other theater shooting, and the elementary school shooting,” she said. “You only think the worst.”

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

[cale]

Decided to respond in this thread instead of cluttering up the gun thread with debate.

Isn't it Ironic....


Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder

First off, I do not know this guys position on gun control and the lengths at which he wants to restrict ownership beyond him being anti-gun. Is he anti gun to any degree, or does he favour stricter control? Is he truly a hypocrite because he owns a gun, or is he showing that guns are necessary in a particular situation such as home defence? Again, it entirely depends on his exact position. If he's anti CCW and for tighter restriction, that doesn't make him a hypocrite for owning a gun and keeping it in his own home.

My point for making this post is to question whether or not this justifies ownership, or does it just highlight the problem with America?

I for one am on the fence to how the situation can be resolved. I'm against the thought process of a gun being necessarily carried everyday, however I acknowledge that the prevalence of guns makes it likely that a gun would be involved in an otherwise not so hostile confrontation. Overall, a very shitty situation which I believe to be self-inflicted.

[mrsleeve]

^

that guy was very anti gun,

[cale]

Define very and provide a source please. Did he condemn having a firearm for home protection for this exact purpose, or did he want to tighten controls?

[z31maniac]

I for one am on the fence to how the situation can be resolved. I'm against the thought process of a gun being necessarily carried everyday, however I acknowledge that the prevalence of guns makes it likely that a gun would be involved in an otherwise not so hostile confrontation. Overall, a very shitty situation which I believe to be self-inflicted.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[cale]

I'm not sure how to simplify that for you, and in the context of the entire post it makes plenty of sense.

Care to explain what it is you're confused about, or are you just displeased with my post?