• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Feinstein Gun Ban Bill

Mike

Well-known member
Rifles & Pistols:
ALL AK TYPES

ALL AR TYPES

What was amazing was the Ruger Mini-14 "Tactical" type is to be banned but not the typical wooden stock model. The only difference is the stock configuration.

Does the looks of a gun make it more dangerous?

There is even a .22 LR model in the list. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
problem with any gun ban is once the gun is named.. no matter what version it is.. they "authorities" get all squeamish and short of getting a lawyer.. it is banned...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
408252_323604661073700_1960506477_n_zps25d664cd.jpg


I'm very pro-gun-pro carry- pro self defense----BUT I also believe the Government has the right to limit weapons (anti-personal, machine gun, rockets/missiles, cannons, nukes, etc.)-- and do agree with old Ronald that I see no reason that everyone needs an AK-47, machine gun or "assault type" weapon....

Maybe because I don't fit in with the radical rightwingernutcases that want to bring about anarchy, provoke civil war, and think they need an assault weapon to overthrow our rightfully elected government.... :roll:

But that type of thinking may be the reason the R's don't have the following or the power they had back in Reagans day.... :???:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I'm very pro-gun-pro carry- pro self defense----BUT I also believe the Government has the right to limit weapons (anti-personal, machine gun, rockets/missiles, cannons, nukes, etc.)-- and do agree with old Ronald that I see no reason that everyone needs an AK-47, machine gun or "assault type" weapon....

Maybe because I don't fit in with the radical rightwingernutcases that want to bring about anarchy, provoke civil war, and think they need an assault weapon to overthrow our rightfully elected government.... :roll:

But that type of thinking may be the reason the R's don't have the following or the power they had back in Reagans day.... :???:

You see, that's your problem dickweed. EVERYTHING to you revolves around who's a radical rightwingernutcase who wants to bring about anarchy, overthrow the government, yada yada yada.

Just because someone wants to own an AK-47 does not make them a nut. Also, who said that "everyone needs an AK-47"? No one that I know of.

The government already regulates such things as "anti-personal [sic], machine gun, rockets/missiles, cannons, nukes, etc.)" and NO ONE is whining about that. Again, another strawman argument on your part.

In a nutshell, your post is so full of bull shyte blather that it's hard to know where to begin.
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Larrry said:
[/b]machine gun????

That's what Ronnie called them in '89...

That's because he meant MACHINE GUN Dumbass ! He didn't say AR 15 or shotgun or handgun. He said citizens don't need MACHINE GUNS. WAKE UP Oldtimer Fienstein........... :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.
article_schumer.jpg11277758304483.jpg


And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco - an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Feinstein must tread carefully as she’s been roundly criticized for being a hypocrite on the gun control issue. Feinstein herself is a concealed carry permit holder as she admitted in 1995,
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
gmacbeef said:
Oldtimer said:
Larrry said:
[/b]machine gun????

That's what Ronnie called them in '89...

That's because he meant MACHINE GUN Dumbass ! He didn't say AR 15 or shotgun or handgun. He said citizens don't need MACHINE GUNS. WAKE UP Oldtimer Fienstein........... :roll:

Ronald Reagan Helped Pass The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban



Doug Mataconis · Wednesday, December 19, 2012 · 27 Comments



Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczinski brings to light something I was previously unaware of, namely the role that Ronald Reagan played in passing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:


As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,”
the letter said.

“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.

More substantially, though, Reagan apparently persuaded at least two Republican Members of Congress to change their vote:


Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after “a last minute plea from President Reagan” in the form of a handwritten note.

”Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary,” Reagan wrote Klug. “I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

”I can think of no one who has been a stronger supporter of law and order and a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment,” Klug said in a statement regarding Reagan’s note announcing his support for the ban.

Another former Congressman, New Hampshire Democrat Dick Swett, also credited the former President with influencing his voting. Swett was unsure of how to vote on the ban, but made up his made after direct lobbying from Reagan.

The bill ended up passing the House by two votes, 216-214.

This wasn’t the first time that Reagan had come out against the Republican position on gun rights. In 1991, he authored a New York Times Op-Ed in which he called for passage of The Brady Bill:


Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.

While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser’s sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill — on a nationwide scale — can’t help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.

And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.

Critics claim that “waiting period” legislation in the states that have it doesn’t work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don’t. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.

Today, nobody seriously challenges the idea of pre-purchase background checks. Indeed, thanks to computer systems, they are largely instantaneous in most cases (unless the computer system itself happens to be down). What we’ve learned in recent years, though, is that the background check system is incomplete. For example, it doesn’t necessarily catch people who have been adjudicated mentally ill or other problem areas. When the the Brady bill was first proposed, though, opponents characterized it as one step on the road to tyranny. I’d argue that they were wrong. The Gipper certainly thought so.

Sure sounds to me like the Repubs Sainted-figure "the Gipper" supported the same type "assault weapons ban" that is now being presented....

But Gmac- if it makes you happy call me more names and rant and rave blaming it all me... Just shows more what a dumb ------ you are.... :wink: :lol: :p
 

Steve

Well-known member
Sure sounds to me like the Repubs Sainted-figure "the Gipper" supported the same type "assault weapons ban" that is now being presented....

I can respect the work Reagan did and disagree with him .. he was wrong..

wrong on gun control,.. wrong on immigration...

the difference between the so called assault weapon / machine gun .. is not function, but looks..

all guns are machines.. the technology for most are fifty to a hundred years old.. and really haven't changed alot other then looks

assault weapons are simply semi automatics.. like most handguns, rifles, shotguns..

they all function pretty much the same..

just because a liberal feels intimidated by how something looks doesn't justify outlawing it..
 

Mike

Well-known member
gmacbeef said:
Oldtimer said:
Larrry said:
[/b]machine gun????

That's what Ronnie called them in '89...

That's because he meant MACHINE GUN Dumbass ! He didn't say AR 15 or shotgun or handgun. He said citizens don't need MACHINE GUNS. WAKE UP Oldtimer Fienstein........... :roll:

You are correct gmac. Reagan fully meant and said "Machine Guns", which were THE definition of assault weapons at that time.

The legislation in 1986 was called the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" (FOPA) and dealt with registration of ATF licensing, guns across state lines, mental incompetence of gun owners, forfeiture & seizure, MACHINE GUNS, etc. etc. etc.

OT and the author of the article he posted could not be more wrong.
FOPA alters the
provisions of the National Firearms Act in two respects. First, the definition of "machinegun" is
expanded to include "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively ... for use in converting
a weapon into a machinegun."
451
Already included, within such definition, was "any combination
of parts designed and intended" for converting regular firearms into machineguns.
452
This was
primarily aimed at "M-2 conversion kits," sold as military surplus and widely available prior to
1968, which could convert an ordinary surplus M-1 carbine into a full automatic M-2 version.
453
By
the 1980s, however, some manufacturers began to market a single part—usually a modified trigger
or interrupter—which, when installed in a designated semiautomatic rifle, converted it to fully
automatic fire.
454
As each kit involved only a "part," not a "combination of parts," it was not covered
within the statutory (pg.669) language. FOPA adds a single part to the definition, albeit with the stricter
standard of "designed and intended solely" for such conversion. The legislative history indicates that
this constriction was intended to exclude parts intended as supplements or repair parts for arms,
whether semiautomatic or fully automatic, and parts that might be used either for conversion

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

OT, spanked again........................... :roll:

The modern generation of gun control laws began with the Reagan Administration, in 1986. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act was passed in that year, expanding on the Gun Control Act of 1968. One provision of this law was to freeze the number of fully-automatic machineguns in circulation; machineguns manufactured since 1986 cannot be legally owned by civilians. (Machineguns manufactured before that date are legal to own, as they have been since 1934, with a special tax stamp and BATF approval of each transfer of ownership.) Since 1934 only one crime as been committed with a legally owned machinegun. (A Dayton, Ohio police officer used a submachine gun to kill an informant.) The primary effect of this law was to raise the price of existing machineguns to astronomical levels.

There were no semi-automatic weapons banned or proposed to be banned in FOPA -1986. It was the kits that could easily convert a semi-automatic to fully automatic that were under scrutiny. Millions were in circulation at that time.

Reagan was not against, nor was he for banning any type of "Military Look-Alike" version of a gun to the public. Only the parts used to convert them to "Machineguns". :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So now we are being told we should accept the KKK Grand KlapperKarrier's definition of what is an "assault weapon" over President Ronald Reagans.... :roll: :p :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
seems liberals can't read..

The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the USSR by Mikhail Kalashnikov

and it has 3 settings: up = safe, center = full-auto and down = semi-auto.

this gun is already all but banned in the US.. and is not what is proposed to be banned today.. today they want to ban guns that "look" like machine guns.. but are essentially just modern versions of typical hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
seems liberals can't read..

The AK-47 is a selective-fire, gas-operated 7.62×39mm assault rifle, first developed in the USSR by Mikhail Kalashnikov

and it has 3 settings: up = safe, center = full-auto and down = semi-auto.

this gun is already all but banned in the US.. and is not what is proposed to be banned today.. today they want to ban guns that "look" like machine guns.. but are essentially just modern versions of typical hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns..


The gun that was being sold by the thousands around here- and which I believe may be the one Reagan talks about- is the Chinese AK-47- a semi auto... These guns were imported by the millions- and sold as cheap as $100 back in the 80's- early 90's...Every "Freeman" or Freemen sympathizer and White Supremacist/Aryan Nation follower had one along with thousands of rounds of the 7.62X39 ammo..

http://www.ak-47.us/Chinese.php


The best excuse some of the gunnut pro gun movement folks made on one of their web pages for Reagan writing the letters and contacting Presidents and Congressmen to support the 1994 Ban on Assault Weapons-- was that he was already suffering from Alzheimer's in the early 90's -- and that all his staff must have been Liberals and wrote the letters and convinced Reagan to sign them :roll: :lol: :lol:

Just for info- Reagan also signed gun control laws as the Governor of California...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The best excuse some of the gunnut pro gun movement folks made on one of their web pages for Reagan writing the letters and contacting Presidents and Congressmen to support the 1994 Ban on Assault Weapons-- was that he was already suffering from Alzheimer's in the early 90's -- and that all his staff must have been Liberals and wrote the letters and convinced Reagan to sign them :roll: :lol: :lol:

Just for info- Reagan also signed gun control laws as the Governor of California...

So what?

The point you try to make in such conversations is that somehow someone who was a Reagan backer has to agree with 100% of the decisions made by the man.

That is, of course, absurd, which also makes your implied assertion, absurd.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate


By Heidi Przybyla & Julie Hirschfeld Davis - Jan 25, 2013 1:31 PM MT


A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.

At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

----------------

The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have recently expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who is caucusing with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.

Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.

I have read that Reid may go against the President and oppose it too...

Like was said earlier- I think a lot of Depends are being wasted over a nonissue....Lautenbergs 10 round magazine law might stand a chance- but Feinsteins Assault Weapons ban bill was DOA....
 

Mike

Well-known member
One thing for sure, if it does pass, we'll definitely have a Repub Senate, House and prolly a Pres in the next two coming elections.

Feinstein's seat is secure, her being in the land of whackos...............
 

Latest posts

Top