Assault Weapon Ban Removed from gun bill.

[Cshelton21]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-19-13-51-09

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won't be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.

Instead, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she will be able to offer her ban on the military-style firearms as an amendment. Feinstein is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, but she faces solid Republican opposition and likely defections from some moderate Democrats.

[Aeroneous]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-gun-ban-bill/

Sen. Dianne Feinstein emerged from a closed-door meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday — but her ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines didn’t.

Mr. Reid turned down her attempt to bring her ban on 157 different weapons and ammunition clips aboard the Democratic Party’s comprehensive gun bill, Politico reported.


“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” said Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat. “I would like to [see it moved], but the leader has decided not to do it. … You will have to ask him [why].”

Her bill instead will have to go forth separately or as an amendment — and that means it’s probably not going anywhere.

Mr. Reid’s decision was likely aimed at bolstering the party’s chances to pass some gun control, even if it’s not as restrictive as many on the left would like. As Hot Air noted, Mr. Reid can now play the two bills off each other and make the case that he kept out Mrs. Feinstein’s more controversial version.

Mr. Reid is also likely looking at the 2014 elections, when several Democratic Senate seats are open for contest in conservative states, analysts say.

Glad to see that the "assault weapons" portion of her bill really doesn't have a chance anymore, but I think all Harry Reid did was make the rest of the bill more acceptable for those that were on the fence.

Thoughts?

[AFPVet]

No level of firearm regulation is 'acceptable'. When you regulate rights, they are no longer rights... they are privileges. All firearm laws should be repealed as they are not constitutional.

[Kotin]

No level of firearm regulation is 'acceptable'. When you regulate rights, they are no longer rights... they are privileges. All firearm laws should be repealed as they are not constitutional.

this.

"Shall not be infringed" is not really up for debate as to the meaning.. this is no general welfare clause.. this is very simple.

[Fivezeroes]

Already posted, but it will be back. Dianne Feinstein doesn't know how to give up... people like her can be beat down left and right and still they try to get their bs laws passed.

[Aeroneous]

I agree completely with both of you. Unfortunately, that phrase consistently comes up for debate as if there WAS some type of ambiguity. It's really sad.

[jkr]

DONT worry, frankenstein, they will repackage your bull$hit and it will float to the surface again...

[Christian Liberty]

*Devil's Advocate*

Is private nuke ownership a good idea? If not, where do you draw the line? I've had a tricky time answering that question. Granted, wherever the line is, we already passed it, but I'm not sure exactly where. Assault weapons are obviously OK. Automatic assault weapons are obviously OK. But nukes obviously aren't. Where do you draw the line?

[AFPVet]

*Devil's Advocate*

Is private nuke ownership a good idea? If not, where do you draw the line? I've had a tricky time answering that question. Granted, wherever the line is, we already passed it, but I'm not sure exactly where. Assault weapons are obviously OK. Automatic assault weapons are obviously OK. But nukes obviously aren't. Where do you draw the line?

I don't know... can you 'bear it'? Can you pick it up and stand in a militia formation? If they answer to that is no, then you have the answer to your question.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know... can you 'bear it'? Can you pick it up and stand in a militia formation? If they answer to that is no, then you have the answer to your question.

Yeah, this is usually the argument I've used. "Arms" means weapons that can be carried. Which means that the "Can you own a nuke" argument I've encountered is really just a strawman.

We have to be careful and define what "Arms" means.

[Acala]

*Devil's Advocate*

Is private nuke ownership a good idea? If not, where do you draw the line? I've had a tricky time answering that question. Granted, wherever the line is, we already passed it, but I'm not sure exactly where. Assault weapons are obviously OK. Automatic assault weapons are obviously OK. But nukes obviously aren't. Where do you draw the line?

The Federal government has NO authority to regulate arms of any kind including nuclear weapons. It lacks the power under the Constitution. The States are another matter.

[Darguth]

I don't know... can you 'bear it'? Can you pick it up and stand in a militia formation? If they answer to that is no, then you have the answer to your question.

Someone give this man a cookie.

[jkr]

are gang bangers, crack headz & "cops" kicking in doors with their standard issue carrying tac nukes?

if yes

then yes

if no
saiga 12 works fine

[Christian Liberty]

The Federal government has NO authority to regulate arms of any kind including nuclear weapons. It lacks the power under the Constitution. The States are another matter.

Yes, that's true, although there isn't any state that wouldn't regulate nuclear weapons. But technically... yeah.

I was more asking where the 2nd (Individual right) ends and the 10th (States can regulate) begins... The answer I was given was good enough for me.

Then again, the Feds think they have authority to stop foreign governments like Iran from getting nukes, so I highly doubt they'll let us as individuals be regulated only by the states in this matter...

Who exactly regulates Washington DC for the record? If that's "The Federal Government" than I'd accept their authority to regulate nukes and other "Non-arms" weapons there.

[Acala]

Yes, that's true, although there isn't any state that wouldn't regulate nuclear weapons. But technically... yeah.

I was more asking where the 2nd (Individual right) ends and the 10th (States can regulate) begins... The answer I was given was good enough for me.

Then again, the Feds think they have authority to stop foreign governments like Iran from getting nukes, so I highly doubt they'll let us as individuals be regulated only by the states in this matter...

Who exactly regulates Washington DC for the record? If that's "The Federal Government" than I'd accept their authority to regulate nukes and other "Non-arms" weapons there.

The US Congress regulates Washington DC.

[Christian Liberty]

Than yeah, they should be able to make laws banning nukes in Washington DC.

[Pericles]

But nukes obviously aren't.

Why not? If the issue is not that I own firearms, but misuse should be punished, would not the same be true for any property i own?

[Christian Liberty]

Why not? If the issue is not that I own firearms, but misuse should be punished, would not the same be true for any property i own?

Is that really worh the risk to an entire city? Granted, the government shouldn't own them either. I would argue that owning something that literally cannot be used in a defensive manner (Such as a nuke) is in and of itself a threat against other people.

[Pericles]

Who decides which risks are worth taking?

The risks of people owning cars are worth the 38,000 lives lost per year, and thousands more injured.

The risks of people owning firearms are worth the 11,000 live lost per year and those injured.

Or not? Who decides?

[Christian Liberty]

Who decides which risks are worth taking?

The risks of people owning cars are worth the 38,000 lives lost per year, and thousands more injured.

The risks of people owning firearms are worth the 11,000 live lost per year and those injured.

Or not? Who decides?

Cars have a legitimate use. They are useful for travel. In addtion, people "Consent" to the danger by driving on the road. The reason I say that is that "Banning cars" would just make every single person worse off. Anyone who wanted cars banned could similarly avoid the risk by just not driving.

As for firearms, they can be used for hunting, self-defense, defense against government officials run amok, exc.

There's literally nothing you can do with a nuke that won't kill a lot of innocent people. They shouldn't exist.

[Acala]

Is that really worh the risk to an entire city? Granted, the government shouldn't own them either. I would argue that owning something that literally cannot be used in a defensive manner (Such as a nuke) is in and of itself a threat against other people.

The thing I really love about this questions is this: it was government that INVENTED nuclear weopons, ONLY government has used nuclear weapons, ONLY governments stockpile nuclear weapons, ONLY governments aim nuclear weapons at innocent civilians, but it is private citizens that are supposedly such a big nuclear threat that government must not only have the power to deny nuclear weapons to people who have never had any in the first place, but also use that phony fear as an argument for disarming the peaceful citizen of ANY weapons. It's a mind trick. GOVERNMENT, not your neighbor, is the enemy of peace and the perennial slaughterer of the innocent. Irrefutable historical fact right there.

[seapilot]

Cars have a legitimate use. They are useful for travel. In addtion, people "Consent" to the danger by driving on the road. The reason I say that is that "Banning cars" would just make every single person worse off. Anyone who wanted cars banned could similarly avoid the risk by just not driving.

As for firearms, they can be used for hunting, self-defense, defense against government officials run amok, exc.

There's literally nothing you can do with a nuke that won't kill a lot of innocent people. They shouldn't exist.

Most gun grabbers do not care what a person can own for self defense and they use the Nuclear option in order to try to destroy a debate. I would argue if a person can pick it up they can bear it. Another thing is arms held by an individual can be used to discriminate targets, for example a nuclear weapon does not discriminate one individual to the next in its use against a target.

[pacelli]

In 1775, an "arm" was also a cannon. They were much more common than they are today, at least among the people.

[JK/SEA]

suit case nuke?...do they exist?

then there's drones...

[bolil]

They already got their vote. They floated it long enough to get a good idea where people stand, how many are with them and how many are against them Also, a feint to identify the Molon Labe types, who were wise enough to raise their hands. The people who visit this site out of honest concern or attraction were likely, mostly, already identified. This is just part of the process. Welcome to modern American government.

Consider it feedback. Also, when the boomerang comes back around, they will find resistance more complacent. Nothing breeds complacently like success.

[Darguth]

In 1775, an "arm" was also a cannon. They were much more common than they are today, at least among the people.

Not really. There a select few quotations that confuse "arms" with "cannon" from the Revolution Era, but most official sources such as treaties, declarations, and common-use dictionaries distinguished between "arms" and "cannon".

[shane77m]

As far as I know it is still legal for the average mundane to own a cannon.

Just need a faster way to reload one.

[ClydeCoulter]

We still need to fight against the "registration" issues. We already talked about how this would play out in other threads. Incremental-ism.

[XNavyNuke]

*Devil's Advocate*

Is private nuke ownership a good idea? If not, where do you draw the line? I've had a tricky time answering that question. Granted, wherever the line is, we already passed it, but I'm not sure exactly where. Assault weapons are obviously OK. Automatic assault weapons are obviously OK. But nukes obviously aren't. Where do you draw the line?

Classical physics - good, nuclear physics - bad. As though nuclear weapons are the be all and end all of weapons technology. Perhaps we should ban private space flight as those same world dominating billionaires that could afford nuclear weapons might use classical physics to drop non-nuclear rocks on their neighbors head.

XNN

[Pericles]

Cars have a legitimate use. They are useful for travel. In addtion, people "Consent" to the danger by driving on the road. The reason I say that is that "Banning cars" would just make every single person worse off. Anyone who wanted cars banned could similarly avoid the risk by just not driving.

As for firearms, they can be used for hunting, self-defense, defense against government officials run amok, exc.

There's literally nothing you can do with a nuke that won't kill a lot of innocent people. They shouldn't exist.

But they do exist, and the who decides question has been ignored.

My guess is that if anyone did have a nuke, SWAT would be very careful about coming over for a visit.

Do you get to decide if I may own a pistol? rifle? grenade? howitzer? tank? jet fighter? nuke?

Do I get to decide which weapons you may own?

In a free society, owning property is not a crime. Using your property to harm others is the crime.