Feinsteins Gun Control Bill

[fng13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU

This a testimony at the Gun Violence Prevention Hearing in Hartford, CT.

He gives a good speech.

[Stiletto11]

During a radio interview, a Connecticut legislator said that when he heard that the Sandy Hook shooting involved an "assault rifle" he said, "I thought I banned them. How could this have happened?" He then went on to admit he knew nothing about guns, but now he is more inclined to learn about them due to his self proclaimed ignorance. He wants gun owners to be at ease because he is now learning more about them and he isn't trying to restrict 2nd amendment rights. Can you believe this hack, this POS?

[BOfH]

Beating the dead horse, again

On the topic of raid overkill, the following article and embedded video documentary are worth a watch.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/ja...ant-injustice/

This documentary exposes the blatant trampling of the Constitutional rights of Americans during white collar crime investigations by the Department of Justice and the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.

This documentary is not about the guilt or innocence of the business owners involved.

It is about the increasing number of unconstitutional, para-military, gestapo style raid tactics involving two agencies of the federal government.

These are white collar crime investigations where heavily armed, hostile government raids by 40 to 50 agents are being utilized as opposed to a few agents entering the businesses with proper search warrants to acquire the financial records sought.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the tactics, the Constitutional rights of citizens who work in these businesses, yet have nothing to do with the financial transactions of the owners, have been undeserved victims of these frightening raids … unlawfully detained for hours, intimidated, interrogated without the presence of a lawyer and their personal property confiscated.

[MR2]

Shooting all the time…

[GratefulCitizen]

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...te-4234266.php

Nearly 20,000 registered gun owners in California are ineligible to have guns yet still do, and it could take three years and $25 million for authorities to confiscate the weapons, law enforcement officials told a legislative committee Tuesday.

Ummm... yeah.
Good luck with the other 270 million.

Writing a law and enforcing a law are not the same thing.
Many states, sheriffs, and citizens are telling you to pound sand.

Molon labe.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

So what is up with this Mark Kelly, the husband of former congresswoman Gabrille Giffords? I am honestly rather shocked by this man. He has a master's in aeronautical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School, former Navy pilot, and astronaut, yet, he shows a large amount of ignorance on the subject of guns from what I can see. He claims the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" that's sole purpose is to let one kill large numbers of people very quickly (and a regular 9mm or .45 pistol couldn't allow the same) and that we need to ban "assault weapons" (how does he define an "assault weapon?"). And not meaning to knock on his background, but he claims that basically having been a pilot makes him knowledgable about these weapons as if he is some subject matter expert.

How does a person with a background that requires such attention to detail and precision not do any basic research on guns? As a civilian, while I respect his background and service, he kind of strikes me as an ego-case who seems to think that his stellar credentials make him an instant authority on a subject it seems he hasn't bothered to do much learning on.

That's an easy one. He joined the ruling class. Not only makes you an expert on everything but also exempts you from those same ideals you expect others to live by.

Besides that I'm sure he benefits in some way every time he speaks out for the pro-dem agenda.

Meanwhile he'll run down and pick up that WMD before it gets banned.

[ddoering]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

So what is up with this Mark Kelly, the husband of former congresswoman Gabrille Giffords? I am honestly rather shocked by this man. He has a master's in aeronautical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School, former Navy pilot, and astronaut, yet, he shows a large amount of ignorance on the subject of guns from what I can see. He claims the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" that's sole purpose is to let one kill large numbers of people very quickly (and a regular 9mm or .45 pistol couldn't allow the same) and that we need to ban "assault weapons" (how does he define an "assault weapon?"). And not meaning to knock on his background, but he claims that basically having been a pilot makes him knowledgable about these weapons as if he is some subject matter expert.

How does a person with a background that requires such attention to detail and precision not do any basic research on guns? As a civilian, while I respect his background and service, he kind of strikes me as an ego-case who seems to think that his stellar credentials make him an instant authority on a subject it seems he hasn't bothered to do much learning on.

Perhaps he has a personal reason.....

[fng13]

In case this was missed Mark Kelly just bought an AR-15 and a .45 caliber handgun.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ine-firestorm/

After the news broke he said he bought the rifle with the intent to demonstrate how easy it was to purchase.

Shocker that a Navy vet, space shuttle pilot, and congresswoman's husband didn't have trouble.

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...te-4234266.php



Ummm... yeah.
Good luck with the other 270 million.

Writing a law and enforcing a law are not the same thing.
Many states, sheriffs, and citizens are telling you to pound sand.

Molon labe.

This is a classic example of why more gun laws will not work, you have to believe that these folks who are no longer eligible to own guns know this but its not stopping them from owning them. The feds definitely need this type of cross checking on the books. I am sure the TSA could help handle the enforcement.

As far as Mark Kelly is concerned, remove his wife from the equation and he is just another shuttle astronaut whom none of us probably ever would have heard or given a second notice to his opinion on anything.

Molon Labe

[ddoering]

I have a problem with his recent conversion. He must have been ok with guns while other people were shot over the years.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by fng13

Besides that I'm sure he benefits in some way every time he speaks out for the pro-dem agenda.

How can you say that? His organization's punch-list should make Holder & the ATF quake in their boots.

[fng13]

Originally Posted by Badger52

How can you say that? His organization's punch-list should make Holder & the ATF quake in their boots.

Indeed. A game changer for sure.

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The bill is probably going to be voted on today in the Senate Judicary Committee. It will likely pass via a party-line vote, but it is expected to be much tougher to pass in the general Senate. Let us hope it dies there.

One thing I am curious about though, but how come this legislation is starting off in the Senate? I thought legislation starts in the House, which is to address the immediate concerns of the people, and then the Senate is to consider the long-term implications of legislation. So legislation also can be started in the Senate

They play all kinds of games with that process. What the senate does is picks another bill that they know they don't want to pass (like Ryan's Budget) and then they "amend" the bill by removing the original text and using their own. Then they pass it back down to the House for a new vote on the "amended" bill. It's shady, but legal since the bill technically started in the House.

There's a really great example of this mechanism here:

The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[166] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[167] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[168] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

So the bill that became known as Obamacare originated as a tax break on housing for service members and was rewritten using the method I described. (yes, I quoted Wikipedia, but they have a succinct explanation for the purposes of this discussion)

[orion5]

Originally Posted by fng13

In case this was missed Mark Kelly just bought an AR-15 and a .45 caliber handgun.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ine-firestorm/

After the news broke he said he bought the rifle with the intent to demonstrate how easy it was to purchase.

Shocker that a Navy vet, space shuttle pilot, and congresswoman's husband didn't have trouble.

Something about Mark Kelly's story doesn't make sense to me.

Breitbart's version

Huffy Post's version

Kelly nows says he only bought the AR to "show how easy it was to buy".

IN HIS OWN WORDS: "I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45," Kelly wrote. "As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too." Kelly added, "Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes ... We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole."

Hmmm...Mr Kelly, you didn't try to buy your AR at a gun show or from a private seller, did you? Furthermore, according to the gun shop owner, you never completed the background check and still have the 20-day wait, so it appears the existing laws are working.

Again, what exactly did you prove Mark Kelly?

[medic&commo]

Originally Posted by orion5

Something about Mark Kelly's story doesn't make sense to me.

Breitbart's version

Huffy Post's version

Kelly nows says he only bought the AR to "show how easy it was to buy".

IN HIS OWN WORDS: "I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a 45," Kelly wrote. "As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too." Kelly added, "Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes ... We really need to close the gun show and private seller loop hole."

Hmmm...Mr Kelly, you didn't try to buy your AR at a gun show or from a private seller, did you? Furthermore, according to the gun shop owner, you never completed the background check and still have the 20-day wait, so it appears the existing laws are working.

Again, what exactly did you prove Mark Kelly?

If the facts in the first referenced article are true, it's sad that a Mr. Kelly has to resort to twisting the truth or outright lying to state his case for further gun control.

Pipe dream perhaps, but I'd like to see this 2A argument be more objective and factual.
But, if that were to happen, the Democrats know they would lose.
m&c