Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 make its debut

[spclark]

I put the blame on The Media Establishment: 24/7/365 news channels, newspapers (what’s left of ‘em, either paper or on-line), Hollywood, anything else now considered ‘Social’ media.

It all contributes to hysterical reactionism when something happens we’d rather not have had happen, serves to stir the pot, fan the flames of the antis. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

All the negativity started 11/22/1963. Events of 1968 only made it worse. Most of the noise from antis’ comes from people born long after those years, grew up being indoctrinated by The Media Establishment rhetoric that guns = evil, no distinctions.

We have a Constitution some younger politicians now suggest has outlived its usefulness. I’d like to believe reason will prevail but with all the hysteria over events that directly affect relatively few citizens (alcohol has killed vastly more people than firearms year after year, the opioid crisis kicked in after Big Pharma started paying doctors to prescribe their products...) somehow I doubt anything’s going to change in our favor anytime soon.

 

[dsinfour]

Tell them all that want a ban to move to Chicago and see how well it works there. Our previous President's home town. Oh well that will keep them busy. later

 

[kolar55]

Even though I do not own any perceived "assault" platforms, I am concerned. Also concerned with the libs activating another Manchurian candidate to perform another mass shooting.[/QUOTE]
This has kinda been my theory ever since Obummer began ruining this country and stirring up all the racism!

 

[ED3]

Even though I do not own any perceived "assault" platforms, I am concerned. Also concerned with the libs activating another Manchurian candidate to perform another mass shooting.
This has kinda been my theory ever since Obummer began ruining this country and stirring up all the racism!

There is something to be said for your concerns.
Whatever the causes, and reasons, here are the stats:

 

[rebs]

I have written to Senator Charles Schumer several times over the last five years and all he sends back is the same old form letter that he has been sending out for years. The entire democratic party needs to be recalled and replaced. Politicians have been recalled in the past why can't the current ones be recalled ? We definitely need term limits, the president is limited to two terms. Why not all politicians ? Some of these people are so old and been there so long they can't even stay awake during a proceeding. They doze off and wake up to ask what happened. Their goal is to disarm the entire population so they can rule us and we have no recourse or ability to resist. Too many citizens with their heads in the sand as long as everything is ok in their little world. Another thing that grips me is the hunters in New York State. If all the licensed hunters would have voted, Cuomo would have lost the election. But nope they were hunting instead. They couldn't give up one morning to go vote. What a waste and a shame.

 

[Leo Smith]

We need to ban Politicians who use tragedies as fundraisers.

 

[Bill K]

Anything with four or more killed is a mass shooting now days, yet when four or more are killed by stabbing, they never call it a mass stabbing and want to ban knives, do they ? Just had another mass stabbing in southern California ( Feinstein's state) yet she is not calling for a ban on knives, but re-introducing the ban on assault rifles. Never do they mention the actual crime, which is murder and wanting to enforce the 187PC laws, just go after the tool, if it is a gun. They are totally wacko and just want to disarm America, as Hitler, Stalin and others did in their countries.

 

[davidjoe]

IMO we need to firmly embrace an unbroken history of being able to legally own the battle rifles and pistols that have defended the country, and their opposing counterparts. I’m proud to own among others the 1903 Springfield, Gerand, M1A, 1911, Beretta 92, and AR-15.

Do not shy away from the term assault rifle or weapon designed for war, that does NOT mean civilians shouldn’t be allowed to own them. We have always been allowed to own them in semi auto version, and in fact civilians are the Congressionally designated repository for military surplus, because:

1) we paid for them in the first place;

2) as deliverable to us, they are in no sense exceptional weapons relative to others, and;

3) these weapons (old or new-build) are nothing more than the sturdy, simple instruments that our teenaged offspring can learn to master in basic training, and if we can expect them to be compelled to use and bond with them when their lives and our freedoms depend on it, they, and we, can surely have them, when we do.

 

[dolek]

I have written to Senator Charles Schumer several times over the last five years and all he sends back is the same old form letter that he has been sending out for years. The entire democratic party needs to be recalled and replaced. Politicians have been recalled in the past why can't the current ones be recalled ? We definitely need term limits, the president is limited to two terms. Why not all politicians ? Some of these people are so old and been there so long they can't even stay awake during a proceeding. They doze off and wake up to ask what happened. Their goal is to disarm the entire population so they can rule us and we have no recourse or ability to resist. Too many citizens with their heads in the sand as long as everything is ok in their little world. Another thing that grips me is the hunters in New York State. If all the licensed hunters would have voted, Cuomo would have lost the election. But nope they were hunting instead. They couldn't give up one morning to go vote. What a waste and a shame.

Where did you get your info ? NYC gets Cuomo elected ...even if all the hunters in NY state voted 5 times each against Cuomo he would still win .

 

[swd]

I just have to say I'll feel so much safer if this passes. Yea right...

 

[wbm]

Did Palousy or Frankenstein go to the slain cops funeral?

Or Chuck U Schumer

 

[Stepsjframe]

With El paso shooting, the Anti gun out cry is sicken...if trump looses 2020...i am sure the 2A will be the first thing the dems will attack.

 

[rebs]

Where did you get your info ? NYC gets Cuomo elected ...even if all the hunters in NY state voted 5 times each against Cuomo he would still win .

Rob Astorino won all but two counties and still lost but by the vote count the licensed hunters could have out voted NYC. Not everyone in NYC votes. I can name a number of friends that did not vote because they say the same thing Cuomo will win anyway. That turned out to be BS. Check with Asterino he has all the totals and was very disappointed the hunters did not get out and vote. Do you live in NY and did you vote ?

 

[Texas10]

There is something to be said for your concerns.
Whatever the causes, and reasons, here are the stats:

TRUMP WINS, and this time its not a squeaker, it's a LANDSLIDE!!

Seriously though, I was doing some research today on teen deaths and causes, links I'll post at the bottom. Are you aware that as bad as the recent events are, and I want to stress that I feel they're terrible, that the death rate of college and under kids is less than HALF what it was in 1994, with accidents the leading cause, suicides second, and gun violence third?

So what was happening in 1994 that lead to so many deaths? First of all I found that Bill Clinton signed into law a bill outlawing assault weapons. Wait, WHAT?! That doesn't fit the narrative!

Second was this was the height of the crack cocaine epidemic that started with the drugs for guns program for the Nicaragua Contras so there was lot's of inner city drug wars. OK you say, but what about white kids?

But probably the biggest contributor was the fact that many, many more American families income slid below the poverty level due to nationwide efforts to break up trade unions, and reduce wages. This wage stagnation war is still going on today. Hmmmmmm......

So what if the GOP were to trade a significant minimum wage increase for a less restrictive gun control measure? Hmmmmmmm...

https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/teen-homicide-suicide-and-firearm-deaths

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/health/youth-injury-death-rate-cdc-study/index.html

 

[jonbearman]

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases?id=EFC76859-879D-4038-97DD-C577212ED17B
CW

Each murderer broke at least 12 laws so one more make it all better.Not. Why not make the perp take his consequence like the animal that he or she is, but no we must impune all the citizens for a hand ful of perps who will likely get off on mental conditions and spend their meaningless lives in front of a TV enjoying their 15 minutes of fame while we and the poor victims suffer. I hate violence like anyone else but why isn't it an automatic capital offence by firing squad so they can feel what it is like. I apologize for the rant but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

 

[snert]

TRUMP WINS, and this time its not a squeaker, it's a LANDSLIDE!!

Seriously though, I was doing some research today on teen deaths and causes, links I'll post at the bottom. Are you aware that as bad as the recent events are, and I want to stress that I feel they're terrible, that the death rate of college and under kids is less than HALF what it was in 1994, with accidents the leading cause, suicides second, and gun violence third?

So what was happening in 1994 that lead to so many deaths? First of all I found that Bill Clinton signed into law a bill outlawing assault weapons. Wait, WHAT?! That doesn't fit the narrative!

Second was this was the height of the crack cocaine epidemic that started with the drugs for guns program for the Nicaragua Contras so there was lot's of inner city drug wars. OK you say, but what about white kids?

But probably the biggest contributor was the fact that many, many more American families income slid below the poverty level due to nationwide efforts to break up trade unions, and reduce wages. This wage stagnation war is still going on today. Hmmmmmm......

So what if the GOP were to trade a significant minimum wage increase for a less restrictive gun control measure? Hmmmmmmm...

https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/teen-homicide-suicide-and-firearm-deaths

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/health/youth-injury-death-rate-cdc-study/index.html

Sure...trade a part of liberty for a part of free market...sure...

 

[Texas10]

Sure...trade a part of liberty for a part of free market...sure...

Yes, we're going to get some type of gun legislation shoved down our throats, probably another ban against "assault weapons", MSR's what ever they decide to call them. Maybe just a universal background check, almost certainly a ban against magazines holding more than 5 rounds. No one knows at this point.

As far as wages go, I guess that if you don't have any kids, you might not be concerned about the next generation earning a livable wage, or owning a home, raising a family, stuff like that.

I'm aged out of the market, but my kids are just staring out, so yes, I want them to be able to make a decent wage, and the minimum wage sets the floor for all wages. Since Republicans have never voted for a minimum wage hike, this would be an opportunity to change that record and maybe blunt the attack on the S.A.

Politics is supposed to be a give and take business. I'd like to think the days of Newt G. are long gone, but we may be about to enter the days of Nancy P.

So yea, if it were up to me, I'd make that trade in a heartbeat! It's a win/win.

 

[Ned Ludd]

It seems like quite a few are falling into the trap. I don't know whether they have been "guilted" into it by the incessant progressive rhetoric, or it is simply out of sheer ignorance. The fact of the matter is that no responsible gun owner has any guilt whatsoever for acts committed by these idiots. None whatsoever.

So let's be very clear about a couple things. First off, minimum wage jobs have never been intended to serve as the sole source of financial support for individuals or families. At the very best they are entry-level positions, held in many cases by part-time workers. The whole argument about a "living wage" is complete BS. These jobs were never meant to support families, period. In fact, it can easily be argued that the very existence of low-paying jobs is a strong incentive to become educated and find a job that pays a better wage; therefore they are of benefit to our society as a whole and it is in our best interest not to increase the minimum wage. Further, it is absolutely clear in cases where the minimum wage has already been raised that the net effect is often elimination of a certain number of those jobs and/or loss of work hours, an effect which totally abrogates the intended purpose of a higher minimum wage. Even Comrade Bernie Sanders, a strong advocate for a $15 per hour minimum wage, was recently discovered to be paying some of his staffers far less than the amount he publicly claimed was a "basic human right". When challenged on that point, his response was to point out that he would bow to public opinion and pay some of his staffers $15 per hour, but would have to cut the hours of others and eliminate what he deemed to be "non-essential" positions. It's simple economics, folks, and it doesn't work.

The second and more important point is that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a guaranteed Constitutional right, not something that can be bartered away, either in part, or in whole. The founders' intentions on this Constitutional Amendment as outlined in numerous writings they made at the time are absolutely crystal clear, regardless of what the mainstream media will tell you. In fact, the founders deemed it necessary to reinforce the importance of the right to keep and bear arms by adding the clause, "shall not be infringed".

Shall not be infringed...let that phrase sink in for just a minute. That doesn't mean you can take a little nibble out of the 2nd Amendment here and there, it doesn't mean you can whittle away at the 2nd Amendment little by little until it's completely gone every time one of these insane shootings occurs, or because you simply happen to have an anti-gun bias. It doesn't mean you can make ridiculous legislative trades or compromises, it means exactly what it says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...period.

 

[kolar55]

It seems like quite a few are falling into the trap. I don't know whether they have been "guilted" into it by the incessant progressive rhetoric, or it is simply out of sheer ignorance. The fact of the matter is that no responsible gun owner has any guilt whatsoever for acts committed by these idiots. None whatsoever.

So let's be very clear about a couple things. First off, minimum wage jobs have never been intended to serve as the sole source of financial support for individuals or families. At the very best they are entry-level positions, held in many cases by part-time workers. The whole argument about a "living wage" is complete BS. These jobs were never meant to support families, period. In fact, it can easily be argued that the very existence of low-paying jobs is a strong incentive to become educated and find a job that pays a better wage; therefore they are of benefit to our society as a whole and it is in our best interest not to increase the minimum wage. Further, it is absolutely clear in cases where the minimum wage has already been raised that the net effect is often elimination of a certain number of those jobs and/or loss of work hours, an effect which totally abrogates the intended purpose of a higher minimum wage. Even Comrade Bernie Sanders, a strong advocate for a $15 per hour minimum wage, was recently discovered to be paying some of his staffers far less than the amount he publicly claimed was a "basic human right". When challenged on that point, his response was to point out that he would bow to public opinion and pay some of his staffers $15 per hour, but would have to cut the hours of others and eliminate what he deemed to be "non-essential" positions. It's simple economics, folks, and it doesn't work.

The second and more important point is that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a guaranteed Constitutional right, not something that can be bartered away, either in part, or in whole. The founders' intentions on this Constitutional Amendment as outlined in numerous writings they made at the time are absolutely crystal clear, regardless of what the mainstream media will tell you. In fact, the founders deemed it necessary to reinforce the importance of the right to keep and bear arms by adding the clause, "shall not be infringed".

Shall not be infringed...let that phrase sink in for just a minute. That doesn't mean you can take a little nibble out of the 2nd Amendment here and there, it doesn't mean you can whittle away at the 2nd Amendment little by little until it's completely gone every time one of these insane shootings happens, or because you simply happen to have an anti-gun bias. It doesn't mean you can make ridiculous legislative trades or compromises, it means exactly what it says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...period.

If this doesn't nail it exactly I don't know what does. We need people control and it starts about 20 minutes after birth for some!

 

[davidjoe]

It seems like quite a few are falling into the trap. I don't know whether they have been "guilted" into it by the incessant progressive rhetoric, or it is simply out of sheer ignorance. The fact of the matter is that no responsible gun owner has any guilt whatsoever for acts committed by these idiots. None whatsoever.

So let's be very clear about a couple things. First off, minimum wage jobs have never been intended to serve as the sole source of financial support for individuals or families. At the very best they are entry-level positions, held in many cases by part-time workers. The whole argument about a "living wage" is complete BS. These jobs were never meant to support families, period. In fact, it can easily be argued that the very existence of low-paying jobs is a strong incentive to become educated and find a job that pays a better wage; therefore they are of benefit to our society as a whole and it is in our best interest not to increase the minimum wage. Further, it is absolutely clear in cases where the minimum wage has already been raised that the net effect is often elimination of a certain number of those jobs and/or loss of work hours, an effect which totally abrogates the intended purpose of a higher minimum wage. Even Comrade Bernie Sanders, a strong advocate for a $15 per hour minimum wage, was recently discovered to be paying some of his staffers far less than the amount he publicly claimed was a "basic human right". When challenged on that point, his response was to point out that he would bow to public opinion and pay some of his staffers $15 per hour, but would have to cut the hours of others and eliminate what he deemed to be "non-essential" positions. It's simple economics, folks, and it doesn't work.

The second and more important point is that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a guaranteed Constitutional right, not something that can be bartered away, either in part, or in whole. The founders' intentions on this Constitutional Amendment as outlined in numerous writings they made at the time are absolutely crystal clear, regardless of what the mainstream media will tell you. In fact, the founders deemed it necessary to reinforce the importance of the right to keep and bear arms by adding the clause, "shall not be infringed".

Shall not be infringed...let that phrase sink in for just a minute. That doesn't mean you can take a little nibble out of the 2nd Amendment here and there, it doesn't mean you can whittle away at the 2nd Amendment little by little until it's completely gone every time one of these insane shootings happens, or because you simply happen to have an anti-gun bias. It doesn't mean you can make ridiculous legislative trades or compromises, it means exactly what it says, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...period.

And there is absolutely no chance the Framers of the Constitution didn’t fully grasp or foresee the sheer effectiveness of firearms in private hands. They had just earlier won independence because of the combination of both informal and dedicated citizen soldiers. They didn’t just see, but actually used firearms to supplant English rule, the dominant military of the day, which was entrenched and permanently garrisoned in the colonies. To his credit, NOT even the King of England disarmed the colonists in the years leading up to the Revolution, with all at stake. You have nothing if you do not have security, and this was understood then.

So the Framers darn well knew the efficacy of personal firearms, overcoming 20-1 odds. Certainly they knew arms could be misused, but that the remedy is swift justice and vigilance. Miscreants existed back then. The Framers knew that complete prevention of murder was impossible but that did not outweigh the choice to vest individuals with the right to bear arms, to guarantee personal and collective liberty.

Some say our modern weapons were not foreseen. To this I say they personally owned exactly the same rifles used in battle. We own somewhat diminished versions of those, today, and entire classes of heavy suppressive-fire battle rifles are completely unavailable to us. In that light, we are actually disadvantaged relative to them, and the Framers actually might not have been satisfied with our best-case situation.

Lastly, “but they can kill so fast before stopped”, a malevolent citizen of the past would have been even harder to stop and track then, than today. Eyes were fewer and farther between. Paid law enforcement was a rare civic luxury and nighttime darkness was only challenged by a wick. That as well, did not prevent the right to bear arms.