House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

[quote] House Democrats have introduced a bill banning semi-automatic firearms in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said. "Today I joined @RepCicilline and 150+ of my colleagues to introduce the assault weapons ban. It’s time for Congress to listen to the will of a majority of Americans and pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets. #NeverAgain #MSDStrong," Deutch tweeted. The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds. Cicilline’s legislation names 205 specific firearms that are prohibited, including the AK-47 and AR-15. “Assault weapons were made for one purpose,” Cicilline said in a statement. “They are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They do not belong in our communities.” Deutch vowed during a CNN town hall last week to introduce a bill banning semi-automatic weapons.[/quote] [url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-democrats-introduce-bill-prohibiting-sale-of-semi-automatic-weapons/article/2650087[/url] Here is the bill if anyone is curious: [url]https://www.scribd.com/document/372469353/Assault-Weapons-Ban-of-2018#from_embed[/url]

What a bunch of ill informed morons. Name bans? Really? Hope this shit dies [editline]26th February 2018[/editline] Like remember when the assault weapons ban stopped Columbine? Or how California’s laws stopped San bernadino?

Not gonna go anywhere in a republican controlled house and senate.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162752]What a bunch of ill informed morons. Name bans? Really? Hope this shit dies [/QUOTE] They shot themselves in the foot.

I really, [I]really[/I] can't see this going anywhere, particularly with the political climate being what it is. This isn't common sense, it's intellectually dishonest fear-mongering at best. Here's hoping for a strong push against this. "Assault weapon" bans have no place anywhere.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162762]Not gonna go anywhere in a republican controlled house and senate.[/QUOTE] It shouldn’t go anywhere period because of how asinine it is. It bans rifles with detachable magazines. That goes from AR-15s from last year to Lee Enfield rifles from World War 1. This means banning Glocks that have 33 round magazines to Beretta Jetfires which struggle to reliably hold 7. It’s moronic, uneducated and purely feel good nonsense

This is why nobody can say "sensible gun reform" without scaring gun owners. It's become shorthand for blanket bans. It's a huge issue because we do need all parties to come to the table and talk about the issue and get some actual reform.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;53162770]This is why nobody can say "sensible gun reform" without scaring gun owners. It's become shorthand for blanket bans. It's a huge issue because we do need all parties to come to the table and talk about the issue and get some actual reform.[/QUOTE] It's a real shame that gun control has become code for taking away people's guns. Because most Americans do actually want sensible gun regulation.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53162763]They shot themselves in the foot.[/QUOTE] It's posturing. They know this is symbolic and won't pass (just as it was after Newtown, and San Bernadino, and Pulse) and will switch focus back to DACA or some other platform that scores big points ahead of the midterms.

Soccer mom/Facebook Filter democrats to leave and never come back to the legislative table. What kind of shit is this? It blocks [B]nearly EVERY SINGLE FIREARM COMPANY[/B], from ArmaLite to Uzi. It's both ridiculous and ludicrous. It's like they don't even want a bill to get passed at all. And they wonder why people are trying make 3d printed guns a legal thing now.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162762]Not gonna go anywhere in a republican controlled house and senate.[/QUOTE] We couldn't even get a bipartisan bill that mildly increased background checks to pass under a Democratic President with a Democratic senate, there is no way in hell another AWB is going though, at least right now.

[img]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/xhkwumxjysj9xdo/awb2018.png[/img] 3 pages in and I see we're already off to a promising start :disgust:

Banning production of semi-auto rifles? Wouldn't this include for the military? This is actually insane.

A grenade launcher or rocket launcher huh? What the fuck?

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;53162789]Banning production of semi-auto rifles? Wouldn't this include for the military? This is actually insane.[/QUOTE] No, the cops and military get to keep buying theirs, you just can't get one anymore because someone else used it to hurt other people. [QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162795]A grenade launcher or rocket launcher huh? What the fuck?[/QUOTE] Bigger takeaway is that where as the 1994 AWB stipulated two or more of those listed features, this one is just more, which makes it that much harsher.

[QUOTE=mcharest;53162787]3 pages in and I see we're already off to a promising start :disgust:[/QUOTE] Who decided that they needed to include “... or rocket launchers” in subsection iv? Really? And they want this to be taken seriously?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53162796]No, the cops and military get to keep buying theirs, you just can't get one anymore because someone else used it to hurt other people. [/QUOTE] It doesn't really specify that though? Unless I missed it?

So unnecessary, just get rid of the right to firearms and replace it with the right to petition for a firearm license.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162841]So unnecessary, just get rid of the right to firearms and replace it with the right to petition for a firearm license.[/QUOTE] Ok and what bars you from that license, pray tell.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162841]So unnecessary, just get rid of the right to firearms and replace it with the right to petition for a firearm license.[/QUOTE] Luckily we have an [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution"]established process[/URL] for doing this. Fortunately (or unfortunately I guess, depending on you outlook) it's probably not going to happen any time soon.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53162796]No, the cops and military get to keep buying theirs, you just can't get one anymore because someone else used it to hurt other people. Bigger takeaway is that where as the 1994 AWB stipulated two or more of those listed features, this one is just more, which makes it that much harsher.[/QUOTE] It says production too, so doesn't that mean it'd be illegal for American companies to make these guns, even if for military purposes?

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;53162860]It says production too, so doesn't that mean it'd be illegal for American companies to make these guns, even if for military purposes?[/QUOTE] The 1994 AWB stipulated "for private use". I'm sure this bill has similar wording in there somewhere. I really doubt they are trying to prevent the military or the police from being able to acquire semi-automatic rifles.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;53162860]It says production too, so doesn't that mean it'd be illegal for American companies to make these guns, even if for military purposes?[/QUOTE] Iirc they introduced a ban somewhere that was so poorly written it barred police from carrying their weapons

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162841]So unnecessary, just get rid of the right to firearms and replace it with the right to petition for a firearm license.[/QUOTE] Haha... No. That happens, and lots of people in this this country will snap.

I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162862]Iirc they introduced a ban somewhere that was so poorly written it barred police from carrying their weapons[/QUOTE] New York. The SAFE Act is so terribly written and rushed, that they are still trying to "amend it" because of how vague it is. It's also the reason so many of the counties are trying to get rid of it.

Page 15 covers cops, page 17 covers departments of the US government. Also found this [QUOTE]The term ‘rocket’ means any simple or complex tubelike device containing combustibles that on being ignited liberate gases whose action propels the tube through the air and has a propellant charge of not more than 4 ounces.[/QUOTE] Bolters are banned :frown:

[QUOTE=Aide;53162866]I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.[/QUOTE] Because it's no one's damn business what I own, and said weapons do not account for more then 300 ~ 500 murders per year.

[QUOTE=Aide;53162866]I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.[/QUOTE] ar 15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the US

[QUOTE=Aide;53162866]I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.[/QUOTE] Nobody owns an SMG that hasn’t already been registered under the 1986 registry, same with a PDW. The AR platform is a fantastic design for home defense, target shooting and hunting.