• Assault Weapons Ban Bill Introduced
    112 replies, posted
Senate Democrats Introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 Before you complain about the source, the other potential sources are worse. This is the most neutrally worded one I could really find. Comments section is ick. Regardless, I find it tiresome that the democrats keep harping on the same old bills that are proven to have done zilch, instead of actually putting forward anything effective. "No one is coming for your guns" is a patently false statement, and this bill just keeps proving that they will never, ever stop, and are uninterested in any compromise on this topic.
Good Job Trump, now I'm going to have to vote for gun-grabbing Democrats. Republicans should drop Trump now if they want any hope of defeating the Democrats.
I would think it's far more important to pass supply instead of worrying about another stupid AWB bill. Oh well, Feinstein will be out and gone soon.
Good. Shame it won't pass, though.
I've heard that almost my entire life. She has been a senator longer than I have been alive, and got re-elected regardless of anything in 2018. She is going precisely nowhere.
This isn't the time. We need to be worried about taking on Trump instead of pushing away voters. Once Trump's out of office go ahead, but for now he is one of the greatest threats to humanity.
Hmm, I thought she wasn't being nomianted for the enxt election and her term was expiring soon. Seems I was wrong. I guess I can just cross my fingers she croaks instead.
The problem with that is that "Assault Weapon" is a buzzword completely made up to conflate regular semi-automatic firearms with "Assault Rifles". There is no way to separate the term from the buzzwords, because once you take all of them away, what you have is a ban on anything that is semi-automatic.
Scary-Looking Gun Ban 2: Electric Boogaloo. It seems like right now is precisely the time when Democrats should NOT be rocking the boat with highly partisan bills like this.
The mere fact that gun legislation is touted as "common-sense" but hyperbolizes everything about them frustrates me to no end. If Mitch "Turtle" McConnell is the person I despise most on the republican party, Feinstein is the democratic equivalent. I wish there would be some wing of the democratic party that would actually stand for gun rights and not just give me the choice between the republicans who are awful in almost everyway and democrats who all copy-paste the same "common sense" gun legislation line in their platform which just means banning anything that remotely looks scary.
This wont pass and it wont change shit, instead of trying to fix the problem the wrong way, fix it at the source - get rid of the cancerous american notion of individualism and don't make fun of people suffering from problems, or for being different.
Ugh. I think this only serves to strengthen Trump's position given the current situation.
You'll have to be more specific than that. Given that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" in the first place, the legislation is, fundamentally, based around deciding what features make a gun look scary.
Trying to ban guns is fundamentally going against 2A to begin with. It wont stop somebody from illegally acquiring firearms, not in a country where there's more guns than people, if they're that determined to carry out shootings. In a situation dealing with what's basically enshrined as a fundamental right of american people, jumping in and going "ban the guns" won't win you any friends except among the people who already suffered as a result of a mass shooting to begin with. Again, nobody wants to focus on the real problems leading up to said shootings, much less law enforcement incompetence at deciding to ignore warning signs because "it's unlikely to translate into a shooting." Every potential threat should be looked into as soon as manpower is available, period.
There's no single source to that kind of complex issue. It's the result of a combination of concurrent factors.
The fact that this goes by name should show that it's absolutely moronic. They're always filled with loose terms, even the tweet says "Military-style". It would do nothing to prevent any deaths.
No, but this usually tends to be the major cause in anything that isnt racially motivated or a terror attack. Ordinary people who can't take any more and want to go out on their own terms while taking revenge on their perceived tormentors. Mental illness is also estimated as being responsible for only 5-10% of most mass shootings as well, so that meme doesn't do much. I'll admit it may have been a bit of a simplification, but the causative web of WHY mass shootings is such a huge problem in America tend to be because of the following reasons: high gun availability, incompetence at following up on a potential threat, mental illness (in a minority of cases), desire for revenge, individualism, being unable to gain any social mobility, desire for notoriety, and finally, the copycat phenomenon. Among one of the most odious problems here are the American media being downright stupid in the coverage of these events, focusing heavily on the shooters and downplaying their victims, and not being careful enough in the use of neutral language when describing these incidents, because outrage sells. There are ways to ensure that even the copycat phenomenon becomes less effective, but that responsibility has yet to be seen.
Attacking weapons which only account for what... Not even 5% of all firearm based murders? Firearm prohibition is just as useless as most other forms of prohibition, and people will always have the knowledge of how to build or jerryrig weapons together. Not to mention that this legislation is solely targeting people based on income and race grounds.
Can the democratic party not commit political suicide for once in it's life?
Its like the people I. Charge, especially the moldy cheeto, wake up every day and ask themselves "how much controversy can we drum up today?"
Please, by all means, pass this so the Supreme Court can destroy federal AWBs once and for all.
God damn it.
good thing the democrats also support universal healthcare which would actually fix the mental healthcare problem that's responsible for all mass shootings.
It feels like democrats like Nancy are just trying so hard to shoot themselves in the foot. You've gotten so many gains in the midterms, why risk throwing it all away by putting something like this forward? Doesn't help when they poison the well with shit like AWBs and other "Common Sense Gun Reform™ ". Is it really that hard to get one without the other?
Then why don’t they just fucking go with that which is universally wanted even by some republicans, instead of poking the hornets nest for the 800th time like a monumental retard? The legal system is a complete crapshoot lately, I wouldn’t risk it. The lower courts have a bad habit of arbitrarily redefining the 2nd amendment through wrongful interpretation and the Supreme Court does everything it can to not hear any 2nd amendment cases as of late.
https://horobox.co.uk/u/gi4g2W.png This really sums up everything, lack of trigger discipline, the ladies face and the fact this bill is entirely pointless and will just harm the consumer in the end. 2 steps forward, 9 backwards and 12 to the left and right basically here.
I mean, the previous ban did a p decent job of keeping AW crime down, at least until it ended and it shot way back up. So fuck it, why not, guns aren't the most important thing in the word.
If you wanna take out a bunch of unarmed civilians then you're really not gonna need anything more than a gun, period. These half-hearted measures make it impossible to debate the issue properly or get to the root of the problem, because all people associate the anti-gun side with is histrionic bear-baiting garbage like this designed to keep people already in the top 1% relevant to voters who don't know better about the topic, and ultimately do nothing to prevent bloodshed or keep firearms out of the hands of violent psychopaths (and note I don't say criminals, because keeping guns out of the hands of criminals requires coordinated police action, not legislation.)
Never understood limiting firearms, makes more sense to just ban them outright. We are limiting death counts if we limit ourselves to revolvers and bolt actions sure but at the end of the day people will still shoot each other with whatever guns they can get a hold of. Only issue is, banning them entirely also wouldn't work because there is too many guns and too many that won't give them up. So we kinda need to live with the fact that we have guns and they're here to stay and learn to adapt. Aka, working on mental health, ways to counter mass murderers, etc. Limiting people on the sole purpose of limiting death count is like a vegan that still eats one particular type of meat. "I ONLY EAT FISH, BUT I WON'T EAT ANY OTHER MEAT. ATLEAST I'M STILL CONTRIBUTING TO LESS SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS THAN YOU".
Also they're still going after barrel shrouds, lmao. Why? All a barrel shroud does is prevent heat from dissipating into the user's hand, it's a quality of life feature that is tactically and operationally negligible. You can get around that by holding the gun differently.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.