Endgame: Mark Pryor opposes Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban

posted at 9:31 am on January 31, 2013 by Allahpundit

Noteworthy, not just because he’s a Democrat but because Pryor actually voted yes on Feinstein’s last AWB bill in March 2004. That was sort of safe to do since he wasn’t facing reelection until 2008. The timing is different now — his seat is up next year in a state that produced Bill Clinton but now votes reliably red — and so he’s taking no chances.

As a coalition of gun control advocates pushes for a new federal Assault Weapons Ban, U.S. Senators Mark Pryor and John Boozman of Arkansas say they cannot support California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill. Pryor says the objective should be to lessen gun violence not violate people’s constitutional rights.

“I think everyone agrees that the goal here is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and young people while at the same time protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” Pryor said. “The question is, how do we do this and how do we lessen the gun violence? I will continue to look at proposals here and also listen to Arkansans and law enforcement.”

Pryor says the bill is cumbersome, confusing, and includes about 100 pages that list specific weapons. He says there are no details on why certain guns are banned and others are accepted.

For all the media buzz about public opinion on guns having changed dramatically, how many red-state Democrats in the Senate feel secure enough electorally to back a new AWB? The only one I can think of offhand is McCaskill and she’s onboard only because she doesn’t have to face the music again until 2018. Joe Manchin has made noise about doing more to regulate guns but the AWB appears to be a bridge too far. Mark Begich is a flat no. As of last month, Max Baucus and Jon Tester were taking a “cautious approach” and have been lying low ever since. Democrats will happily run kids up onstage for their gun-control photo ops, but if passing something For The Children involves taking a political risk, oh well. Moment of truth for Harry Reid, then: Now that he knows the AWB will fail, and fail with not a few Democrats voting no, does he bring it to the floor? He has to, right? It’s going to screw up the Democrats’ “Republicans killed the AWB” talking point, but they’re better off trying to finesse that (“it was mostly Republicans who killed the AWB”) than irritating their base by not even chancing a vote. Then again, if they couldn’t muster the stones to hold hearings about the Tucson shooting because they were too worried about the election, why would Reid muster them to force a vote on the AWB?

Via Newsbusters, here’s Scarborough achieving peak smug by asserting that Gayle Trotter looked like a “jackass” for defending assault weapons at yesterday’s Senate hearing. Watch the clip, then go here and watch the clip of a woman in Texas who found herself confronted by three home invaders while she was putting her six-year-old to bed. They don’t say what type of weapon she had but it sure looks like a semiautomatic from the video. And if you’re serious about stopping massacres, then you have to be serious about getting rid of semiautomatics, not just “assault weapons.” If not now, then eventually.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Frankenstein is a worthless _itch!

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2013 at 9:33 AM

These damn citizens keep clinging to their guns and bibles!!!

search4truth on January 31, 2013 at 9:35 AM

. Then again, if they couldn’t muster the stones

…there ARE NO stones in Washington D.C. TO muster…just jelly beans!

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Scarborough is the one looking like a complete jackass.

David in ATL on January 31, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Constitutional Rights upheld by Democrats, who knew?/s dripping at that!

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 9:37 AM

It’s tyranny that politicians should live in fear for their jobs from the voting public! /

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I am ashamed that I am from the same town as Smuggy Joe Scarborough.

The mirrior, Joe, contains the Jackass!

gatorgrad on January 31, 2013 at 9:39 AM

*mirror

gatorgrad on January 31, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Can we just get rid of the whole Assault Weapon LIE from the Left and just call these Arms by their proper name: Guns?

This is just misdirection on the part of the Left on this issue.

There is No Difference between these guns and the arms protected under the 2nd amendment.

This is just a smoke screen to divide the self-defense community from the left to BAN ALL GUNS.

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 9:40 AM

What a jerk! Doesn’t he know we need to DO SOMETHING?

Red Cloud on January 31, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Not one single proposal that anyone has come up with would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre which was the trigger (pardon the expression) for this whole gun control mania.

Bitter Clinger on January 31, 2013 at 9:42 AM

should be able to knock his @ss off anyway since he voted for Obamacare.

gsherin on January 31, 2013 at 9:43 AM

As of last month, Max Baucus and Jon Tester were taking a “cautious approach” and have been lying low ever since.

Why should Tester be worried? He was elected saying he’d never vote for Obamacare, he did, and was re-elected.

Marcus on January 31, 2013 at 9:43 AM

So, serious question: why, even with dems, is an assault weapon ban ‘off the table’?

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

There’s certainly a strong public safety case to be made against allowing them to be owned.

I’ve yet to hear a strong argument for NOT banning them. And that didn’t change when, yesterday, one of their defenders argued “it’s about how they look.”

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Hope Piers Morgan is prepared to call some Democrat Senators “Idiots” on his program. To their face ! That should be worth watching.

Jabberwock on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I agree, then I wouldn’t have to keep correcting Chump Threads on it, he keeps saying machine guns were used, not since 1934 anyway, well legally I think only one case, and the last time a full auto was used if I am not mistaken was in LA at that bank job, I would have to go back and look though.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Bitter Clinger on January 31, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Exactly. Nor, have they dealt with the gun violence in Obama’s Hometown. Take care of the criminals, first.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 9:47 AM

ROFL

Look at those two idiots trying on their best “Boy, she’s kind of dumb, isn’t she” masks without actually saying it.

Looking off into the distance, tapping a pen on the desk, pursing their lips…..HAHAHAHAHAHA…do people actually tune-in and watch that show on a regular basis?

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 9:47 AM

By the zeal that Pryor guy shows in protecting the Constitution, I would dare a guess that Arkansas still uses paper ballots. Had it used electronic voting machines, like Nevada, he wouldn’t need to bother.

Archivarix on January 31, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Morning joe crew are a$$es

Shameful

cmsinaz on January 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Perhaps the only way to keep politicians honest is to have elections EVERY YEAR for all three branches.

Our system is so screwed up.

katy on January 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

As has been noted thousands of times now, the internet didn’t exist when the 1st Amendment was written, nor did radio or tv, therefore we need to ban these things too.

You’ll notice the 2nd refers to “arms”, nowhere does it say “muskets”.

You need to try harder.

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM

You’ll notice the 2nd refers to “arms”, nowhere does it say “muskets”.

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM

The Second Amendment refers, in fact, to the “right to bare arms”. That’s what The Mooch does.

Archivarix on January 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

You’ll notice the 2nd refers to “arms”, nowhere does it say “muskets”.

You need to try harder.

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Not only guns but also swords and daggers, which many people carried back then. At one point in England, it was illegal for a commoner to carry a weapon. Nobles could have all they wanted.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Scarborough is the one looking like a complete jackass.

David in ATL on January 31, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Which one is Scarborough again? Is it the guy or the girl? And which one is the guy?

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Sorry, but Scarborough is nothing but a snotty jackass himself. How dare he decide for women everywhere what they can defend themselves with? Should they just let these criminals come into their homes, do whatever they want to them and their kids, all because the Left is ‘uncomfortable’ with scary looking guns?

These idiots, up in their ivory towers, haven’t lived out in the real world for years. They have their ARMED security details, their gated communities, yet are utterly dismissive of lowly peons wanting to protect themselves and their families. Our lives simply are not as valuable as theirs are, and it’s high time they just admitted as much instead of going on and on about assault weapons. If they cared as much as they claimed about The Children, they’d want to make damn sure their moms and dads could protect them. Instead, they want to disarm these parents and leave them at the mercy of some jackass who, surprise surprise, decides he’s not going to observe gun laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Ugh.

/rant off

changer1701 on January 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

The Farmers were just as well armed with the same grade firearms as the British.

The moment the citizen is less well armed as the aggressor (the gov) then the people are no longer free and the founders made no mention of specific arms or grade of arms.

katy on January 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I think that Mike Huckabee ought to wait until the last possible moment, enjoy his Fox Talk Show and then run for this seat.

Pryor is worried…

Fleuries on January 31, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

They can’t get around “shall not be infringed” because in the original writing it meant that all shall be able to maintain weapons comparable to that of what a standing army has as an individual member.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

The strongest argument is the Bill of Rights itself. It is a document that spells out principled rights, not a list of “acceptable items”. Weapons have changed overtime and will continue to change. In your world, the citizenry would be expected to defend itself against criminals and yes even possibly it own government with muskets and six shooters. Certainly not what was intended in the Bill of Rights.

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Here’s a “serious question”

What, exactly, is an assault weapon? Please share with the rest of the class so that we all might gain from your superior insight.

search4truth on January 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Theres nothing in whole wide world that scares the progs, except for the NRA. Pubs would do well to solicit advice from them on how to scare the crap out of the progs, and to keep them in line.

tommy71 on January 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM

So, serious question: why, even with dems, is an assault weapon ban ‘off the table’?

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

There’s certainly a strong public safety case to be made against allowing them to be owned.

I’ve yet to hear a strong argument for NOT banning them. And that didn’t change when, yesterday, one of their defenders argued “it’s about how they look.”

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Get yourself a copy of the Heller decision. And read it.

Jabberwock on January 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Here’s a “serious question”

What, exactly, is an assault weapon? Please share with the rest of the class so that we all might gain from your superior insight.

search4truth on January 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Yes, Tom, please enlighten everyone with the facts on what constitutes a weapon capable of killing many people and one that does not.

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM

I agree, then I wouldn’t have to keep correcting Chump Threads on it, he keeps saying machine guns were used, not since 1934 anyway, well legally I think only one case, and the last time a full auto was used if I am not mistaken was in LA at that bank job, I would have to go back and look though.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I said no such thing.

Link to my quote, please, or post a correction.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM

In your world, the citizenry would be expected to defend itself against criminals and yes even possibly it own government with muskets and six shooters. Certainly not what was intended in the Bill of Rights.

Six-shooters wouldn’t be allowed, because they were invented in the 1840s. There were, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, handguns existed with rotating multiple barrels. Under liberal definitions, they should be allowed, too, and not just plain single-shot flintlocks.

Liberals know little about firearms and their history, yet they gibber and think everyone else is stupid.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Stupid, ignorant Democrats clamoring like roaches to save their own skin. These self-serving pukes are crippling this nation. They don’t belong to, nor do they support the Republic.

Polish Rifle on January 31, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Scarborough is a silly, effeminate liberal dope, and his opinions matter only to Democrats. His co-host with the desperate white-dyed hair has a nice rack looks good in black.

Jaibones on January 31, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Do any of these wormy liberals have any core values?

rplat on January 31, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I’ve yet to hear a strong argument for NOT banning them. And that didn’t change when, yesterday, one of their defenders argued “it’s about how they look.”

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Answer;

This is just a smoke screen to divide the self-defense community from the left to BAN ALL GUNS.

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 9:40 AM

antipc on January 31, 2013 at 10:04 AM

The moment the citizen is less well armed as the aggressor (the gov) then the people are no longer free and the founders made no mention of specific arms or grade of arms.

katy on January 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Uh, I hate to break it to ya, but the government will ALWAYS be more well armed than the people. They’ve got light and heavy artillery, planes, helicopters and nuclear weapons. And a trained army, although that might break apart if things start going south in this country. Our strength is in our numbers, and we are wasting our time and endangering our children’s future if we don’t start heeding the 2nd amendment we hold so dear, and start forming “well regulated militias”. And not the phony white supremacist ones that exist now. Ones that would form a real national guard.

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:04 AM

No time to rest. Time to push for national CCW.

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 10:05 AM

It’s going to screw up the Democrats’ “Republicans killed the AWB” talking point,

No it won’t. They’ll say it anyway. What do they care? They totally control the Narrative.

rrpjr on January 31, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

What is the difference between someone armed with AR15 with a 30 round clip and someone that has 4 handguns strapped to their body and one in each hand. If their intent is a massacre as opposed to self defence, I see no difference.

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Get yourself a copy of the Heller decision. And read it.

Jabberwock on January 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM

This…..

Buck_Nekkid on January 31, 2013 at 10:07 AM

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Yes, I am well aware. My point was the people should never allow their gov to dictate the level of defense they use.

Unfortunately it’s already with us but to let it continue is truly suicidal.

katy on January 31, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Get yourself a copy of the Heller decision. And read it.

Jabberwock on January 31, 2013 at 9:59 AM

That would produce Narrative dissonance. Not acceptable.

rrpjr on January 31, 2013 at 10:09 AM

This is all a red herring. The real aim is to set up a national database so that when the UN mandate becomes international law, which Obama has recently signed up to, your guns will be confiscated.

OldEnglish on January 31, 2013 at 10:09 AM

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:04 AM

You are assuming a full on tyrannical government with the whole military in lockstep. What about the more likely scenario, a mentally unstable LOE or government official. Waco? Katrina? LA?

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM

The moment the citizen is less well armed as the aggressor (the gov) then the people are no longer free and the founders made no mention of specific arms or grade of arms.

katy on January 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Uh, I hate to break it to ya, but the government will ALWAYS be more well armed than the people. They’ve got light and heavy artillery, planes, helicopters and nuclear weapons. And a trained army, although that might break apart if things start going south in this country. Our strength is in our numbers, and we are wasting our time and endangering our children’s future if we don’t start heeding the 2nd amendment we hold so dear, and start forming “well regulated militias”. And not the phony white supremacist ones that exist now. Ones that would form a real national guard.

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Since you’re on the subject:

Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting 2nd Amendment
http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/

The following letter was disseminated and signed by over 1,000 current and former Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets) in support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, specifically as a defensive measure against tyranny.

Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

Southern by choice22 on January 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Buck_Nekkid on January 31, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Hmm… are you the same poster from Neal Boortz?

Welcome aboard, I used to post over there under …ahem… a different name

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I’ve yet to hear a strong argument for NOT banning them.

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

That’s because you have your fingers in your ears, going “nahnahnahnahnahnahnahnah”.

As for what sorts of weapons existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it’s irrelevant. Unless you also argue that:
- the freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to TV or radio or the internet or anything printed using an electrically powered printing press
- the freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to Mormons
- the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to internet or phones or telegraph or automobiles
- the 5th Amendment ‘exemptions’ don’t apply to Air Force members
- the 8th Amendment does not stop public flogging, drawing and quartering, or hanging
- the death penalty is not cruel or unusual, even for crimes like buggery and horse thievery, under the 8th Amendment?

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

The government doesn’t have a clue. It’s as if they don’t have the first idea of how to produce an original thought. If they want to ban guns all they have to do is require that every gun must be insured against injury or death. It would be like taxing them out of existence. With the way the insurance industry is in lockstep with the state and federal governments it would be a win-win for both of them.

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

they called her a jacka$$…
Perhaps because the shoe fits…

Despite her strong emphasis on the need to prevent violent crimes against women at home, Trotter is an outspoken opponent of the Violence Against Women Act, a law designed to aid women faced with domestic violence.
Because ex-husbands and boyfriends never attack women.
I believe a woman or any person is entitled to own a weapon for personal defense. No one should be allowed to own a arsenal.

those folks had mental health issues
Yet they had the means to kill in high numbers because they had access to military-style weapons and high capacity magazines/clips.

you’re going to penalize the majority for the minority….
Nonsese. You are not being “penalized” because you are not allowed to own a machine gun. Nor will you be penalized by the enactment of reasonable restraints on magazine capacity, universal background checks and the banning of certain styles of weapons.

and the gun slaughter that happens on daily basis in chicago are not by owners with scary looking guns,

cmsinaz on January 31, 2013 at 6:31 AM
Gun crime remains an intractable problem in this country.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 6:51 AM

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:15 AM

… I’ve yet to hear a strong argument for NOT banning them. And that didn’t change when, yesterday, one of their defenders argued “it’s about how they look.”

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Why do you care what we think? We’re stupid, ignorant, bitter clingers. We’re racists, oppressors, greedy capitalists, and we dress unfashionably.

Oh, wait. I think I understand. Some of your leader are displaying the true nature of a Liberal: they value their own butts above any lofty ideals you all blather about. So now you need to persuade some of us into giving up some of our freedoms so you can continue your charade of self-righteousness.

Well, G. F. Y.

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Not one single proposal that anyone has come up with would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre which was the trigger (pardon the expression) for this whole gun control mania.

Bitter Clinger on January 31, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Except maybe this might have made it possible to get Adam Lanza off the streets and into an institution that could give him the help he needed… but thanks to organizations like the ACLU – that didn’t happen.

We can look at the last few mass shootings, and see that the common denominator is a mentally troubled mind. Unfortunately, the left has made it very difficult to get these people off the streets. In fact, even after Jared Loughner was arrested, and diagnosed with schizophrenia – there were people arguing that he shouldn’t be “forced” to take medication. We really need to reevaluate how the mentally ill are treated in this country.

Hill60 on January 31, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Southern by choice22 on January 31, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Great news! More evidence of why I think that there will be no gun grab. Unless our leaders invite UN “peacekeepers” on our soil.

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM

At one point in England, it was illegal for a commoner to carry a weapon. Nobles could have all they wanted.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM

An excellent point to keep in mind. One of the foundations of the 2d Amendment was an emphasis on the fact that Americans don’t have an aristocracy, with special privileges. Of course, liberals couldn’t leave well enough alone and went out and created several…..

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Frankenstein is a worthless _itch!

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Yeah, but she retired from Congress and threw a snit-fit yesterday when Deval Patrick failed to appoint her to fill John Kerry’s Senate seat.

:-)

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Just for laughs, here are some postings from elsewhere on this subject:

Read them and weep – I mean that literally.

Well, I think if you are expecting tyranny, you should look at the Republican party. They don’t want “big government” when it comes to guns or when it has to do with helping the poor (look at the Bible to see what Jesus thinks about helping the poor) but they do want big government to tell me what my morals should be, whether I can control my own body, and who I can marry! That is tyranny. I can still own a gun, just not one that allows me to kill tons of people with one magazine!

The government has been ‘tyrannizing’ someone since the founding, native americans, blacks, and has sponsored tyranny in other countries. How come you insecure crybaggers have let the tyranny go on so long. You know you could never stop an assault by the federal government, you’re minds and bodies are too sick as it is to help yourself, let alone save a nation.

Chip with a prog in her throat on January 31, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

A good swordsman could injure or kill several people pretty quickly and good archers could fire off arrows in rapid succession. Then there are cannons, howitzers, etc. Since none of theese weapons were mentioned specifically what do you suppose the founders meant then?

Deanna on January 31, 2013 at 10:20 AM

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Done deal, now be careful where you go with this explanation, because we have already been down this road with you not being very well versed on this subject.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:21 AM

you are not allowed to own a machine gun.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I wish people would stop saying this. You are allowed to own a machine gun. Thousands of people own them. As long as you file the proper paperwork and pay an annual $500 fee, you can buy them and keep them. Affording them is another matter entirely.

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM

There is no way that Feinstein’s attack on the Second Amendment is going anywhere. Even if the Senate were to muster enough votes, it wouldn’t make it past the House. Therefore it is all show complete with pageantry of a slurring Gabbie Giffords and the parading of parents of Sandy Hook Victims. Commies and liberals trying to manipulate current public attention for long-held disdain for the Constitution.

All these hearings are intended to do is paint anybody who supports the Second Amendment as being somebody who wants to see more children shot in schools. Yet the reality is that Feinstein and those of her ilk are the real bastards. They showcased victims of mass shootings but why not call Rahm Imanuel up to explain how his gun-free city is the murder capitol of the United States? Put another way, Feinstein’s emphasis on a lilly white town in CT only proves that Democrats don’t care about the poor black children being gunned down in Chicago.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

It’s called a God-given and constitutionally affirmed right.

There is No Difference between these guns and the arms protected under the 2nd amendment.

Banning those guns means you want to ban all guns.

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Feinstein’s emphasis on a lilly white town in CT only proves that Democrats don’t care about the poor black children being gunned down in Chicago.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Hammer going slamma-jamma right on the head! Nailed it!

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:29 AM

The Farmers were just as well armed with the same grade firearms as the British.

katy on January 31, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Arguably, they were better armed than the Brits. :)

and six shooters.

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 9:57 AM

“Six shooters” didn’t come into existence for another 50+ years, iirc.

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM

If it could save just ONE child….shouldn’t we all be required to carry assault weapons?

And we might even be able to save a nation.

TexAz on January 31, 2013 at 10:32 AM

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:21 AM

You wrote:

…I wouldn’t have to keep correcting Chump Threads on it, he keeps saying machine guns were used…
MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I never said machine guns were used in any instance. Here’s what I actutally said in response to your comment about the majority being penalized:

Nonsense. You are not being “penalized” because you are not allowed to own a machine gun.

Clear?

You may think I’m not “very well versed on this subject”, but it certainly doesn’t help for you to misrepresent my statements.

Waiting for your acknowledgement.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Scarborough is the jackass here, what a dope. He’s the first one to say “it’s for the children”, yet when the argument is turned on him all he can do is revert to name calling.

Tater Salad on January 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM

The omnly thing that could save Pryor is to change from (D) to (R).

Tater Salad on January 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:23 AM

No, you are absolutely right, you can, like you said and you pay the stamp tax, the 1934 NFA screwed us on that deal though, I was trying to explain in the context to Chump Threads that it isn’t as easy as a semi auto, and like you said, affording one is another issue. But if you follow my threads I was also going for the semi autos are not assault weapons which everyone seems to get wrong as well. 50 cal BMGs are quite the rage these days if you can afford them, or so I have heard;)

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

50 cal BMGs are quite the rage these days if you can afford them, or so I have heard;)

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

That would pose another thread for gun-grabbing liberals, because the weapon is belt-fed, which makes it legal far as magazine capacity restrictions are concerned.

I also have to wonder how a Gatling gun would fit, if someone could get his hands on an original.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

… I’ve yet to hear a strong argument for NOT banning them. And that didn’t change when, yesterday, one of their defenders argued “it’s about how they look.”

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

323: The total number of homicides committed with ALL TYPES OF RIFLES, INCLUDING “ASSAULT RIFLES,” in the United States in 2011.

496: The total number of homicides committed with hammers or other blunt objects in the United States in 2011.

0.012%: The number of deaths caused by assault weapons in the United States in 2011.

~1.5 million: The estimated number of AR-15s in the United States in 1994.

9.0%: Overall homicide rate in the US in 1994, the year the Assault Weapons Ban was signed.

3,261,725: The number of estimated AR-15s in the United States in 2005.

5.0%: Overall homicide rate in the US in 2009, FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN EXPIRED.

More than 45%: The decrease in the number of gun prosecutions by the Obama administration compared to the Bush administration. Let’s pass MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS for Obama NOT TO ENFORCE!!! You, libs, are sheer geniuses!

Add up the numbers and guess what?

YOU HAVE NO CASE FOR BANNING THEM.

You do NOT get to infringe upon the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners in an attempt to ban weapons that will still be widely available to criminals, especially when this administration will NOT enforce current law, the DoJ admitted that the original AWB had no demonstrable effect, and this administration has said:

“We don’t have time to prosecute everybody who lies on background checks.”

- Vice-President Joe Biden

Since you wish to infringe upon a natural and constitutional right, the burden of proof is upon YOU to show why they should be banned and your arguments will have to survive strict scrutiny (look it up).

Now, leave law-abiding citizens alone and start enforcing current law, as well as dealing with those that are mentally ill and pose clear and present dangers to society.

Have a nice day.

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I figured as much, MarshFox. Just using your comment as an example. Regardless, full auto is most useful for laying down covering fire, and the tens of thousands it cost to just buy a full auto rifle takes them out of most people’s hands, anyway.

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:43 AM

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

If you look at the threads under that, you will see that you can still in fact own a machine gun, if you meet the money standards, again versed in 1934 NFA, which means if in fact they banned machine guns all together this time then yes in fact we are being penalized. However as you have pointed out in later threads you weren’t mixing up the terms, of which I understood you to be referring to the weapons in the crimes, then pray tell what term were you going to apply to the weapons used in the crimes?

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM

“Not one single proposal that anyone has come up with would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre which was the trigger (pardon the expression) for this whole gun control mania.

Bitter Clinger on January 31, 2013 at 9:42 AM”

Correct, none of the existing 41 laws broken by subject#1, kept him from carrying out his deed. I don’t feel that 41 more laws would have stopped it from happening.

Tracker3 on January 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM

And if you’re serious about stopping massacres, then you have to be serious about getting rid of semiautomatics, not just “assault weapons.” If not now, then eventually.

Of course that’s the endgame. An “assault weapon” ban will fail to reduce violence, this is a known fact because we’ve done the experiment. Once it’s failed again, the next step is to “close the loopholes”, i.e. ban the rest of semi-autos. Then the next “loophole” would be lever-action and pump-action and revolvers.

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.

– Senator Dianne Feinstein, 1994

Socratease on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Waiting for your acknowledgement.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Let it be known:

We, the denizens of Hot Gas Land, do herein and hereby formally, publicly, and firmly acknowledge that commenter upon the comment boards self-identifying as “chumpThreads” is one helluva d-bag.

Let this acknowledgment be proclaimed throughout the land.

Mahalo.

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

When a tinfoil hat alone is simply not enough to protect against Trig Rays…

chumpThreads: Trig Truther

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Is it FAIR to punish 120 Million innocent people because of the actions of a few Criminals?

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 10:46 AM

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I second that motion.

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

If you look at the threads under that, you will see that you can still in fact own a machine gun…

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM

G’day, matey!

Indeed…

Gun Control Laws: We Already Do That!

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

He says there are no details on why certain guns are banned and others are accepted.

Simple, because Lady Dianne says so. What’s an “assault weapon”? Anything a politician says it is.

GarandFan on January 31, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I also have to wonder how a Gatling gun would fit, if someone could get his hands on an original.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-gatling-gun-kit-1.shtml

Super fun to shoot. Not that I…uh…have one…I just heard about it.

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Let it be known:

We, the denizens of Hot Gas Land, do herein and hereby formally, publicly, and firmly acknowledge that commenter upon the comment boards self-identifying as “chumpThreads” is one helluva d-bag AND A TINFOIL HAT-WEARING TRIG TRUTHER, E111eV3ntY!!11!!

Let this acknowledgment be proclaimed throughout the land.

Mahalo.

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Edited for complete accuracy.

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Collectors I think would love that thought on a Gatlin, but again like you said it presents its difficulties, and when I mean collectors I mean licensed ones, and I think you would classify that as a relic, not sure, but those damn licenses are expensive to maintain, plus the insurance on your pieces.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM

My point was that the Bill of Rights does not list acceptable arms. Hell I think you should have the ability to arm yourself with any weapon.

Just waiting for those frikkin’ lasers that we keep seeing on da TV!

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I’ve noticed that it’s always you who initiates contact with me.

It’s never the other way around.

Your psychiatrist called.
He wants me out of your head, now!

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I almost wonder if this assault weapons ban bill was put out there to help red state democrats by giving them an opportunity to pretend to care about liberty.

earlgrey133 on January 31, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM

How are you RWM? Ah, to own a M2, talk about deterant, the wolves would be running really quickly in the opposite direction. Btw, I know I am now where near your law prowess, but I ain’t to shabby on my gun law history:)

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:54 AM

50 cal BMGs are quite the rage these days if you can afford them, or so I have heard

Not really. I shoot quite a bit and have only run into a .50 twice. Most ranges don’t allow them because their backstops can’t handle the energy and/or range if they miss. And that was before California declared all .50s to be “assault weapons”, even the bolt-action and single-shot ones.

We did have one .338 Lapua Magnum in our rifle match, they’re often chosen by people who want to shoot long distances, but frankly it didn’t shoot any better than the .308s out to 1000 yards. The real hot ticket was the 6.5-284.

Socratease on January 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

My point was that the Bill of Rights does not list acceptable arms. Hell I think you should have the ability to arm yourself with any weapon.

Just waiting for those frikkin’ lasers that we keep seeing on da TV!

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM

What happens when I develop my inner Jedi and am able to toss people around using just my mind? Wouldn’t that be classified as a weapon? I’m not quite there yet, but how are they gonna regulate that?

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

The 19th Century ones were carriage-mounted and quite impractical for home use. But when libs come up with their cockamamie ideas, they miss so much as to be irrelevant to meaningful discussion.

Or something else: A .50 cal M2 that is belt-fed and strictly semi-auto. It’s not a machine gun and way too heavy to be an assault weapon, but would still need a tripod. Browning could make money with such a ‘new’ firearm, if they haven’t already.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Edited for complete accuracy.

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Indeed emended. So many Threads wending their way to a woven sackcloth of stupidity

Thanks..

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Great advice /sarc.

Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shear_bravery_beats_guns_feds_d9BanDpupuVezePd6trYoM

WASHINGTON — Is your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman?
No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

That is, until scissors are banned as an ‘Assault Weapon’…

Southern by choice22 on January 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

If the left doesn’t get what it wants or some of what it wants this time, they will be back to try again after the next crisis. It’s what they do. Tyranny one small step at a time.

Kissmygrits on January 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

If you look at the threads under that, you will see that you can still in fact own a machine gun, if you meet the money standards, again versed in 1934 NFA, which means if in fact they banned machine guns all together this time then yes in fact we are being penalized. However as you have pointed out in later threads you weren’t mixing up the terms, of which I understood you to be referring to the weapons in the crimes, then pray tell what term were you going to apply to the weapons used in the crimes?

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Even if I am factually wrong about machine gun ownership (I’ll concede the point) that doesn’t change the fact that you misrepresented what I said.

I’ve documented what I actually said.

At least have the decency to acknowledge the error and move on.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2