March 21, 2013

"The Senate’s upcoming vote on the assault weapons ban is going to put vulnerable Democrats in a difficult spot."

"Democrats facing tough reelection races will either attract the ire of the National Rifle Association or prominent gun control activists.... A vote against the ban could spark primary challenges that could weaken Democrats in the general election."

103 comments:

whoresoftheinternet said...

Anyone who thinks the Dems won't try to call off the next few elections haven't read enough history.

Scott M said...

Just remember...millions of kids have been killed by assault weapons and that no hunter ever needs automatic assault weapons to enjoy hunting.

Hat-tip Rep C. Rangel.

Shanna said...

I love how they always say they might attract the ire of the 'NRA or prominant gun control activists' when the real problem is that their constituents, especially in rural states, have guns, use guns and don't particularly want these bans.

Matt said...

Yes, because a ban on assault weapons somehow threatens freedom. This is how stupid the NRA and gun advocates are. The sky is always falling with these paranoid clowns.

chickelit said...

Matt said...Yes, because a ban on assault weapons somehow threatens freedom.

Are you saying it's largely symbolic--much like "the most important civil rights issue of our time"?

EDH said...

First and foremost, the proposed "assault weapons" ban is an affront to reason and logic.

dbp said...

"..somehow threatens freedom.."

Certainly it eliminates the freedom to lawfully own such a weapon.

AprilApple said...

Sucks to be anti 2nd ammendment.

DADvocate said...

The fact that our right to bear arms is under attack makes no difference. It's just about keeping Dems in office. They may not realize it but voting against the ban will just about guarantee their re-election.

cryptical said...

Matt said...The sky is always falling with these paranoid clowns.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Sorun said...

"The sky is always falling with these paranoid clowns."

On the other side are the concern clowns who must ban something.

Matt said...

chickelit

Clarify.

I'm simply saying a ban on assault weapons will not mean the end of gun ownership as we know it. Sure a few criminals will manager to get their hands on these weapons but a ban at least begins to address one of the elephants in the room.

Michael in ArchDen said...

Man, I hate it when our highly-compensated representitives have to make a difficult decision! Guess they'll have to vote their consciences, rather than whatever is politically expedient.

Somedays, I crack myself up!

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

WEll look a ban probably won't do a thing to stop crime. I'll admit that. But let's talk about what's politically expedient.

You guys have reps like Michelle Bachmann who thinks Obamacare will 'literally kill women, children and seniors'. [She just said this.]

That is far crazier than Feinstein wanting to ban assault weapons.

edutcher said...

They'll all watch what Manchin does.

Michael K said...



3/21/13, 2:03 PM
Blogger Matt said...

" chickelit

Clarify.

I'm simply saying a ban on assault weapons will not mean the end of gun ownership as we know it. Sure a few criminals will manager to get their hands on these weapons but a ban at least begins to address one of the elephants in the room."

Would you mind defining an "assault weapon" for me ?

Thanks.

Rocketeer said...

I'm simply saying a ban on assault weapons will not mean the end of gun ownership as we know it.

You think we don't notice you're palming a card with that statement, but you should know that a) you're no Houdini, and b) we're not three-year-olds astonished when Daddy pulls a penny out of our ear.

Rocketeer said...

You guys have reps like Michelle Bachmann who thinks Obamacare will 'literally kill women, children and seniors'.

It's been widely acknowledged by now that de facto rationing is coming. Obamacare shits out a new, unexpected turd on a daily basis now, it seems. For purposes of this discussion, let me stipulate that Bachmann is weird. Nevertheless, perhaps you could explain how her statement is "crazy?"

Tank said...

Matt must be nine years old.

The Drill SGT said...

Matt?

What is an assault weapon?

The classic military definition, before being corrupted by gun takers was:

A fully automatic machinepistol (e.g. firing pistol cartridges) most commonly used in close range dense terrain like forests and urban zones.

e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44



Brew Master said...

Matt said...
Yes, because a ban on assault weapons somehow threatens freedom. This is how stupid the NRA and gun advocates are. The sky is always falling with these paranoid clowns.


It very much threatens my freedom, garaunteed by the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Today you want to ban 'assault weapons', what comes tomorrow? The state very much wants the populace disarmed. It will be more than happy to do it incrementally rather than all at once. Boiling a frog is easier when you turn the heat up slowly.

I'm simply saying a ban on assault weapons will not mean the end of gun ownership as we know it. Sure a few criminals will manager to get their hands on these weapons but a ban at least begins to address one of the elephants in the room.

Which elephant in the room is the larger one? Eliminating my rights, or the one that criminals will break laws, and yes, kill people (which you expressly admit below won't be affected by banning weapons of any sort).

Your elephant is a pipsqueak compared to making citizens of this country subject to the whim of tyrants.

WEll look a ban probably won't do a thing to stop crime. I'll admit that. But let's talk about what's politically expedient.

You guys have reps like Michelle Bachmann who thinks Obamacare will 'literally kill women, children and seniors'. [She just said this.]

That is far crazier than Feinstein wanting to ban assault weapons.


So, which is crazier, to think that the government control of cancer screenings to save money (therefore causing more cancers to be missed, causing more deaths).

Or the fact that you freely admit that gun bans won't do anything to stop crime but should be done anyway because........ why?

Bob said...

Matt, understand you believe Bachmann is crazy. Sadly she is correct that medical malpractice will cause the deaths of more americans than firearms. And banning my semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) does reduce my freedom and does nothing to improve your safety (though you may feel better).

Matt said...

Bob

Medical malpractice has been happening since the dawn of man. How exactly [and why exactly] are you trying to fit that into Obamacare?

Agreed about assault weapon ban. Although if you say it takes away your freedom then I assume you own many such weapons. Because if you don't then why would you care if they said you can't now own a weapon that fires 20 rounds?

traditionalguy said...

All rifles are clip fed semi automatics.

So the "Ban Machine Guns" pretense asking for a smaller clip (aka magazine) rule is a steaming pile of BS that no one believes in but the dimwits that vote without thinking.

What is so hard to accept is the Dimwits position is taken by the educated elites. That means they have an agenda which is either to shame the less educated middleclass knuckle draggers or to disarm Americans as the British Empire (now called the EU) has been wanting to see happen since 1776.

Matt said...

Brew Master

You're paranoid and maybe not in touch with reality. The slippery slope argument is not an argument.

Seeing Red said...

Matt, have you been following the NHS saga in the British papers?

--You guys have reps like Michelle Bachmann who thinks Obamacare will 'literally kill women, children and seniors'. [She just said this.]

That is far crazier than Feinstein wanting to ban assault weapons.--


Guns kill fewer.

Seeing Red said...

The rules are worse, if you own a lot of property and like to shoot on your property, fat chance.

Seeing Red said...

Of course it's a commie running the NHS and it's not his fault. He knows nothing.

chickelit said...

Matt: Suppose that Feinstein next wants to ban the types of guns that are actually involved in the majority of shootings? That could proceed stepwise until it included all guns which is her and every other "I'm from England"-type prohibitionist's endgame fantasy: a nation without guns. After that, it becomes a nation without weapons. Bad move.

Bruce Hayden said...

Matt - the problem with DiFi's bill was that it probably wouldn't pass rational basis review. There was no statistical correlation between the guns being banned and any identifiable harm. Indeed, they are most likely less dangerous than non-banned weapons. She made a big thing about gun violence, but misleadingly so, since almost all of it is handgun caused, including that SF incident she keeps mentioning.

Seeing Red said...


Samizdata quote of the day
Perry de Havilland (London) · Health · Slogans & Quotations · UK affairs
It is officially calculated that, between 2005 and 2009, up to 1,200 patients at Stafford Hospital died needlessly. Let us imagine that a comparable disaster occurred in any other institution or enterprise in this country. Suppose that hundreds of customers of the cold food counter at Sainsbury’s or Tesco died of food poisoning. Suppose that, at an army barracks, large comprehensive, steelworks, bank, hotel, university campus or holiday theme park, people died, and went on dying for years, at rates that hugely exceeded anything that could be attributed to the normal course of nature.

What would happen? In all cases – though more quickly in the private sector than in the public – the relevant management would be sacked. Indeed, the very idea of unnecessary deaths taking years to notice is almost inconceivable. Criminal charges would be brought. In many cases, the offending institution would close down.

But this is the National Health Service, and so we approach it with superstitious reverence, as if the fact that Stafford Hospital performed so many human sacrifices is so awe-inspiring that little can be done about it. For all its rhetoric of condemnation, this week’s report of the Mid Staffs inquiry by Robert Francis QC argues, in effect, that those in charge should stay in charge.

- Charles Moore
.

Alex said...

Matt - when you jump to label the opposition "crazy" your side loses any credibility.

damikesc said...

Yes, because a ban on assault weapons somehow threatens freedom

Define "Assault weapons".

Be exact --- because, as you know, there isn't an actual category of "assault weapons" in existence. It is Democratic boilerplate speak.

This is how stupid the NRA and gun advocates are.

If you get a hard-on giving away Constitutional freedoms, then knock yourself out. Don't expect others to follow your idiotic example.

I'm simply saying a ban on assault weapons will not mean the end of gun ownership as we know it.

Define "assault weapons".

WEll look a ban probably won't do a thing to stop crime.

So let's do it anyways!

You guys have reps like Michelle Bachmann who thinks Obamacare will 'literally kill women, children and seniors'. [She just said this.]

How many people did Gosnell kill because his "practice" was politically protected?

Because if you don't then why would you care if they said you can't now own a weapon that fires 20 rounds?

Using that logic, why should anybody straight EVER support gay marriage?

Why should a man ever give a shit about women getting raped?

Bruce Hayden said...

Trad guy

Not really clip fed, but magazine fed. Not a big difference - the M-1 Girand, adopted in the 1930s and replaced 20 years later was clip fed. But we were using magazine fed fully automatic weapons by the end of WW I.

Oh, and keep in mind that we are talking removable magazines - fixed magazines go back nearly 150 years now. Heck, my 12 gauge pump shotgun has a fixed magazine.

The Godfather said...

I'm a republican, and anything that makes things tougher for Democratic candidates in 2014 is OK by me. But what's really great about the gun control issue is that the Democrats brought it on themselves! President Obama is the Todd Akin of this circular firing squad (oops! Is that phrase too violent and uncivil?)

SteveR said...

Well Michelle Bachmann is a woman and a republican so "crazy" is an acceptable characterization.

Furthermore her attempted elevation from congress critter where she's elected by the skin of her teeth to presidental candidate was so successful you should feel quite free to say she's just like all republicans.

Revenant said...

Yes, because a ban on assault weapons somehow threatens freedom.

Because sure, gun owners might be subject to arrest and imprisonment for the guns they own, but it isn't like prison threatens their *freedom*. :)

Brew Master said...

Matt said...
Brew Master

You're paranoid and maybe not in touch with reality. The slippery slope argument is not an argument.


So you have no response at all then, color me unsurprised?

I'll also ask the same question that others have asked, and you have ignored.

Define 'Assault weapon' please.

Bruce Hayden said...

The reason that I think so many here are asking the AWB proponents to define "assault weapons" is that DiFi's bill was a grab bag, based mostly on cosmetics, with little, if any, concern for functionality, or, really how dangerous they might be. She couldn't point any research showing why the banned guns should be banned. And others not banned- because there aren't any such studies, and likely the opposite.

The Drill SGT said...

traditionalguy said...
All rifles are clip fed semi automatics.


Bruce beat me to it. Most are, but

Clips load magazines. magazines, whether fixed or detachable fee weapons. The M1 and SKS had a fixed magazine. Clips loaded the magazine.

M16's have detachable magazines. Clips of cartridges are loaded into magazines.

PS: Bolt action rifles may have magazines, but are rifles that are NOT semi-automatic.

Bob Ellison said...

Now, now, folks. Matt has read the proverbial logical fallacies article. Hear him out. Give him his due. Let sleeping dogs lie, and so forth.

The Drill SGT said...

Speaking of idiotic gun laws, the rushed NY gun law that outlawed all the weapons used by police and mandates 7 round magazines max for weapons even though there are no 7 round magazines made for any weapon except an M1911A1 pistol?

Cuomo's solution? You can use 10 round magazines, but you must only load them with 7 rounds. As though your local thug or your mass murderer is going to obey that law.

another example of gun theater.

Matt said...

Feinstein's Assault Weapons bill was not a good one. That I will admit. It was too vague and wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns, etc.

A good bill would, as noted in Slate: Restrict magazine capacity; requiring tougher background checks and longer waiting periods; raising taxes on gun and ammunition purchases; devising better strategies to combat gun trafficking; developing guns and gun safes that can only be operated by their owners.

And, yeah, tax gun owners big time. Then use the funds for liberal causes, #;^) Heh.

Brew Master said...

Bruce,

For my part, asking about the definition of assault weapon is to illustrate two things.

First is that those in favor of banning so-called assault weapons really have no clue as to what they are talking about regarding weapons.

Secondly it exposes the fact that the ban as proposed is a completely hollow measure that does nothing at all (as Matt freely admits) about reducing the violent crime that brought this discussion to light.

Attempting to pin down specifics is a futile gesture on this topics as they are assidiously avoided. It is easier to not state a position so one can dodge criticism than it is to argue from principle.

However, in the absence of a logical rationale we must then ask ourselves, if this proposed ban will do nothing to curb the instances of violent crime, what then is the purpose of the ban. The proposed effect of the AWB is to remove 'Assault Weapons' from the populace. This removal of AW from law abiding citizens will do nothing to thwart criminal activity, therefore the goal must be to remove those weapons from non-criminals.

To what purpose is this goal? Matt slaps a label of paranoia on such an answer, but is unable to give a counterfactual reason, and tacitly admits the whole point is to remove weapons from law abiding citizens. He will not state the reasoning behind his support (odds are that his support is not a coherent position, but rather political in nature).

Revenant said...

You guys have reps like Michelle Bachmann who thinks Obamacare will 'literally kill women, children and seniors'.

ObamaCare will result -- is resulting -- in medical care being more expensive and harder to find. So yes, I would expect more people to die because of that.

Brew Master said...

Matt said...
Feinstein's Assault Weapons bill was not a good one. That I will admit. It was too vague and wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns, etc.

A good bill would, as noted in Slate: Restrict magazine capacity; requiring tougher background checks and longer waiting periods; raising taxes on gun and ammunition purchases; devising better strategies to combat gun trafficking; developing guns and gun safes that can only be operated by their owners.

And, yeah, tax gun owners big time. Then use the funds for liberal causes, #;^) Heh


Matt, sorry to clue you in on human nature. No law will stop criminals from getting guns. No law limiting magazine size will stop criminals from using 'banned' magazines. The same goes for tougher background checks, longer waiting times, high taxes on guns/ammunition, laws on trafficking, safes, nor the pipe dream of biometric guns.

None. Of. These. Things. Will. Stop. Criminals. Ever.

Can you understand this point? Criminals break laws, it is what they do. Gun Free Zones disarm victims, not murderers. It really is quite simple. When you want to remove my rights to protect myself and my family, you are a tyrant. You want to put me at the whim of those that will ignore the laws and do as they wish.

Seeing Red said...

Matt is ok w/the strong/evil preying upon the defenseless.

Not very caring, Matt.

Revenant said...

1. Restrict magazine capacity

2. requiring tougher background checks

3. and longer waiting periods

4. raising taxes on gun and ammunition purchases

5. devising better strategies to combat gun trafficking

6. developing guns that can only be operated by their owners

7. developing gun safes that can only be operated by their owners.

Item 5 doesn't require a new law, just a competent Justice Department.

Item 3 doesn't pass Constitutional muster unless it has a purpose beyond "making it harder to get a gun", which it doesn't.

Item 4 raises taxes and thus is a non-starter

Item 7 has existed for years

Items 1 and 6 would only pass Constitutional muster if the police were subjected to them as well, which they won't be.

Item 2 will only pass muster if "tougher" means "better able to weed out people who may be Constitutionally forbidden from owning guns". We already screen for them, so this again seems like it falls under the heading of "competent Justice Department".

mariner said...

traditionalguy,
... to disarm Americans as the British Empire (now called the EU) has been wanting to see happen since 1776.


1775, actually.

I can only pray that Americans' reaction will be as vigorous this time as it was then, but I highly doubt it.

mariner said...

Matt,
You're paranoid and maybe not in touch with reality. The slippery slope argument is not an argument.

Really?

It's used all the time by the pro-abortion left to argue against even the slightest restrictions on abortion.

And that's to protect a "right" to murder unborn babies that's found nowhere in the Constitution, unlike the Second Amendment which is.

donald said...

Matt's just funnin.

Kirk Parker said...

Rev,

#6 is actually just a bad idea no matter what.

traditionalguy said...

I may be too much a literalist for the gun club, but what is difference between a clip and a magazine. They both come preloaded with the bullets.

The Thompson submachine gun is the reason the Machine Gun ban started in the thirties.

And there is a single shot bolt action like the Springfield 1903 and the Mausers. But the AR15 is a single shot that reloads itself without needing a bolt pull. Is that the real issue?

The Godfather said...

"developing guns that can only be operated by their owners"

This is literally a science fiction idea. It comes straight from A. E. van Vogt's "weapon shop" stories from the early '50's. Van Vogt showed how important the right to gun ownership was to prevent tyranny. The stories imagined idealized guns that could only be used by their owner, and could only be used in self-defense. Of course in reality, no technology could create such guns, any more than technology could create the Elven swords of the Lord Of The Rings.

But the principle is valid: In the hands of good citizens, guns are a protection for freedom. In the hands of criminals they are tools of crime. If Obama, Feinstein, et al. showed any sign of caring about preventing criminals from getting guns, while leaving the law abiding citizens alone, I would applaud that. But that's not what we see.

damikesc said...

raising taxes on gun and ammunition purchases

...which wouldn't pass Constitutional muster.

Just sayin'.

campy said...

Matt is the new Alex.

jr565 said...

Mariner wrote:
It's used all the time by the pro-abortion left to argue against even the slightest restrictions on abortion.

Yes, exactly right.
What about that Matt?

Pettifogger said...

Regarding the difficulty the Democrats have in deciding how to vote:

To govern is to choose. To choose is to piss people off.

That's no doubt why the Congress does so little governing.

johns said...

Matt argued for DiFi's AWB for quite a while, but after repeatedly being asked to define assault weapons, he suddenly retreated to the argument that DiFi's bill wasn't a good bill, but Slate had a good bill.
So, Matt, can we erase all of your earlier arguments, since you are conceding that the AWB idea makes no sense? Are you "moving on"?

johns said...

Matt argued for DiFi's AWB for quite a while, but after repeatedly being asked to define assault weapons, he suddenly retreated to the argument that DiFi's bill wasn't a good bill, but Slate had a good bill.
So, Matt, can we erase all of your earlier arguments, since you are conceding that the AWB idea makes no sense? Are you "moving on"?

Titus said...

All the so called vulnerable democrats are going to lose anyways. See ya Landeau, Pryor and any other Southern Democrats-there won't be any left, thank God.

Big Mike said...

I had been looking forward to seeing whether my two senators (Democrats Tim Kaine and Mark Warner from Virginia) were going to put their party above their constituents. Reid is taking them off the hook. Warner is up for reelection in 2014 and won last time by supporting gun rights.

Big Mike said...

No matter how many times people who understand and respect firearms try to explain reality to the "Matts" of the world, it just doesn't take, does it?

I don't own a magazine-fed semi-automatic firearm, but I respect the right of others to decide what sort of gun they would choose for home defense, or if they choose to own a gun at all. Would that Feinstein, Biden, Obama, and Matt did the same.

mikeyes said...

If you substituted voting rights for the right to bear arms and then listen to all the dog whistling on the left in this debate you'd think that the political views were reversed.

Very few prominent voices on the left appear to have any concept of the culture that owns and uses guns in this country. We are talking about at least 100 Million people by Brady center estimates and it is doubtful that they are all "paranoid fanatics" responsible for the deaths of children and who care nothing about violence. You can hear the whistle every time they use a term such as "thirty round clips" or demand things change when they are already law. Sen. Feinstein is especially nasty using this language revealing her obvious dislike for those who exercise a civil right.

This is a cultural war, just as real as the civil rights movement in which white southerners tried to keep blacks from voting and heaped contempt and worse on anyone who stood up for that right, a right that is not even mentioned in the constitution.

So when you hear or read opponents to gun ownership remember that they are not acting in a rational manner nor do they have any intention of allowing you to exercise your rights. Instead they will use rationalization, illogical argument and even force to keep you from those rights.

Revenant said...

Rev, #6 is actually just a bad idea no matter what.

I was just going over the constitutionality of the proposed changes. They're ALL bad ideas, but mere stupidity doesn't make a law inherently unconstitutional.

Revenant said...

what is difference between a clip and a magazine

Magazines feed the ammunition to the firearm, clips don't.

chrisnavin.com said...

The arc of history bends towards justice.

Unfortunately, it also bends towards large and intrusive government, unsustainable spending, political cronyism and favoritism, non-rational lawmaking, a divide and conquer activist strategy and a more divided electorate.

One day, a cream colored populace will live peacefully across the world, with a benevolent, world council human government run by scientists and our technocratic betters.

Get on board. Seriously. Now.

The Drill SGT said...

Rev and Tradguy,

I think my explanation is clearer:

Clips load magazines. magazines, whether fixed or detachable feed weapons. The M1 and SKS had a fixed magazine. Clips loaded the magazine.

M16's have detachable magazines. Clips of cartridges are loaded into magazines. then the mag is inserted into the weapon


Kirk Parker said...

I may be too much of a literalist for tradguy, really: what's the difference between a screw and a nail? They both fasten things. What's the difference between a headlight and a turn indicator? They both use light bulbs.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that with firearms we use different terms for different parts of the machinery? The same as in any other realm...

Swede said...

This ban thing is sounding better all the time.

Bruce Hayden said...

1. Restrict magazine capacity

Police need larger magazines, why doesn't everyone else? They, at least, typically have the opportunity to decide when to engage, while those using their guns in self-defense typically do not. And, what happens with multiple assailants, with ammunition that may not take down the assailants with one bullet (.22, .223, 9mm, etc.), and the reality that in a panic situation, misses are quite common (and, apparently maybe even more so with the police).

2. requiring tougher background checks

What more are you looking for, besides a criminal record, etc.? Or, are you just trying to make it that much more difficult to acquire a gun?

3. and longer waiting periods

See #2 above. With instant checks, this would seemingly be primarily just to inconvenience gun purchasers, with the possibility that they could face significant danger if they were attempting to purchase the weapon for self defense against a known threat (which is why and when I bought my shotgun).

4. raising taxes on gun and ammunition purchases

Maybe Constitutional. Depending on amount. But not if the level of taxation would make guns significantly harder to obtain, or the ammunition significantly more onerous to practice with (and, practice and training with firearms is a public good in itself, minimizing collateral damage if the guns are used).

5. devising better strategies to combat gun trafficking

Hello Fast and Furious.

This is an ATF problem, and a DoJ issue, where many known gun crimes are not prosecuted.

6. developing guns that can only be operated by their owners

Which may mean that they don't work when most needed. At a minimum, this would make another (significant) point of failure, which decreases the utility of guns for self-defense.

7. developing gun safes that can only be operated by their owners.

Ditto for #6 - imagine the scenario of trying to get into your gun safe, and being too flustered to get the combo right, or the mechanism just fails at a vulnerable time. Remember, when guns are needed for self-defense, time is of the essence (and the cops are most often no where close). This, along with #6, would most likely cause lost lives, with likely no real increase in safety. Certainly no statistically significant increase.

Big Mike said...

Destinee, from the "FateofDestinee" channel does a nice takedown of the gun grabbers in general and Joe Biden in particular.

Bob Ellison said...

If #6 were feasible, our car ignitions would already have it. And our locks. And our cell phones. And our credit cards.

Bruce Hayden said...

1. Restrict magazine capacity

Let me add to this my previous point, that this proposal is also fairly impractical. First, there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of standard capacity magazines that would be made illegal by the proposed bans on "high capacity" magazines (another Orwellian tag, since under their definition, "high capacity" magazines typically hold significantly fewer bullets than standard capacity magazines for most magazine fed semiautomatic weapons). This supply of low "high capacity" magazines isn't going to dry up anytime in the future, and even if it were legal, there would probably be significant takings problems if the government didn't buy up the now illegal magazines.

Compounding this though is the problem that it is fairly easy to extend magazines. For example, with some, you can remove the end, add an extension, put in a longer spring, and reassemble. Seen it done in a couple of minutes. Are they going to outlaw these parts too?

And, even if they could, it is possible to make a magazine in a lot of machine shops. Worse maybe, working magazines have been constructed using 3D printing technology. Only going to get worse.

Finally, how do they enforce this law, in the case of magazines in the home? Most likely, the police, etc. wouldn't have any reason to know, until the gun was used defensively, and, then this fits in fairly well with the adage that it is better to be tried by 12 (jurors) than carried by six (casket bearers).

That is, of course, if the police were to actually try to enforce the law with otherwise law abiding civilians. The Weld County (CO) sheriff yesterday announced that he, and his deputies, weren't going to enforce the new CO gun laws, and he apparently has the backing of maybe half the sheriffs in the state. Outside the big cities, cops tend to be fairly gun friendly, often coming from the same demographics that "gun nuts" come from.

Bruce Hayden said...

Reid is taking them off the hook.

He is also taking himself off the hook. Sure, he isn't up for reelection until 2016, but last time around, defused Sarah Palin and her bus tour by meeting with the NRA at a range in Las Vegas, while she was down at his hometown of Searchlight. Remember, he represents the state where you see advertisements at the airports for renting and shooting pretty much any machine gun out there, up to, and including the .50 Browning M2.

But, yes, he likes being Senate majority leader. He likes it a lot. His Senate career has allowed him and his family (of lawyers (4 sons and 1 son-in-law), often working as lobbyists) to become rich. Much of this was apparently done using his inside connections and power, and Majority Leader just makes this more lucrative.

EMD said...

And, yeah, tax gun owners big time. Then use the funds for liberal causes, #;^) Heh

Penalize law-abiding citizens!


Emil Blatz said...

Their collective tit is in the wringer this time!

Revenant said...

Police need larger magazines, why doesn't everyone else?

This is a particularly good question when you remember (which most people don't) that police aren't legally allowed to use lethal force in situations where non-police cannot.

For that matter, police are substantially more likely to shoot an innocent person than the average gun owner is. Logically we should be giving them less ammunition than civilians -- not more.

Paul said...

And the Dems in the senate know that even IF it passes the Senate the House will NOT PASS IT.

So, the liberal senators have to figure out if they want to commit suicide for a lost cause or not.

Blogger Matt....

Yea a ban of 'assault weapons' WOULD BE A THREAT TO FREEDOM. For it would limit the ways citizens could take back their country of the government goes rouge.

See the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting but about protecting the country from enemies, foreign or domestic.

Rusty said...

Matt said...
Yes, because a ban on assault weapons somehow threatens freedom. This is how stupid the NRA and gun advocates are. The sky is always falling with these paranoid clowns.

Let's get back to first principals.
Why was there a second amendment in the first place?

Revenant said...

And the Dems in the senate know that even IF it passes the Senate the House will NOT PASS IT.

I would really be surprised if Reid brought it up for a vote. Yeah, yeah, Feinstein might "consider it a betrayal", but who gives a rat's ass? Reid's been ignoring her pleas for a revived AWB for six years now.

David Davenport said...

(e.g. firing pistol cartridges)

Nope, the Storm Rifle [19]44 did not fire pistol catridges.

"Assault rifle" = English language translation of "Sturmgewehr," which is not the same as a Sturmgeschütz. That's the etymology of "assault rifle" ... Nazi fondness for Wagnerian turns of phrase.

To quote from the Wikipedia article to which your refer:

The rifle was chambered for the 7.92×33mm Kurz[3][6][7][8][9] cartridge. This shorter version of the German standard (7.92x57mm) rifle round, in combination with the weapon's selective-fire design, provided a compromise between the controllable firepower of a submachine gun at close quarters with the accuracy and power of a Karabiner 98k bolt action rifle at intermediate ranges.

Questions: is the M14 rifle an "assault rifle"? How about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine>M1 carbine? Or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine>M2 carbine?

Please explain why these weapons do or do not fit the definition of assault rifle.

David Davenport said...

Whoops, make that "you refer."

David Davenport said...

Also from wikipedia Inserting an en bloc clip on the M1 Garand ( a photo of a clip which is not a magazine):


A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used.
The term "clip" is also frequently used to refer to a detachable magazine, though such usage is controversial.[1][2][3] The defining difference between clips and magazines is the presence of a feed mechanism in a magazine, typically a spring-loaded follower, which a clip lacks.[2][4][5]

... Other rifles utilizing a frequently improved en-bloc clip include the German 1888 Commission Rifle, the French 1890 Berthier Cavalry Carbine and later models (upgraded to 5 rounds in 1916), the Italian M1870/87 Vetterli-Vitali and M91 Carcano, the various (Romanian, Dutch, Portuguese) turnbolt Mannlichers ...


So, is a an 1890 Berthier Cavalry Carbine an assault rifle?

I may be too much of a literalist for tradguy, really: what's the difference between a screw and a nail? They both fasten things. What's the difference between a headlight and a turn indicator? They both use light bulbs.

It's a two cultures thing. If you got to a hardware store or an auto parts parts and say stuff like that, and you're not a little old lady, they're going to snicker at you when you turn your back.

Bruce Hayden said...

Questions: is the M14 rifle an "assault rifle"? How about the M1 carbine? Or the M2 carbine?

M14 yes, M1 carbine no, and M2 carbine marginally yes. M14 is essentially a magazine fed select fire version of the M1 Garand, and, thus, is an assault rifle. The M1 carbine was semiautomatic, so doesn't qualify. The M2 carbine is the select fire version of the M1 carbine, and thus almost qualifies - the problem being that it really isn't a rifle, and fires a lighter cartridge. But, since the M16 probably qualifies as an assault rifle, the M2 carbine probably does for the same reasons.

Of course, the M14 and the M2 carbine are already heavily regulated with the 1934 NFA, and the M1 carbine is typically not covered by the various "assault weapons" bans due to its age (75 years or so). It was what my father, in the Signal Corp, carried during WWII.

David Davenport said...

I may be too much of a literalist for tradguy, really: what's the difference between a screw and a nail? They both fasten things. What's the difference between a headlight and a turn indicator? They both use light bulbs.

Suppose I was trying to argue that some paintings were different from and better than others. Suppose I said, "Impressionism? Expressionism? They're pretty much the same thing, aren't they? They both end in '-essionism.' They both use paint brushed on to canvas. What's the difference, really?"

traditionalguy said...

I understand Drill Sgt and Revenant when they say the magazines are fed by clips. My confusion comes from the M-1 Garand which has a magazine,as does the Sweedish Army stainless steel rifle. But Mausers used loose "stripper clips" that fed an internal magazine.

And all but the M-1 are bolt action reloads.

So does an M-1 also get the Assault Weapon Ban?

Youngblood said...

"Although if you say it takes away your freedom then I assume you own many such weapons. Because if you don't then why would you care if they said you can't now own a weapon that fires 20 rounds?"

If you say that the Patriot Act reduces your freedom, then I assume that you're a terrorist. Because if you weren't, then why would you care about enhanced surveillance procedures? What do you have to hide?

If you're for gay marriage, then you must be gay yourself, I assume that you're gay. Because if you weren't, why would you care about gays getting married.

Etc.

In other words, you're kind of a dope.

Paco Wové said...

"if you say it takes away your freedom then I assume you own many such weapons."

Particularly poor and disappointing performance by Matt in this thread. Sad.

Personally, I don't own a single firearm. but I am deeply opposed to this legislation. It is hysterical nonsense.

P.S. Every time I turn on NPR on the commute these days, they are banging on and on about the horrors of guns, making me ever happier that they no longer get contributions from me. Well, not willing contributions, anyway.

AllenS said...

assault weapons

Translation: "I'm an idiot."

The Drill SGT said...

The M-14, which I carried for a while in combat, was very definitely not normally a fully auto weapon. They had to be specially modified to fire full auto. In that role, with a bipod, they replaced the venerable BAR.

Yes, the M1 has a magazine, but it is fixed and hidden inside the rifle. In that regard, so is a 22 caliber rifle with a tubar magazine.

The popular meaning of magazine has devolved as a "removeable magazine"

Michael The Magnificent said...

Let's say that the lefty wet dream of lefty wet dreams comes to pass, that congress passes and the president signs legislation which transforms us into a parallel universe where guns were never invented.

Poof! Just like that, we're living in a gun-free universe.

The morning of December 14th, 2012, Adam Lanza wakes up. He's still mentally disturbed, and still plotting to go out in a blaze of glory to beat all previous blazes of glory.

He walks into his mother's room, and not finding a gun (because they don't exist), picks up her car keys. He drives himself to the nearest school yard and waits for recess, whereupon he runs down dozens of kids on the playground with his mother's car.

As far as I am aware, none of the legislation being put forth by Democrats has anything to do with mental illness, and everything to do with taking away guns from law abiding citizens. And for this, they should be ashamed.

Rusty said...

I don't think we'll be hearing from Matt again any time soon.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

They can't get weakened too soon.

Robin said...

Bruce, normally the definition of "assault rifle" includes that it fire an intermediate power cartridge. Which would take the M14 - even the select fire version - out of the definition as it fired a full power rifle cartridge.

Robin said...

As for Matt's silliness: "A good bill would, as noted in Slate: Restrict magazine capacity; requiring tougher background checks and longer waiting periods; raising taxes on gun and ammunition purchases; devising better strategies to combat gun trafficking; developing guns and gun safes that can only be operated by their owners."

None of which has ever been shown to have any affect on crime rates at all. And the best way to "combat" gun trafficking is to stop the government from doing it.

And there are already large taxes on guns and ammunition - for seven decades - put there at the instigation of sportsmen to fund wildlife restoration through the Pittman-Robertson Act.

Nothing so ignorant as a gun control advocate.

The Drill SGT said...

I'd be a lot more supportive about "universal background checks" if anything were done about those folks who fail them. Apparently there are maybe 70,000 failed checks in a year and only a handful result in a charge.

Up the follow-up on the checks, and I'd support expanding them. Absent that, it's more gun control theater...

Kirk Parker said...

Drill Sgt,

" They had to be specially modified to fire full auto. "

With all due respect, it's been too many years perhaps? The M-14 was select-fire (single shot / full auto) right from day one. There might have been some variants that were single/burst like the M-4, but I can't find any such listed. But no, no mods were required for full-auto fire. Perhaps the ones your unit carried were the modded ones?

And as far as the background check failures go: yes it's a serious problem that there are so few prosecutions, but I wouldn't expect to find anywhere near a 1:1 ratio. I don't think it's a crime to ask to buy a firearm if you're prohibited, it's only a crime to (1) lie on the form 4493, or (2) succeed in buying one and actually taking possession of it.

JAL said...

I take it that those above have 'splained reality to Matt.

Of the 11,000+ firearm homicides enumerated by the CDC in 2010 more than half were of black males.

Banning "assault weapons" (whatever that means at the moment)will not make a dent in those numbers.

Sometimes one gets the idea that lefites don't really care about certain people.

If this bill weren't introduced the Senators would not be in a difficult spot.

Senators shouldn't waste their time on stupid.

1charlie2 said...

Blogger traditionalguy said...

And there is a single shot bolt action like the Springfield 1903 and the Mausers.

Err, NOT single-shot. 03 Springfield was a bolt-action, 5-round repeating arm.

1charlie2 said...

traditionalguy said...

I may be too much a literalist for the gun club, but what is difference between a clip and a magazine.

To the cognoscenti, that is literally, a clip feeds the magazine, the magazine feeds the firearm

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripper_clip