Senate Dems intro new assault weapons ban bill

[Deleted]

thehill.com/homenews/senate/359381-senate-dems-introduce-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons-bump-stocks

“Roughly two dozen Democrats, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), introduced legislation on Wednesday that would ban assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and bump stocks, devices that can be used to make semi-automatic rifles fire faster.

"We're introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote," Feinstein said in a statement.”

[debatethis]

One of these days the dems will realize that attempting to regulate things by categories that don't exist and by brand name aren't exactly the brightest moves. :/

[isabel]

Nov 9, 2017 10:04:17 GMT -5 debatethis said:

One of these days the dems will realize that attempting to regulate things by categories that don't exist and by brand name aren't exactly the brightest moves. :/

Where are you getting that they are trying to regulate by brand name?

[debatethis]

Nov 9, 2017 10:12:08 GMT -5 isabel said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:04:17 GMT -5 debatethis said:

One of these days the dems will realize that attempting to regulate things by categories that don't exist and by brand name aren't exactly the brightest moves. :/

Where are you getting that they are trying to regulate by brand name?

www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=8B3E8400-766E-4B5E-B59B-C800BB52A973

Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to bill



The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.

The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Here's the full text. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiowfmU4rHXAhWqv1QKHVzHAEkQFghHMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.feinstein.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2F_cache%2Ffiles%2Ff%2Fd%2Ffdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d%2FE5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3N1HiPeKJeBNwnnYPB43VS
Starting on pg 4 or so they literally start listing the ones by brand name that would be banned. Which is virtually every hunting rifle and handgun in America. GL with that. 

[isabel]

Nov 9, 2017 10:19:42 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:12:08 GMT -5 isabel said:

Where are you getting that they are trying to regulate by brand name?

www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=8B3E8400-766E-4B5E-B59B-C800BB52A973

Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to bill



The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.

The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Here's the full text. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiowfmU4rHXAhWqv1QKHVzHAEkQFghHMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.feinstein.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2F_cache%2Ffiles%2Ff%2Fd%2Ffdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d%2FE5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3N1HiPeKJeBNwnnYPB43VS
Starting on pg 4 or so they literally start listing the ones by brand name that would be banned. Which is virtually every hunting rifle and handgun in America. GL with that. 

Can I ask a dumb gun question? When I think of 'assault rifle' I'm picturing an AR-15 style weapon. Is that what hunters use? And do handguns fall under the category of 'assault weapon'?

Truly, if that's the kind of gun a hunter would legitimately use to go deer hunting or whatever, I'm ok with that. I just want to see comprehensive background checks required with ALL gun sales (not just licensed dealers), registration of guns, penalties for selling a gun and not re-registering it/running a background check, and a ban on high capacity magazines and accessories like bump stocks. I'd love to melt down every damn gun in this country, but I know that isn't realistic, and the stuff I'm describing just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to enact (not in terms of procedure, but in terms of 2nd A impact).

[TR]

Nov 9, 2017 10:26:19 GMT -5 isabel said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:19:42 GMT -5 debatethis said:

www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=8B3E8400-766E-4B5E-B59B-C800BB52A973

Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to bill



The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.

The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Here's the full text. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiowfmU4rHXAhWqv1QKHVzHAEkQFghHMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.feinstein.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2F_cache%2Ffiles%2Ff%2Fd%2Ffdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d%2FE5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3N1HiPeKJeBNwnnYPB43VS
Starting on pg 4 or so they literally start listing the ones by brand name that would be banned. Which is virtually every hunting rifle and handgun in America. GL with that. 

Can I ask a dumb gun question? When I think of 'assault rifle' I'm picturing an AR-15 style weapon. Is that what hunters use? And do handguns fall under the category of 'assault weapon'?

Truly, if that's the kind of gun a hunter would legitimately use to go deer hunting or whatever, I'm ok with that. I just want to see comprehensive background checks required with ALL gun sales (not just licensed dealers), registration of guns, penalties for selling a gun and not re-registering it/running a background check, and a ban on high capacity magazines and accessories like bump stocks. I'd love to melt down every damn gun in this country, but I know that isn't realistic, and the stuff I'm describing just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to enact (not in terms of procedure, but in terms of 2nd A impact).

I think one issue is that there is no real definition of “assault weapons”, so to say they’re banning those is unrealistic.

[audette]

Nov 9, 2017 10:26:19 GMT -5 isabel said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:19:42 GMT -5 debatethis said:

www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=8B3E8400-766E-4B5E-B59B-C800BB52A973

Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Exemptions to bill



The bill exempts by name more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.

The bill includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment.

Here's the full text. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiowfmU4rHXAhWqv1QKHVzHAEkQFghHMAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.feinstein.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2F_cache%2Ffiles%2Ff%2Fd%2Ffdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d%2FE5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3N1HiPeKJeBNwnnYPB43VS
Starting on pg 4 or so they literally start listing the ones by brand name that would be banned. Which is virtually every hunting rifle and handgun in America. GL with that. 

Can I ask a dumb gun question? When I think of 'assault rifle' I'm picturing an AR-15 style weapon. Is that what hunters use? And do handguns fall under the category of 'assault weapon'?

Truly, if that's the kind of gun a hunter would legitimately use to go deer hunting or whatever, I'm ok with that. I just want to see comprehensive background checks required with ALL gun sales (not just licensed dealers), registration of guns, penalties for selling a gun and not re-registering it/running a background check, and a ban on high capacity magazines and accessories like bump stocks. I'd love to melt down every damn gun in this country, but I know that isn't realistic, and the stuff I'm describing just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to enact (not in terms of procedure, but in terms of 2nd A impact).

My understanding is that "military style assault rifle" has no real definition.  There are types and categories of weapons that are already commonly used, understood, and defined, and for whatever reason, many of the bills that have been introduced (and failed) tend to use a name like "assault rifle", which is so vague as to mean anything or nothing.

[isabel]

TR, audette, Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

[y4m]

"Assault Weapons" are not a clear category. That's why you see bills that have to list them all out and why you see descriptions like "military-style."

To use California as an example, here's what it takes to define an "assault weapon" in that code. See how many of these things are not functions of the gun that enable it to be more deadly, but rather elements of how the gun looks? (e.g. "a conspicuously protruding pistol grip" or "Telescoping stocks")

In addition to a list of specific firearms that are banned by name, the following firearms are banned by characteristic (from Penal Code §30515(a), formerly §12276.1):

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

[ESF]

Yeah. The assault weapon ban is not my hill to die on, but I'd really much rather see them put energy into repealing the PLCAA on the federal level, then working at the state level to strengthen state tort laws and to get the insurance industry on this. If people could lose their homes and life savings because they were negligent in storing their guns and kept high grade weaponry on hand that was then stolen and used to commit violent crimes, perhaps they'd think twice about getting them. And if gun shops could be held liable for negligent and reckless sales, it would make it cost effective to implement systems to fix this.

Did you know that the cost of guns has gone way down since the 70s? Adjusted for today's dollars, some of these guns would have cost thousands of dollars thirty or forty years ago, and now cost hundreds. You change the liability exposure for the gun manufacturers and sellers, and we'll see a readjustment real quickly.

Free market solutions right there. Get on it Dems.

[audette]

Nov 9, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

TR , audette , Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

I have no clue, but man, does it make the folks putting the bills forward look like idiots.  You want to shut down a pro-gun person fast?  Use the term "assault weapon".  They immediately think you are a left-wing anti-gun nutter.  It's a term to avoid if you actually want to talk about reasonable gun laws.

However, it's a term that probably _sounds_ great to folks like me that know next to nothing about guns.  Good sound bites for the base and all...

[debatethis]

Nov 9, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

TR , audette , Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

GunSense, Moms Demand Action and Giffords all have reasonable, intelligent policy solutions. 

But yeah, trying to "ban" all AR-15 type rifles in the US (while still allowing people to own them, and still allowing "hunting rifles") is ridiculous. AR's are the most popular hunting rifles in the US. Also, it is virtually impossible to find firearms (hand gun OR long gun) that aren't semi-auto. Many hunters don't like hunting with bolt-action/single shot type firearms because it increases the odds that you hit and injure an animal and it gives it the time to run away before you can get another shot in. There are many many other reasons why, but suffice it to say that this bill was clearly written by somebody who doesn't give a good goddamn about creating a workable policy and only wants to do it for political posturing. 

[cattledogkisses]

While there isn't a clear definition for what constitutes an "assault rife," it seems like defining high capacity magazines and bump stocks should be more straightforward, right?

Unfortunately I think talking about assault rifles without a clear definition or understanding of what that means will make people dismiss the whole thing, when there could be some progress made with regards to the latter two items.

[audette]

Nov 9, 2017 10:46:43 GMT -5 ESF said:

Yeah. The assault weapon ban is not my hill to die on, but I'd really much rather see them put energy into repealing the PLCAA on the federal level, then working at the state level to strengthen state tort laws and to get the insurance industry on this. If people could lose their homes and life savings because they were negligent in storing their guns and kept high grade weaponry on hand that was then stolen and used to commit violent crimes, perhaps they'd think twice about getting them. And if gun shops could be held liable for negligent and reckless sales, it would make it cost effective to implement systems to fix this.

Did you know that the cost of guns has gone way down since the 70s? Adjusted for today's dollars, some of these guns would have cost thousands of dollars thirty or forty years ago, and now cost hundreds. You change the liability exposure for the gun manufacturers and sellers, and we'll see a readjustment real quickly.

Free market solutions right there. Get on it Dems.

I have heard that foreign-made guns are _much_ cheaper than American made guns.  I have no evidence or research to back that up, but it wouldn't surprise me.  I wonder if that is part of what has driven down the cost of guns?

Would it be worthwhile to consider some form of law against the importing or selling of foreign-made guns?  It seems to me that many of the folks that are pro-gun are also folks who support the whole Buy American movement...

[isabel]

Nov 9, 2017 10:50:13 GMT -5 audette said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:46:43 GMT -5 ESF said:

Yeah. The assault weapon ban is not my hill to die on, but I'd really much rather see them put energy into repealing the PLCAA on the federal level, then working at the state level to strengthen state tort laws and to get the insurance industry on this. If people could lose their homes and life savings because they were negligent in storing their guns and kept high grade weaponry on hand that was then stolen and used to commit violent crimes, perhaps they'd think twice about getting them. And if gun shops could be held liable for negligent and reckless sales, it would make it cost effective to implement systems to fix this.

Did you know that the cost of guns has gone way down since the 70s? Adjusted for today's dollars, some of these guns would have cost thousands of dollars thirty or forty years ago, and now cost hundreds. You change the liability exposure for the gun manufacturers and sellers, and we'll see a readjustment real quickly.

Free market solutions right there. Get on it Dems.

It seems to me that many of the folks that are pro-gun are also folks who support the whole Buy American movement...

Sure they are. Until they have to pay twice as much for their guns. Then it will be all “2nd amendment! You can’t keep me from having a gun I️ can afford!”

[rjamz]

Nov 9, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

TR, audette, Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

I was just thinking this. Because as someone who isn’t exposed to guns, I assume that hunting rifles shoot one shot or something. I had no idea that someone would use an AR to hunt. And I have no problem with properly licensed and registered hunting weapons.

And can a handgun be semi-auto?

I’m guessing Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have extensive knowledge about guns either

[debatethis]

Nov 9, 2017 10:49:45 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

While there isn't a clear definition for what constitutes an "assault rife," it seems like defining high capacity magazines and bump stocks should be more straightforward, right?

Unfortunately I think talking about assault rifles without a clear definition or understanding of what that means will make people dismiss the whole thing, when there could be some progress made with regards to the latter two items.

Bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a red herring. Bump stocks are a $40 toy that slows down the effectiveness and accuracy of the shots. Yeah, they should be banned because they are dangerous to both the shooter and anyone around them - they heat up the barrels of the firearms too much and can cause serious injury. But gun nuts think its hilarious to buy one and use it a couple times and realize that all it does is waste a ton of expensive ammo really quickly and w/o any accuracy. They're only available now because of a loophole in how ATF can regulate accessories. But they're not exactly used with any regularity for any purpose other than people wasting bullets. 


I keep going back to the statistics. Stuff like requiring firearm safety courses, gun safes/trigger locks and liability insurance save lives. Closing the background check and boyfriend loopholes. Seizing firearms upon arrest for DV-related charges (instead of waiting til conviction). Repealing the law that limits the liability of gun manufacturers and dealers. Banning interstate and internet sales of any firearms AND any parts of firearms. Buyback programs. Increasing the number of employees at ATF. Cutting off states who refuse to comply with NICS (there are over a dozen, per NPR last night, who've never submitted a single thing to NICS). Making "accidental" discharge of firearms by minors a felony for the owner of the gun, etc. 

THESE are the ways we curtail gun violence.

[debatethis]

Nov 9, 2017 11:04:31 GMT -5 rjamz said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

TR , audette , Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

I was just thinking this. Because as someone who isn’t exposed to guns, I assume that hunting rifles shoot one shot or something. I had no idea that someone would use an AR to hunt. And I have no problem with properly licensed and registered hunting weapons.

And can a handgun be semi-auto?

I’m guessing Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have extensive knowledge about guns either

To the bolded - you'd be hard pressed to find a handgun that's NOT semi auto. Effectively, they all are. 

[isabel]

Nov 9, 2017 11:04:31 GMT -5 rjamz said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

TR , audette , Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

I was just thinking this. Because as someone who isn’t exposed to guns, I assume that hunting rifles shoot one shot or something. I had no idea that someone would use an AR to hunt. And I have no problem with properly licensed and registered hunting weapons.

And can a handgun be semi-auto?

I’m guessing Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have extensive knowledge about guns either

Almost all guns today are semi-automatic, including hand guns. I also did not realize that one would hunt with an AR-15 style gun.

[debatethis]

Oh yeah and one more thing. City of Chicago has had four freight trains robbed while they were sitting in freight yards over the last 2-3 years. Those robberies resulted in literally hundreds of untraceable guns on the streets because several of the cars were full of shipments of new firearms going to dealers. WHY IS THIS ALLOWED? Brinks trucks and other money delivery services are armored and carry armed guards. Freight trains full of unattended firearms get...rentacops? Manufacturers and shippers should be required to ship those firearms securely, with police escort or trained guards.

[isabel]

Nov 9, 2017 11:05:42 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:49:45 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

While there isn't a clear definition for what constitutes an "assault rife," it seems like defining high capacity magazines and bump stocks should be more straightforward, right?

Unfortunately I think talking about assault rifles without a clear definition or understanding of what that means will make people dismiss the whole thing, when there could be some progress made with regards to the latter two items.

Bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a red herring. Bump stocks are a $40 toy that slows down the effectiveness and accuracy of the shots. Yeah, they should be banned because they are dangerous to both the shooter and anyone around them - they heat up the barrels of the firearms too much and can cause serious injury. But gun nuts think its hilarious to buy one and use it a couple times and realize that all it does is waste a ton of expensive ammo really quickly and w/o any accuracy. They're only available now because of a loophole in how ATF can regulate accessories. But they're not exactly used with any regularity for any purpose other than people wasting bullets. 


I keep going back to the statistics. Stuff like requiring firearm safety courses, gun safes/trigger locks and liability insurance save lives. Closing the background check and boyfriend loopholes. Seizing firearms upon arrest for DV-related charges (instead of waiting til conviction). Repealing the law that limits the liability of gun manufacturers and dealers. Banning interstate and internet sales of any firearms AND any parts of firearms. Buyback programs. Increasing the number of employees at ATF. Cutting off states who refuse to comply with NICS (there are over a dozen, per NPR last night, who've never submitted a single thing to NICS). Making "accidental" discharge of firearms by minors a felony for the owner of the gun, etc. 

THESE are the ways we curtail gun violence.

I am internally cheering for this. How do we get democrats to focus on these things?

The NICS stuff is horrifying. I was listening to that story last night.

[isabel]

I won't make you click, but this was one of the first results when I was doing a search. It's a conservative news site with an article titled:

Sen. Feinstein's New Assault Weapons Ban Proposal Is the Perfect, Pointless Response for the 'Do Something' Crowd

reason.com/blog/2017/11/08/sen-feinsteins-new-assault-weapons-ban-p

So, yeah. Clearly, this party has some work to do with regard to finding the right course of action toward preventing gun deaths. It's clear that banning guns (in general) is not the way to go.

[audette]

Nov 9, 2017 11:04:31 GMT -5 rjamz said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:35:38 GMT -5 isabel said:

TR , audette , Well, that's just fucking stupid. Why are they introducing bills like that? Dems need a (non-NRA) gun expert to consult on their ideas for gun control, clearly.

I was just thinking this. Because as someone who isn’t exposed to guns, I assume that hunting rifles shoot one shot or something. I had no idea that someone would use an AR to hunt. And I have no problem with properly licensed and registered hunting weapons.

And can a handgun be semi-auto?

I’m guessing Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have extensive knowledge about guns either

This is the part that kills me.  Even if she doesn't know much about guns herself - she has a staff!  She (and other lawmakers) have the ability to consult with experts who _can_ get the definitions right, and craft a bill about guns.  Heck, debatethis has some great ideas that bear investigation. 

But, so often it seems that the option of bringing in experts is ignored.  And it's frustrating.  I don't know if it's just to make noise and pretend something is being done, but it sure feels like they're throwing something together without really thinking about it because they want something on record that will sound spiffy to folks that don't know much about guns, but that in reality has zero chance of becoming law.  It almost makes them complicit in avoiding actual, real, maybe legislate-able gun safety issues.

[Deleted]

Yes, there are SO many strides we could make that don’t even involving banning guns. They may even get bipartisanship support on it. Feinstein even admits bills like this are just for show so they can say they tried.

I think I’m going to be contacting Chris Murphy to ask about some of the suggestions brought up in this thread.

[waverly]

Ok so I do actually think that gun experts should be involved in these kinds of bills for vocabulary sake and those in and outs of details. I don't actually think assault weapon is terrible vocabulary, but it does need to be better defined. Semi- automatic is not good vocabulary. And Republicans and gun owners seem to prefer High Capacity ...

However, I do hate this argument on the other hand because NRA funded republicans say oh you just don't know anything about guns and you need to learn yada yada yada. Not terrible points. However, I did learn about guns and nothing changed. So to their argument it has become more of messaging/ blocking point rhetoric as opposed to a let's work together to make this a good bill type thing.

So anyway in conclusion, I guess the Dems can introduce whatever they want but with the NRA contributing large amounts to Republicans and their influence, and no Democrat control federally, I just don't see it going anywhere. I mean I guess states could do something. It's a sad world that we live in.

Maybe we should spend millions on social media bots promoting gun control, and we also need a far more powerful gun control lobby that needs to start I guess giving money to Republicans... and say hey we'll give you more than the NRA. I don't know.

I would like to see a bill about the finances in Washington type thing. That elected officials cannot take money from lobbyists whether campaigning or in office. That will never happen from either side though right? Because no one wants to lose their money.

I am so tired of the politicking and would like to see congress work together for the good of the people/ country.  No one seems to care about that anymore. 

[fumbalina]

I would like to see a ban on sale of tactical body armor. While we have all the second amendment defenders, who clearly have never read it, armor is not a firearm. I'm sure there would be a huge backlash anyway but it's a first step. Lack of body armor might increase people who actually take a stand as well. It is a lot easier to stop someone wearing civilian clothes.

[debatethis]

Nov 9, 2017 11:49:10 GMT -5 fumbalina said:

I would like to see a ban on sale of tactical body armor. While we have all the second amendment defenders, who clearly have never read it, armor is not a firearm. I'm sure there would be a huge backlash anyway but it's a first step. Lack of body armor might increase people who actually take a stand as well. It is a lot easier to stop someone wearing civilian clothes.

Various police groups have supported this as well.


And speaking of police, it's high time we get them on "our" side re: common sense gun legislation. FOP-type groups quietly whisper in support of universal background checks and the ability to seize firearms upon DV arrests for their own safety as well, but they need to get loud. Police die because of unsecured firearms and dangerous firearm owners, too. 

[isabel]

Nov 9, 2017 11:38:49 GMT -5 waverly said:

we also need a far more powerful gun control lobby that needs to start I guess giving money to Republicans... and say hey we'll give you more than the NRA. I don't know.

I actually suggested this in a conversation with DH the other day. What would happen if Moms Against Guns, Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. came together and pledge to provide more financial support than the NRA for a given candidate? I don't even know that that's possible, but I wonder if it would change the conversation considering that the majority of Americans support some form of gun control.

[waverly]

isabel, I wouldn't want to get into a bidding war of buying candidates, but on the other hand what we are doing isn't working and people are dying because of it. I don't know when the means justify the ends, but I am not a politician, and I am very risk avoidant. I would prefer to get the lobbyist money out of Washington, but that's likely not happening.

[rjamz]

Nov 9, 2017 11:05:42 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Nov 9, 2017 10:49:45 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

While there isn't a clear definition for what constitutes an "assault rife," it seems like defining high capacity magazines and bump stocks should be more straightforward, right?

Unfortunately I think talking about assault rifles without a clear definition or understanding of what that means will make people dismiss the whole thing, when there could be some progress made with regards to the latter two items.

Bump stocks and high capacity magazines are a red herring. Bump stocks are a $40 toy that slows down the effectiveness and accuracy of the shots. Yeah, they should be banned because they are dangerous to both the shooter and anyone around them - they heat up the barrels of the firearms too much and can cause serious injury. But gun nuts think its hilarious to buy one and use it a couple times and realize that all it does is waste a ton of expensive ammo really quickly and w/o any accuracy. They're only available now because of a loophole in how ATF can regulate accessories. But they're not exactly used with any regularity for any purpose other than people wasting bullets. 


I keep going back to the statistics. Stuff like requiring firearm safety courses, gun safes/trigger locks and liability insurance save lives. Closing the background check and boyfriend loopholes. Seizing firearms upon arrest for DV-related charges (instead of waiting til conviction). Repealing the law that limits the liability of gun manufacturers and dealers. Banning interstate and internet sales of any firearms AND any parts of firearms. Buyback programs. Increasing the number of employees at ATF. Cutting off states who refuse to comply with NICS (there are over a dozen, per NPR last night, who've never submitted a single thing to NICS). Making "accidental" discharge of firearms by minors a felony for the owner of the gun, etc. 

THESE are the ways we curtail gun violence.

Yes! Let’s do this. All of this.

Interstate gun sales especially piss me off, living in Chicago. A friend of mine was visiting from nyc and we were discussing the gun violence here and how it’s very difficult to actually buy a gun in Chicago, but we could actually hop in the car right now, drive an hour to Indiana, plop down some money and I suppose our IDs, and come home with a gun. Like we COULD GO DO THAT. Be home with a gun in under 4 hours. It blew her fucking mind, being in NYC, since you can’t exactly hop in your car and go to NJ or CT and stroll into Walmart and walk out with a gun.