• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Victory: Assault Weapons Ban Not to Be Included in Senate Gun Control Package

Melanie

Melanie

Active Member
Site Supporter
What does that mean.....does it allow lunatics to blast away school kids and other innocent citizens going about their daily business with the not unreasonable expectation of returning home. The USA is not in a state of war is it?? Just curious!
 
R

RLBosley

Active Member
Briony-Gloriana said:
What does that mean.....does it allow lunatics to blast away school kids and other innocent citizens going about their daily business with the not unreasonable expectation of returning home. The USA is not in a state of war is it?? Just curious!
Click to expand...
images
 
D

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Briony-Gloriana said:
What does that mean.....does it allow lunatics to blast away school kids and other innocent citizens going about their daily business with the not unreasonable expectation of returning home. The USA is not in a state of war is it?? Just curious!
Click to expand...

It means that the constitutional right of the American people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
 
D

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
BTW: This isn't a victory yet. Feinstein's bill could be added as an amendment to other legislation.
 
D

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
It is not a possibility. Reid said she could add it as an amendment just to appease here. But even she realizes that what it was. There are not the votes to support it. Which is why it was taken out.
Click to expand...

Correct; but say it gets added as an amendment to a bill that provides money for under-privileged kids, or benefits for veterans. That bill then becomes hotly argued because who wants to say no to the kids or vets? Then it becomes a question of whether the amendment can be stricken from the bill, or if the bill is presented in such a way that all amenents have to passed in order for the bill to pass. So it's not dead yet; merely waiting, like a rattler in the woodpile.
 
A

Arbo

Active Member
Site Supporter
Revmitchell said:
It is not a possibility. Reid said she could add it as an amendment just to appease here. But even she realizes that what it was. There are not the votes to support it. Which is why it was taken out.


Andrea Mitchell Scolds Fellow Reporters: "You Guys Let the Assault Weapons Ban Die!"

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffr...ters-you-guys-let-assault-weapo#ixzz2O7LQZPTk
Click to expand...

Do you really think this is the last we will hear of this? It will be back in some form eventually.
 
Melanie

Melanie

Active Member
Site Supporter
What is a troll? I don't live under a bridge and harass bridge crossers, though I suppose you could call Toll Bridge collectors that where the toll gates are not automated!!!:tongue3:
 
Walter

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Briony-Gloriana said:
What does that mean.....does it allow lunatics to blast away school kids and other innocent citizens going about their daily business with the not unreasonable expectation of returning home. The USA is not in a state of war is it?? Just curious!
Click to expand...

Oh, don't you step on my 'Constitutional rights' Melanie! TROLL!!!! :laugh:


And so, I will outfit my house with as many machine guns, hand guns, rocket launchers and grenades as I please!
 
D

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Walter said:
Oh, don't you step on my 'Constitutional rights' Melanie! TROLL!!!! :laugh:


And so, I will outfit my house with as many machine guns, hand guns, rocket launchers and grenades as I please!
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm is duly noted ... but for those that didn't get it, out fit the house with whatever you can *legally* obtain (which includes weapons bought with a government-issued FFL Class III license).
 
Walter

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Don said:
Your sarcasm is duly noted ... but for those that didn't get it, out fit the house with whatever you can *legally* obtain (which includes weapons bought with a government-issued FFL Class III license).
Click to expand...

Well, what should be legal is really the issue here, isn't it? I’m as much in favor of our right of gun ownership as much as anyone else, but there has to be a limit on what kind of guns we’re allowed to own. IMHO, autoloading firearms of the type evidently used by the shooter in Connecticut should be banned, to be sure.
 
D

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Walter said:
Well, what should be legal is really the issue here, isn't it? I’m as much in favor of our right of gun ownership as much as anyone else, but there has to be a limit on what kind of guns we’re allowed to own. IMHO, autoloading firearms of the type evidently used by the shooter in Connecticut should be banned, to be sure.
Click to expand...

As of January, it was confirmed by several different sources that an "assault rifle" was found in the shooter's vehicle; so no "assault rifle" was actually used in that situation. So, by "autoloading firearms", you mean semi-automatic pistols? Handguns are the weapon most used by criminals; are you suggesting we ban all handguns? Or only the semi-auto ones? (even though revolvers are popular and have been used in many crimes) Please clarify.

Weapons that can fire fully automatic are currently highly regulated in the U.S.; yet, California reported at least 3 full auto weapons used in crimes in 2009. Haven't found the statistics for the entire US for the last couple of years (yet). If highly regulating them hasn't stopped them from being used criminally, why do you think banning will?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top