AWB takes a hit

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Tee hee!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/assault-weapon-ban-for-gun-control-loses-steam-89046.html?hp=l2

Assault weapons ban loses steam
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

The ban is supported by more than a dozen Senate Democrats and the White House, as well as gun-control groups.

(Also on POLITICO: Cruz: Feinstein exchange 'the problem' with D.C.)

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.

(CARTOONS: Matt Wuerker on gun control)

Reid’s decision highlights the tightrope walked by the majority leader in governing the gun control issue. Trapped between the White House and rank-and-file Democrats who support broad gun control legislation following the shootings last December in Newtown, Conn., Reid must also be mindful of red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 who favor gun rights.

And the decision to drop the assault weapons ban from the package illustrates the fact that any big changes to gun control legislation will still be challenging.

Aside from the ban, three other major pieces of gun legislation have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee: a gun trafficking bill, a Democrats-only background checks measure and a proposal to increase school safety.

(PHOTOS: 'Guns Across America' rallies)

Top Democratic aides said Reid — who is huddling this week with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — who will manage the gun bill on the floor — may file the Democratic gun bill as early as this week, as he prepares to bring the measure up for a vote in early April after a two-week congressional recess.

The contents of the Democratic gun package — as well as the amendments that will be allowed on the floor — are the subject of intense maneuvering on and off Capitol Hill.

There are two likely paths: Reid could advance a gun trafficking bill with a school safety provision; some form of background checks and the assault weapons ban would then be offered as amendments. In the other scenario, Reid might offer a background checks bill that includes the gun trafficking and school safety provisions, with assault weapons again offered as an amendment.

The Judiciary panel also approved a bipartisan gun trafficking bill backed by Leahy, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), among others, that dramatically boosts penalties for “straw purchases”of weapons, in which a person buys firearms on behalf of an individual barred by law from possessing them. Thanks to its support from Republicans, Reid and Leahy want to see this bill as a foundation for the Democratic gun package on the floor.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/assault-weapon-ban-for-gun-control-loses-steam-89046.html#ixzz2O000D0G6

**Dreadclaw69**

You mean that people object to their legal rights being taken away object, and these objections may even be listened to?

Now if only we had an outbreak of common sense over illegal immigrants.

**hotsauceman1**

So you assault wiener dogs are safe Frazzled?

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you assault wiener dogs are safe Frazzled?

Except from hawks.

**Alfndrate**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you assault wiener dogs are safe Frazzled?

Even if they weren't safe, you'd be hard pressed to take them from Frazz, especially since his assault weapons haven't been banned

**Frazzled**

Alfndrate wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So you assault wiener dogs are safe Frazzled?

Even if they weren't safe, you'd be hard pressed to take them from Frazz, especially since his assault weapons haven't been banned

Assault wienies. Keeping the world safe from squirrels and cats since 1357AD.

**Seaward**

While this is excellent news, I don't think anyone really thought it had much of a chance of getting through in the first place. Enough time hasn't passed for everyone to forget that it didn't work the first time.

What I'd really like to see go down now would be proposed mag cap restrictions.

**Ouze**

This is wholly expected. President Obama has shown absolutely no interest in expending political capital on firearm legislation at any point so far during his presidency, other then lip service. Nothing has changed in that regard - this is a country that is, on the whole, utterly comfortable with mass shootings, as evinced by unconvincing, designed-to-fail, half-ass legislation such as this proposed as a "solution" when it doesn't even really address the problem.

**MrMoustaffa**

Yeah mag caps are the big thing to worry about now. I've also heard there are proposals to ban bulk ammo purchases, but I need to look that up.

I guarantee you they'll say "Well we dropped the assault weapons ban, how about we just pass the mag cap limit instead? That's reasonable, right?"

I hope none of these proposed bans and limits make it through, because if they do, it'll be all the encouragement the Dem's need to start writing up more and more bills to try and enact more gun control. As much as I hate to say it, this really is something where we just can't compromise.

Granted, as long as we have guns, people will try and pass gun control laws, but if we can shoot down this one hopefully that'll give us some breathing room for awhile until the next idiot shoots up a school.

**Ouze**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
I guarantee you they'll say "Well we dropped the assault weapons ban, how about we just pass the mag cap limit instead? That's reasonable, right?"

Huh. It's funny you'd say this, because if the Democrats did do this, it would be a page straight from the GOP playbook of late. To whit:

1.) Say you want 5 apples
2.) The other party offers 3 apples. You say no
3.) The other party holds a vote to give you 5 apples. None of your members vote for it. The measure passes anyway.
4.) You hold a press conference declaring the other party is ruining the country because they didn't give you 7 apples.
5.) Repeat, forever.

**Palindrome**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You mean that people object to their legal rights being taken away object, and these objections may even be listened to?

Now if only we had an outbreak of common sense over illegal immigrants.

Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves.

**Frazzled**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Yeah mag caps are the big thing to worry about now. I've also heard there are proposals to ban bulk ammo purchases, but I need to look that up.

I guarantee you they'll say "Well we dropped the assault weapons ban, how about we just pass the mag cap limit instead? That's reasonable, right?"

I hope none of these proposed bans and limits make it through, because if they do, it'll be all the encouragement the Dem's need to start writing up more and more bills to try and enact more gun control. As much as I hate to say it, this really is something where we just can't compromise.

Granted, as long as we have guns, people will try and pass gun control laws, but if we can shoot down this one hopefully that'll give us some breathing room for awhile until the next idiot shoots up a school.

The mag cap ban was with the assault rifle ban.
Limitations on bulk ammo purchases are just stupid and have no relation to anything whatsoever. I don't see that going anywhere.

**KalashnikovMarine**

An excellent start, and Schumer's Universal Background Check bill isn't gaining any friends either, though there's rumors of a bipartisan effort to produce a similar background check bill that is less, shall we say crazy.

Meanwhile here in Colorado the Sheriffs in some areas are considering deputizing any county resident who can pass a background check to help continue thumbing the nose at Denver regarding our pending mag ban.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bulk ammo restrictions would just make life more difficult for high volume shooters like me. Buying my .45 or .30-06 by the case is cheaper and easier on everyone involved.

**Frazzled**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
An excellent start, and Schumer's Universal Background Check bill isn't gaining any friends either, though there's rumors of a bipartisan effort to produce a similar background check bill that is less, shall we say crazy.

Meanwhile here in Colorado the Sheriffs in some areas are considering deputizing any county resident who can pass a background check to help continue thumbing the nose at Denver regarding our pending mag ban.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bulk ammo restrictions would just make life more difficult for high volume shooters like me. Buying my .45 or .30-06 by the case is cheaper and easier on everyone involved.

Yep. Once Shumer including record keeping on background check there went the bill. He either wanted it dead or wants registration, and then still wanted it dead.

**Dreadclaw69**

Palindrome wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You mean that people object to their legal rights being taken away object, and these objections may even be listened to?

Now if only we had an outbreak of common sense over illegal immigrants.

Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves.

Not sure what you mean, could you please clarify?

**Palindrome**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Not sure what you mean, could you please clarify?

Provide me a list of sensible things that 60% of the population will fully support that don't involve basic human needs.

**Dreadclaw69**

I was looking to know what you meant in relation to that quote of mine.

**Frazzled**

Air
Water
Queso
Disco
Aretha Franklin
Pachabel
A Louisiana saturday night
crush your enemies
see them driven before you
hear the lamentation of the women

**Palindrome**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was looking to know what you meant in relation to that quote of mine.

I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.

**Frazzled**

Palindrome wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was looking to know what you meant in relation to that quote of mine.

I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.

Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand.
You don't have the same rights we do. Its not your fault. Its your food. Seriously, whats up with that?

**kronk**

Frazzled wrote:

A Louisiana Saturday night

Yeppers!

**KalashnikovMarine**

Well so was Dreadclaw at one point, but he got better!

**Palindrome**

Frazzled wrote:

Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand.

Scottish actually and we do have the same rights that you do, at least the ones that we actually think are useful anyway.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Palindrome wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I was looking to know what you meant in relation to that quote of mine.

I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.

Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about rights. the people protesting the limitation of those rights, and their elected representatives bowing to the will of their constituents... you know the way democracy is supposed to work.

**Frazzled**

Palindrome wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand.

Scottish actually and we do have the same rights that you do, at least the ones that we actually think are useful anyway.

You don't have the right to free speech (see regulation announced of your newspapers), defend yourself (firearms), the right to boogie, the right to party, the right to feign ignorance by speaking spanish, the right to Star Trek, the right to barbeque, pants if your Scottish, or the right to lead a ragtag fleet on lonely quest for a place called earth.

PLus we don't have VAT taxes.

**Dreadclaw69**

Palindrome wrote:
I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.

In relation to the illegal immigration part, the part about respecting legal rights and not sacrificing them for ill thought out legislation for political gain, or the fact that it relates to firearms?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well so was Dreadclaw at one point, but he got better!

I'm Irish (at least until I become a US citizen), its hard to get better than that

**Frazzled**

In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about rights. the people protesting the limitation of those rights, and their elected representatives bowing to the will of their constituents... you know the way democracy is supposed to work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

An excellent line from Braveheart

**KalashnikovMarine**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well so was Dreadclaw at one point, but he got better!

I'm Irish (at least until I become a US citizen), its hard to get better than that

Oh, pardon me then, I owe you a pint Dread, I didn't mean yo accidentally call you one of /them/ not sure how I got that mixed up XD

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

For a German to converse with his equal he is forced to fill out these forms in triplicate.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Oh, pardon me then, I owe you a pint Dread, I didn't mean yo accidentally call you one of /them/ not sure how I got that mixed up XD

These things happen

Heck, if the staff in the Embassy can confuse things then it can happen to anyone