The NRA on Dianne Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban

[mikeb302000]

NRA-ILA

On Jan. 24, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced S. 150, her long-anticipated bill to ban "assault weapons" and "large" magazines. Contrary to media claims that Feinstein wants to "reinstate" the 1994 ban, the bill will go much further toward her stated long-term goal of gun confiscation, imposing a host of absurdly broad definitions and onerous restrictions:

Ban the sale, transfer, manufacture or importation of 157 named firearms. Presumably, these were chosen by looking at pictures, as Sen. Feinstein has said she did before introducing her first legislation on the issue in 1993.

You know how you can tell when the NRA is lying? Well, lips moving isn't really gonna work here, but you know what I mean.

They use "gun confiscations" in the broadest possible sense to conjure up frightening images of jack-booted government officials going door-to-door. Of course Sen. Feinstein never said any such thing.

Thinking people know this, but the NRA minions don't think. They just repeat - and repeat.

The other lie is about choosing the weapons to be prohibited by "looking at pictures." The inference is that Diane Feinstein is a ditzy broad who knows nothing about guns and picked out the bad ones ONLY by their appearance. This is another oft-repeated lie. Do they really think there were no advisors of any kind? Do they really think that as a gun owner herself, the Senator didn't know just a little bit about guns?

Of course they know better, but like the wrong party in any argument, they need to resort to lies and tricky language to hold their own.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[holdencaufield]

1. "The inference is that Diane Feinstein is ... ditzy"

Well, if I had nothing else to go on other than the text of the AWB Bill she introduced then I might come to the same conclusion. Regardless of who wrote it , it's a ditzy bill.

(Although, I doubt Sen Feinstein had anything to do with the authorship of the bill and instead ran what was pre-prepared by the Brady Bunch as her work)

She's spent whatever political capital the anti-gunners had on a bill that will in no way prevent the type of tragedies she claims to want to prevent and, in any event, could never get through congress. So, I guess I should be thanking her.

[ManiacJoe]

2. The NRA link seems broken.

This one works: NRA
However at this link there is no talk of confiscations except for a quick mention of Feinstein's previous interviews.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. how much you wanna bet, if I linked to the NRA website, it would be alerted and hidden?

any takers out there?

[PuffedMica]

3. So you are a member of the NRA, eh Mikey?

[iiibbb]

5. I would like to disqualify Feinstein, Cuomo, LePaire, and Nugent from the debate altogether.

I don't like the idea of registration mostly because registration has only been used to abuse gun owners in the past. Two times after mass shootings local papers (Roanoke Times, and a White Planes, NY paper) obtained the registration records and published the names.

When has registration been used to stop a crime?

When law enforcement really needs to, they can trace a good part of the chain of custody through dealer records.


---

Feinstein has no credibility on guns. She may not be a ditz, but on this topic she's proven to have as tin of an ear as the NRA and her plodding on defining weapons based on appearance saps her credibility. The fact that after seeing her failed legislation in action, her answer is to try virtually the same approach may actually imply she's an idiot... or biased... and either of those things is a disqualifier to me.

Whatever she does know (as a gun owner herself) is marginal at best. She might know a lot but has demonstrated in her writing, and demonstrated in her public appearances

“Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that’s a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.”

that her knowledge hasn't been applied well (what kind of gun owner keeps their finger on the trigger while holding a weapon as in the picture? I don't think you guys realize what an incredible bumble that is to most gun owners). Then you read her legislation, see the holes. She might know a lot, but it doesn't come out when she rights legislation--- or maybe she does know enough that she can't write it without causing loopholes but then just falls into the "we have to do something" trap.

[ileus]

6. Do you support citizens owning firearms?

[Pullo]

7. Well, she has stated, if she had her way, she WOULD confiscate all "assault" weapons

On national television, no less.

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in"

The gun rights side of the debate has long memories.

[SHRED]

8. Yet she opposed the talking filibuster

So she is grandstanding.


---

[Clames]

9. It's obvious she mainly used pictures to plus up that list.

There is no other reasonable explanation as to why she named some of the listed weapons and discounted others from the same manufacturer that functioned exactly the same but didn't look scary enough. Another Mikey fail.

[krispos42]

10. Let's look at some pictures

But first, some facts:


The Mini-14 is a rifle manufactured by Sturm, Ruger & Co. of Southport, Connecticut.

All versions of this rifle are semi-automatic in operation and feed .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges from a detachable magazine of arbitrary capacity. Fun fact: the above statement also applies to the AR-15.




Under Feinstein's proposed legislation, one, and only one, of these Mini-14 rifles is banned from sale. Can you guess which one it is just by looking?

See below for answer.


A:




B:




C:




D:




E:




F:




G:





Highlight below for the answer:

[font color=#ffffff]The rifle pictured in "D" is the banned by model number (M-14/20CF) in Feinstein's proposed legislation[/font]