Feinstein's New 'Assault Weapon' Ban: Read It and Sleep

The full text of the new, supposedly improved "assault weapon" ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein last week is now available for your perusal. The 122-page bill consists mostly of Appendix A, which takes up 95 pages and lists 2,258 "Firearms Exempted by the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." As I said on Friday, this list is redundant at best, since any gun that is not specifically named as an "assault weapon" and does not meet the more general definitions is not supposed to be covered by the law, whether or not it is explicitly "exempted." It seems the main point of Appendix A is to impress us with Feinstein's lenience. Look, she specifically allows 14 times as many gun models as she specifically prohibits!

As for the list of 157 guns that are banned by name, it is much longer than the list in the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 (which Feinstein also sponsored), and its terms are broader. While the expired ban covered "copies or duplicates" of the 18 named firearms, the new one covers "copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles"—language that seems designed to keep lawyers busy. The references to "variants" and "altered facsimiles" suggest that a gun can be deemed an "assault weapon" even if it is not listed and does not have any  forbidden "military-style characteristics." Maybe that's one reason Feinstein tries to reassure gun owners with her lengthy list of exempted firearms. 

A story in Friday's New York Times claims Feinstein's bill would "ban certain characteristics of guns that make them more lethal." By describing the bill that way, reporter Jennifer Steinhauer endorses Feinstein's fraudulent premise that "assault weapons" are especially suited to mass murder or other kinds of gun crime. Here are the characteristics that, according to Feinstein, turn a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine into an "assault weapon": a pistol grip or forward grip, a grenade launcher or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel, or a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock. How exactly do these features—a threaded barrel, say, or a grenade launcher without (already banned) grenades—make a gun "more lethal"? They don't, which is why opponents of "assault weapon" bans object to such arbitrary, appearance-based distinctions. Some people at the Timesnotably, criminal justice reporter Erica Goode—understand this point. If Steinhauer had read and digested Goode's January 17 front-page story about the contentiousness of the very term assault weapon, she could have avoided the error (assuming that's what it was) of taking sides in an ostensibly evenhanded news story about Feinstein's bill.

New York Times reporters Thomas Kaplan and Danny Hakim made a similar mistake in a January 15 story about New York's new, stricter "assault weapon" ban, saying it would "bar semiautomatic weapons that have a single additional feature to increase their deadliness." Notably, that claim was excised from the online version of the story, which I took to be a sign that at least one editor at the Times recognizes the tendentiousness of such seemingly neutral descriptions. Maybe if there had been a correction at the bottom of the story acknowledging the change Steinhauer would not have repeated Kaplan and Hakim's error.

Steinhauer also claims Feinstein's bill includes "more explicit language on the types of features on banned weapons" than the old ban did. That's not true either. Feinstein fiddled with the list of suspect features (dropping bayonet mounts, for example), and she decided that one, rather than two, was enough to qualify a gun as an "assault weapon." The latter change made the ban broader, but it did not make it more "explicit," let alone "make it far more respectful of firearms for recreation uses," as a former Feinstein aide quoted by Steinhauer asserts. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    we have to pass it to know what's in it?

  • 34lbs||

  • juris imprudent||

    language that seems designed to keep lawyers busy.

    You say that like you think it is a bug.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's better than that. It won't just keep lawyers busy.

    The ambiguity allows arbitrary discretion by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. They get to decide when someone is a criminal.

    These kinds of laws are about arbitrary harassment and terrorism against gun manufacturers and owners.

  • Jordan||

    Feinstein is the type who would rather see a kid get mauled to death by pit bulls than see a civilian shoot the dogs to save the kid. I'm sure she agrees with the bullshit charges being levied against the guy in DC who did just that.

  • ||

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    he also called it "hunting"

  • 34lbs||

    Watchu talkin' about, 'course he hunts, what do you think drone strikes are?

  • Libertarius||

    Obozo probably smokes blunts while playing "Call for Social Justice 2", he thinks its a video game but it's actually the controls for a drone lol

  • TheZeitgeist||

    @libertarius

    +1.

    But sadly, there's no way somebody that anal and boring has smoked a blunt in the past decade - the fool plays his video-drone-game sober.

  • John||

    When does he ever go there? I don't recall him going there. And who are these people he shoots with?

    Pictures or it didn't happen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yeah, come to think of it, I've never heard of him going to Camp David. He seems to prefer Hawaii or the Riviera for vacay. He's a cultured cosmopolitan man of the world, you can't expect him to holiday at a glorified Boy Scout camp.

  • Slammer||

    The only thing that liar shoots is hoops

  • John||

    And not even those very well.

  • Mike M.||

    And his mouth.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I don't trust a guy who can't muster up enough kinetic energy to get a baseball over home plate from the mound to have anything that could be confused with good aim.

  • the origin of the feces||

    "Skeet shooting" is his code for jerking Larry Sinclair's "shotgun" off into his face.

  • iggy||

    Progressives like to talk about how they want to defend minority rights. Yet the last line of defense for minority rights is firearm rights. If a majority group wants to take the rights from a minority group and that minority group is armed, it's awfully hard to do. What progressives really want is a government monopoly on the protection of minority rights, an idea which only works so long as you assume that the government will never be the one trying to take those rights away.

    Given the existence of Stalinism, Nazism, the Khmer Rouge, Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the War on Drugs, Darfur and millions of other examples I could name, this assumption is clearly wrong. This is exhibit 4,000,000 as to why progressives are stupid.

  • ||

    Given the existence of Stalinism, Nazism, the Khmer Rouge, Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the War on Drugs, Darfur and millions of other examples I could name, this assumption is clearly wrong.

    Remember, we're the crazy ones for refusing to believe that none of those things could ever happen again in this country.

    But what really gets to me is the condescending attitude they have about it. They'll be like "Oh, you think you and your puny AR can take out the US military?"

    These fuckers welcome and embrace the fact that the government has a standing army that could subjugate its citizens if it wanted to. I think at its heart it goes back to their entrenched belief that we owe our allegiance to the state because the state has been so gracious as to grant us some measure of liberty.

  • iggy||

    That whole 'oh, you think you and your puny AR can take out the US military?' argument is also a total misreading of history. Most fascist and communist groups start out as armed thugs who gain power through coercion and threats of violence. That happened with the Nazis, the Bolsheviks and it's happening in Greece with the Golden Dawn.

    Even if we couldn't fight the US military after a regime consolidated power, I'd love to see a group of Golden Dawn style thugs try and gain power in America. In Greece they've had no problem because their thuggery and immigrant bashing hasn't met with meaningful resistance. In America, emergency rooms would be filled with Golden Dawn members the moment they tried any of that.

  • ||

    Yeah libs/progs are clueless as to what's happening in Greece.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Most fascist and communist groups start out as armed thugs who gain power through coercion and threats of violence.

    OT but if that kind of thing happens in this country it will be organized by a political campaign that continues operating past the election and be funded through pacs.

  • Ted S.||

    You mean like the Obama campaign?

  • Jim Tom||

    I don't think the majority of the troops in that standing army are going to fight too hard for the very politicians that constantly denigrate it. They would also be fighting against they're very own mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and against the constitution they've sworn to defend.

  • geekster||

    "But what really gets to me is the condescending attitude they have about it. They'll be like 'Oh, you think you and your puny AR can take out the US military?'"

    It's not condescension. It's the genuine belief that those stupid mouth breathers in the military are mindless automatons, remorseless killing machines under the control of 'the good people' - in government. Hippies genuinely believe that a) the state will never turn on them - now that team Red is in office - and b) not having a personal weapon is fine cuz they've got an army of hired killers on deck to smackdown the hillbillies if they get out of line.

  • Cowboy||

    Well, don't get me wrong, I don't intend to play the devil's advocate too well here. Didn't the Whiskey Rebellion do exactly that? A bunch of "hillbilly" farmers and vets were pissed about new laws, and the militia was more than happy to get them to back down?

    I really have to wonder how many of our current soldiers, vets and cops would really balk at the chance to shoot at hillbilly insurgents.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, the recruitment of milita from other areas to put down the WR was somewhat difficult. The rebellion in W-Pa pretty much dispersed of its own will once the "army" neared their area.

    Of course, you don't need that many soldiers to crush a rebellion with modern tech.

  • ||

    Yeah. Look at that crushed rebellion in Afganistan.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If we weren't concerned with making everyone play nice we would have crushed it already.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Like the USSR did?

  • Redmanfms||

    Of course, you don't need that many soldiers to crush a rebellion with modern tech.

    Jesus Tulpa, didn't I correct you on this issue just a couple days ago?

    Stop fucking commenting on shit you clearly know FUCK ALL about.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    But that's Tulpa's MO.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Given the existence of Stalinism, Nazism, the Khmer Rouge, Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the War on Drugs, Darfur ...

    Remember, we're the crazy ones for refusing to believe that none of those things could ever happen again in this country.

    Three of those things did happen in this country.

  • Zeb||

    "happen again"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Just reiterating that it's not fantasy to think that it could happen here.

    It did, and we should remember that it did.

  • Zeb||

    "Remember, we're the crazy ones for refusing to believe that none of those things could ever happen again in this country."

    And these same fuckers who call us crazy for that would have us believe that we are inches from some terrible tyranny if we don't all line up and vote for their guy for president. There really isn't even any attempt at consistency.

  • General Butt Naked||

    They'll also call for confiscation of guns and murder of gun owners, but while drawing the same breath, will muster all the irony of their convictions to call gun owners paranoid for their fears.

  • 34lbs||

    Don't expect this argument to ever be used in mainstream political discourse though, because the Reactionary Conservative Retard Fucks who run the NRA and "represent" gun rights would be the last ones to make an argument that involves minorities' right to self defense, even if it helps their own case.

  • iggy||

    ^This is why the Republicans are the stupid party. I've actually convinced liberal friends of mine that government subsidized birth control programs are bad because all you've really done is replaced the 'patriarchy' of husbands and fathers that feminists were supposedly fighting against with the patriarchy of the government.

    You need to tailor your arguments to the people you're trying to convince, and the Republicans are too stupid to know how to do that.

  • 34lbs||

    Problem is, this doesn't involve any tailoring, this is a completely legitimate argument in both a historical context and a practical one. I'm sure all they all remember the violent Rodney King riots, and how "all dem violent niggas threatened peaceful white business owners", but completely overlook the fact that Korean Business owners defended their own businesses from rioters with Kalashnikovs and AR-15s, simply because the government refused to provide them with any security. Conservatives always talk about government not intruding in people's lives and individual rights, but what they are really talking about is government not intruding in THEIR lives and the rights they care about being protected, thus, they aren't ideologically inconsistent per say, they are just fucking selfish.

  • John||

    What conservative ever had a problem or didn't support the Korean shop keepers?

    What fucking planet do you live on? Seriously. Stop projecting.

  • Virginian||

    Wait, he thinks the NRA is only for white people?

  • John||

    He is just a liberal trolling.

  • Virginian||

    No I've seen him saying decent stuff in other threads.

    Is he a foreigner? Does he really not know what the NRA is actually like and only gets the overseas media's interpretation.

  • 34lbs||

    I'm a foreigner, but to John, i'm not a troll or anything, i just lurk some NRA affiliated forums and it does seem there is an over represntation of you know... White.. Middle Class.. Males. I guess i don't really know gun culture in the USA that well though, over here you are more likely to see a gun club member be a card carrying Labour voter, the last prime minister, who was Labour, was also a gun club member.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Don't worry about John. John thinks sarcasmic is a troll because he likes women who look like women and not cows.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Oh No! White Middle Class Males or as most people know them, THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP THE COUNTRY RUNNING.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Have to agree with John here. I've heard the Korean shop keeper thing ad nauseum from NRA folk. Hell, I've heard the 'progressives wanna take guns from minorities' argument quite a bit as well.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh, and full disclosure:

    I am a member of the NRA, and regularly converse with other members online, and in person.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah the Korean shop owners thing is like our (yes our, I am the NRA) number one example of why sometimes you do need an assault weapon.

    Hell, while the SAF did the work on Heller and MacDonald, the NRA filed briefs in support. They support the right to bear arms for all law abiding Americans.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah the Korean shop owners thing is like our (yes our, I am the NRA) number one example of why sometimes you do need an assault weapon.

    True,

    But it's also true that the NRA and the republicans have done a poor job of explaining the link between Jim Crow and gun control.

    It's probably because the are afraid of being called racists by the socialists so they just avoid the whole topic altogether.

  • 34lbs||

    I didn't say that, but the fact is they will overlook stories like this, or the Black Panthers being advocates of self defense.... it's kind of self defeating. The Democrats seem to be the kings of rhetoric.

  • General Butt Naked||

    But they don't overlook those things. I have heard those stories over and over again from other members.

  • 34lbs||

    I guess, this is just what i've been exposed to about american gun culture, it's vastly different, and significantly smaller, down under. Most of the times i've heard the Korean Gun owners story, or references to the racist origins of gun control, it's come from Libertarians, not conservatives.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Most of the times i've heard the Korean Gun owners story, or references to the racist origins of gun control, it's come from Libertarians, not conservatives.

    That's because our conservative set here in the States is a hair on the dumb side, but it's not entirely their fault. Politics has become two different brands of fucks who worship the ability of the state to "perfect" man (as they understand the idea of perfection) and sell it to the squishy minded masses through emotional appeals and 30 second ads.

    Libertarians show up with some historical analysis and rational arguments, and are promptly shown the door as not being adults or serious.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I guess, this is just what i've been exposed to about american gun culture, it's vastly different, and significantly smaller, down under. Most of the times i've heard the Korean Gun owners story, or references to the racist origins of gun control, it's come from Libertarians, not conservatives.

    Pat Buchanan, who is pretty far from being a libertarian, famously originated the Korean shop owners meme in a speech at the 1992 GOP convention.

    Forgive me for being skeptical of the veracity of your claims of Aussie nationality, but it's kind of bizarre that you have so little exposure to the American gun policy debates that you wouldn't be aware of the shop owners story, but are able to distinguish between libertarian gun rights advocates and conservative ones.

  • Virginian||

    Aren't you an Aussie?

  • 34lbs||

    Yep.

  • Virginian||

    Have you lived in the US?

  • 34lbs||

    Nope. If you are wondering why i've come to an american libertarian/classical liberal forum... it's because the australian ones have been hijacked by Menzyites..

  • Virginian||

    Menzyites

    Yeah never heard of a Menzyite.

    But anyway, it's just you made a statement about the NRA and NRA members that's just flat out wrong. The NRA is absolutely not racist in any way, shape, or form. One of the RKBA community's main points of discussion is bringing up the racist history of gun control, and how it has been used from the start to deprive minorities of their right to self defense.

    Basically, anything the mainstream media says about the NRA is at best inaccurate and at worst an outright distortion. That goes double for foreign media. From what I've seen in foreign newspapers and other media outlets, the NRA is portrayed extremely negatively.

  • ||

    As a Canadian, I've heard a lot of the NRA over the years but racist isn't/wasn't one of them.

  • 34lbs||

    But don't worry John, i'm not some kinda Piers Morgan comin' to usurp your rights....

  • Sernylan||

    "But don't worry John, i'm not some kinda Piers Morgan comin' to usurp your rights...."

    That wasn't the first thought to come to mind, but...the Aussie gun laws of the last ~20 years have been a mixed bag at best, success wise. Those handgun/semi-auto bans never really lived up to all of those pie-in-the sky promises made by those politicians? This is where my skepticism here in the U.S. comes from.

  • ||

    I would expect an Australian to know the correct spelling of the Australian Labor Party.

    I'm afraid that I find the problem with my Australian and Canadian friends and acquaintances is that the think that because they get exposed to a lot of media coverage of American politics and current events they are in a position to actually understand American politics.

    When I was living in Australia, I got the impression that Australians believe that liberal Democrats are far more popular in the US than they actually are. The myth that FDR was universally beloved by Americans in universally accepted in Australia.

  • 34lbs||

    There is definitely a bias in Australian media in how we portray foreign politics, especially on the government owned SBS and ABC. Recently i was watching them refer to the new Austerity measure in Greece, as "forcing austerity" and removing their "Basic Entitlements", and also an over blown portrayal of Golden Dawn as the right-wing of Greece, forgetting the fact that they are a tiny minority in Parliament... So i get most of my news from the internet... maybe that's even more biased at times.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    John| 1.27.13 @ 4:43PM |#

    What conservative ever had a problem or didn't support the Korean shop keepers?

    What fucking planet do you live on? Seriously. Stop projecting.

    He's from Australia and that is clearly the image of the republican party that is projected to the rest of the world.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    "He" is most likely our old pal Mary. 34lbs was pushing some bordlerline Godeskite tendencies yesterday.

  • Redmanfms||

    "He" is most likely our old pal Mary. 34lbs was pushing some bordlerline Godeskite tendencies yesterday.

    It's rare for my to agree with Tulpa, but I'm with him on this. I don't know if he's a Mary sock, but I seriously doubt he is what he claims to be.

    The very fact that he called out a "Mary sock" and knew exactly the characteristics they exhibit and knew the names of a couple of our other resident trolls (namely Spaces and Shriek) after having been commenting on the board for less than a day is just too damned strange.

  • 34lbs||

    Me back... No, i have been reading the comments section for longer than i've been posting and basically i've been aware of T o n y and You Know My Name, also, YKMN has a youtube channel that is basically devoted to mocking the posters in this forum, KizoneKaprow, immediately after posting on this page he left a comment on my youtube page about quoting me, my youtube page name is the same as the name for this board. http://www.youtube.com/user/kizonekaprow, visit... if you dare.

    If i sound a little lefty sometimes that's just the way i was raised...

  • wakeup||

    so you are Mary. Fuck you, that's why

  • Alec Leamas||

    It is whatever planet where people there say "per say."

  • Moridin||

    AMEN

  • Bam!||

    You're mistake is in trying to reason with these people. They aren't producing policy from sound analysis, they're producing policy from emotional instinct.

  • John||

    How exactly does a pistol grip or a flash suppressor make a weapon more deadly? I always thought the dangerousness of a weapon depends on things like caliber, rate of fire, powder load and such.

  • iggy||

    How the fuck does a bayonet lug make a weapon more deadly? Progressives love trains and windmills and they're terrified of bayonets. Liberals seem really concerned with 19th century technology.

  • John||

    They really are.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I half expect them to propose canals and horse drawn barges as environmentally friendly transport.

  • ||

    Give them time.

  • Alec Leamas||

    Well, the lug together with a bayonet makes a spear out of a 1,000,000 round a minute indiscriminate killing machine.

    Makes perfect sense, no?

  • Sernylan||

    "How exactly does a pistol grip or a flash suppressor make a weapon more deadly?"

    Well,...for one thing, bullets can smell fear, so if those attachments increase your fear level over those others merely shitting themselves in fear for their lives, the bullets will be more emboldened to do much more damage, and seek you out above all others. Haven’t you been paying attention to the pundits your intellectual superiors?

  • Generic Stranger||

    It's just ignorance, basically. They think the flash suppressor actually hides the flash, instead of simply redirecting gasses out to the side.

    I've also heard them state that a pistol grip makes it easier to fire from the hip, as if that were a super effective way to fire a gun. They're basically dumbasses who base their gun knowledge on movies like Rambo. Personally, if I were being shot at, I'd definitely want the fucker to be shooting from the hip, because he is far less likely to score a hit that way.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Doesn't a pistol grip make the trigger pull more comfortable and natural, even when you're shooting it from the shoulder?

    I've never used a long gun with such a grip, but there has to be a reason people like them.

  • General Butt Naked||

    They use pistol grips to put the controls in easy reach for newb soldiers. Also, it's easier to make things adjustable for a variety of body types, that is, with a pistol grip and collapsable stock.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That too.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It's more to keep your wrist at a more comfortable angle. It's an ergonomic feature, like a wave keyboard, that doesn't actually improve effectiveness so much as it improves comfort for the end user.

  • LarryA||

    Doesn't a pistol grip make the trigger pull more comfortable and natural

    To a great extent it depends on when you grew up. If you learned to shoot with an M-1 Garand or M-14 you'll probably be comfortable with a straight grip. If you learned with an M-16 or M-4, a pistol grip.

    There are some slight advantages to each system ("shooting from the hip" is harder with a pistol grip) but It's pretty much personal preference.

  • wingnutx||

    Pistol grip makes it harder to execute a proper butt-stroke.

  • ||

    "To a great extent it depends on when you grew up. If you learned to shoot with an M-1 Garand or M-14 you'll probably be comfortable with a straight grip. If you learned with an M-16 or M-4, a pistol grip."

    ^This

    I like the straight grip much better. Hate the pistol one. I could learn, but why try? The ARs have to be babied. SKSs just keep cranking out slugs no matter what you do to them.

  • Vapourwear||

    I've not found that to be the case. I routinley fire hundreds of rounds through a pretty much dry DI AR without a failure. I think this is because I only run Pmags and NHMTG. With well made modern autos, magazines seem to be the typical source of any problems.

  • ||

    You would know better than I. I dont have an AR

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oooooh...

    I really hate that 'fire from the hip' bullshit. It's so divorced from reality that it'd be funny if it weren't taken so seriously.

    I've never heard that from an actual human being, only from the illogically designed congrressbots and mediabots that haven't quite passed the turing test. If a person actually said that shit to me, I'd kidnap them, take them to the range, duct tape an ar15 to their hip, and run around them daring them to free themselves. Then we'd go to Applebee's and have a good laugh over it later on.

  • robc||

    Then we'd go to Applebee's

    Your torture goes too far.

  • wakeup||

    Welcome to the Neighborhood!

  • General Butt Naked||

    I was waiting for someone to spot the true sadism of my post.

    *bows*

  • juris imprudent||

    I love "firing from the hip" because it is a marker for unadulterated ignorance. The sooner I know that about someone the better.

  • IamNotEvil||

    Almost as an efficient indicator as the 'gangbanger grip' with handguns.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Actually the fire from the hip thing was the reason Feinstein gave as to why pistol grips were so dangerous during the first ban debate under Clinton.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Those features, along with a barrel shroud, may help with accuracy. Though a skilled shooter doesn't need them, and the classic mass shooter isn't concerned with accuracy either since they're just spraying bullets into a crowd.

    If grenades, rockets, and silencers were easily obtainable through legal means, the threaded barrels and grenade launchers would certainly increase the utility for mass murderers. But, they aren't.

  • General Butt Naked||

    How the fuck would a silencer help a mass murderer?

    And no making up crazy shit to support your shitty-ass point.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, if it's Holmes or Loughner shooting a bunch of people in one place, it probably wouldn't help them at all. In the case of Columbine or VT, it could allow the shooter to delay a response from other parts of the building since it would be harder to tell where the shooter was.

    In any case, to legally obtain a silencer you have to go through a fairly arduous process, so it's unlikely that a mars murderer would be able to get one without breaking the law.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't know the laws on Mars, bu here on Earth it is, as you say, very difficult to purchase a suppressor.

    Thing is, on a gun worth using to commit mass murder, a silencer wouldn't have the amount of suppression needed to keep the act quiet unless the assailant was using sub-sonic rounds. In a 'trying to shoot people running away' situation sub-sonic 9mm (the only round that would have a respectable quiet/lethal ratio)the survival rate would be high enough to discount the advantages of a quieter round; that is, if you accept that a suppressed 9mm wouldn't be heard be everybody in a building (it would).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's a good point.

    I'm just trying to play avocado diaboli Dianae here.

  • wingnutx||

    Purchasing a suppressor just requires filling out an NFA form, then sending it to the ATF with $200.

    6-9 months later you strap on your suppressor/sbr/gonkulator/etc...

  • General Butt Naked||

    And you need to either set up a legal trust to own your new suppressor, or have the local chief law enforcement officer sign off on your purchase. That is if you don't live in a state where NFA items are completely illegal.

  • wingnutx||

    Trust is the way to go.

    No fingerprints, no LEO approval, and several people can have custody of the item.

  • BakedPenguin||

    All the people running away screaming would kind of ruin the effect as well.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's why you shoot the people nearest the door first.

  • EnemyOfTheState||

    You do realize that the fact that said mass murderer commits mass murder...it means that he already is breaking the law. Not to mention, they can just do what Adam Lanza did and steal from a lawful owner of such a 'restricted' device.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Indeed.

    Which is why a "gun control" measure I would support -- if the enforcement kinks could be worked out -- would be a secure storage requirement for high-energy semiauto weapons (above 1600 J or so of muzzle energy) whenever the firearm is not in the possession or immediate control of the owner. And said secure storage would have to be inaccessible to anyone who had not passed a NICS check.

    While I think people should have the right to own such firearms, they should not be leaving them lying around waiting to be stolen. I know people who do this because they think it allows them to respond to a threat faster.

  • juris imprudent||

    So unless someone has a safe, any firearms inside their locked house are "just lying around waiting to be stolen"?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    that's their theory, yes

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If the owner or some other authorized user isn't home? Absolutely.

    A stolen TV on the streets is much less of a public safety issue than a stolen gun.

  • juris imprudent||

    Just when I think you aren't a total dumbass, you go and convince me you are. By all means, move to Sacramento.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "Hey, if we're gonna throw out the 2nd, might as well get rid of the fourth and fifth while we're at it!"

  • ||

    Fuck off and die painfully in a fire Tulpa. If it's in my fucking house, it's no fucking concern of yours how I fucking store it.

    Might I point out, that the thief, in such a situation, is the goddamn criminal. NOT the owner.

    God you're pathetic.

  • ||

    "In any case, to legally obtain a silencer you have to go through a fairly arduous process, so it's unlikely that a mars murderer would be able to get one without breaking the law."

    Whereas obtaining a 2L soda bottle and duct taping it to an unthreaded 22lr barrel....not so arduous.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    as if 2L bottles will be legal for much longer.

  • Julant||

    They're probably next on the chopping block for ass-backwards NYC in their campaign against large soft drink containers.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not a very good silencer, either. Certainly not after the first shot!

  • ||

    They work great. Or so I have heard.

  • Tejicano||

    A 2-liter bottle works pretty well on 45ACP (sub-sonic) as well. If you want it to be even more effective and last a few rounds longer fill it with styrofoam shipping particles and put a screen towards the firearm end of it to keep blowback from filling your barrel with styrofoam.

    Not much to hear so I can't really say I head it anywhere...

  • LarryA||

    How would a silencer help a mass murderer?

    In a recent LEO conference the presenter noted that typical mass killers shoot off a couple of rounds first, to generate panic and get people fleeing. He said it was easier psychologically for them to shoot someone fleeing than "in cold blood."

    Terror is part of their game, so supressors wouldn't help.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    In that case, we should ban boom boxes, since mass murderers could play pre-recorded gunfire from them.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Those features, along with a barrel shroud, may help with accuracy.

    Not really. A suppressor only really helps when shooting at night, as it keeps the shooter from being blinded. During the day, it's a non-issue, and so far all mass shootings have been done in daylight.

    A pistol grip is an ergonomic feature, that really doesn't help with accuracy at all. It might make the shooter's wrist a little less tired if they're shooing all day, but that's it.

    The barrel shroud has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. It's there to keep the user from burning themselves on a hot barrel. That's it.

  • Ted S.||

    Wasn't the Colordao theater shooting done in a darkened theater during a midnight showing of a movie?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Ok, forgot about that one. But his AR-15 jammed mid magazine and he transitioned to a shotgun anyway, which typically don't have flash suppressors.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    yes, I meant in general terms, there are situations in which they could be useful for the shooter. Like Ted says, one of the shootings in particular would have made a flash suppressor helpful for accuracy purposes.. not that Holmes really had to worry about accuracy, he was just trying to kill a bunch of people in a crowded space.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Correct me if I'm wrong here Reason commenters, but isn't a flash suppressor more useful for precision rather than accuracy?

    Which would imply, that if facing multiple targets it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Assuming your sights are lined up properly and you know how to use them, precision and accuracy are one and the same. When you have accuracy, precision and accuracy are the same thing.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's assuming.

    But the key to precision is the gun moving out of its original position as much as possible. If you can keep the muzzle from flying all over the place, or at least have it move predictably, then you can greatly improve precision.

    That's why, if you wanna shoot tiny groups you'll basically have the gun strapped down to the table as much as possible.

    When shooting a moving, human sized targets at a couple of meters away, a flash suppressor isn't going to help in any negligible way.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    "non-negligible" you mean? But OK. I don't really have a dog in the fight.

  • IamNotEvil||

    Wait a minute, are we talking about flash suppressor or muzzle brakes? And does this bill make any distinction between them?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think I may be speaking of a break.

    I don't even know anymore.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Muzzle brakes don't seem to be mentioned as a scary feature.

  • Tejicano||

    One other thing to understand - military spec ammunition has small amounts of flash retardant in ths powder charge which is designed in conjunction with the flash suppressor to reduce the flash signature. No commercial ammunition uses these retardants so the resultant flash from civilian ammo is significantly larger.

    However, it is unlikely that a techincal detail so huge as this would either fit into nor make any impact on the brain of a politician.

  • wingnutx||

    We did an unscientific test at the last AR15.com shoot.

    An AR with a with a YHM Phantom or Vortex flash hider made very little flash at all, with a slight edge going to the Vortex.

    AKs all made a nice fireball no matter what was on the end of the barrel, mostly due to the powder used.

    An AK with a 6" barrel and no suppressor (guy called it his 'hallway dragon') was awesome in the pitch black.

  • GILMORE||

    The barrel shroud has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. It's there to keep the user from burning themselves on a hot barrel. That's it.

    WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GRAB THE BARREL AND SHOOT CHILDREN FROM THE HIP, WITH POWER-BURSTS FROM THEIR .22LR AR15. ADD THE DREADED FLASH HIDER AND CHILDREN DIE FROM LOOKING AT IT

  • GILMORE||

    John| 1.27.13 @ 4:07PM |#

    How exactly does a pistol grip or a flash suppressor make a weapon more deadly?

    Its coolness-factor inspires the bearer to point it at people and go, "ratatatatatatat!!bang!!bang!!bang!!bang! I'm RAMBO!! WHOOO HOO!!!"

    You have to prevent that sort of thing. Ergo, when all guns look like silly 16th century muskets, then we will have achieved the Arms Bearing as properly intended by the Founders.

  • squarooticus||

    I love how often I hear a statement like, "Feinstein proposed a new law to reduce gun violence." Sorry, but the assumption in that statement—that a law that targets certain kinds of guns based on their appearance and only in the possession of lawful owners—will have any statistically significant effect on gun violence is simply not in evidence.

    It seems like the establishment media doesn't even try anymore.

  • Xenocles||

    Of course they're trying; you simply don't understand what it is they're trying to do.

  • John||

    ABC forgot to as Senator Menendez about that little matter of the FBI investigating him for hiring under age hookers this morning on the This Week. How can you forget to ask about that?

  • Xenocles||

    Who says they forgot?

  • John||

    sorry. forgot the scare quotes. Of course they didn't forget. Assholes.

  • Dallas H.||

    It would be like saying "Area Teen Learns Kilngon to Impress Cheerleaders" - except the reporter would admit that's patently ridiculous.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Can we ban her craggy, mountainous forehead as it is most definitely an assault on aesthetics.

  • John||

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art.....president#

    I defy anyone to read this interview and not conclude Obama is a shallow thinking, angry, bitter moron. He can't even do a softball interview without fucking it up.

  • General Butt Naked||

    And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground.

    Oh jesus, we wouldn't want our paid representatives not to go to Washington and have a good time; heaven forbid they stand pat representing the interests of their constituents. Oh, how they long for the days when Daniel Patrick Moynihan would grease up his balls and slide around the halls of the White House whilst everybody laughed in merriment!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive.

    It's amazing how nostalgia consistently colors over whatever misery you lived through during that time period.

    "Long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation"? Is he fucking nuts? When that kind of attitude existed, IF it ever existed, it was due to Congress being run by generations who WEREN'T the fucking spoiled-ass rotten Baby Boomers and neurotic Gen-Xers. If Congress is dysfunctional and worthless, it's because the American people WANTED it that way by voting in people who saw ANY compromise as weakness.

    If Obama and Americans in general think Congress can't get anything done, they need to look in the fucking mirror, not blaming the people whom they put in charge.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Hey, I personally love it when legislators refuse to compromise and not a thing gets done. When I hear that law makers are working together on bipartisan legislation, I put the cast-iron underpants on 'cause there is gonna be a rapin'.

    Be wary of congress critters 'doing their job'.

  • Sernylan||

    "When I hear that law makers are working together on bipartisan legislation, I put the cast-iron underpants on 'cause there is gonna be a rapin'."

    THIS^

    The code word "bipartisan" is used to throw the public off the trail, to get people to assume a compromise has been established, and forget about it, then when no one is looking anymore...they quietly divvy up the spoils. The public rarely figures that out until its long past too late...if ever.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yup, and usually anything bipartisan can be guaranteed to be a major blow to liberty or economic sensibility; see: the war on drugs, terror, etc and entitlement spending, respectively.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done.

    The problem is that getting something done never includes cutting government or increasing liberty.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive.

    This is why I would never make it in Congress. I would spend two whole years on the floor of the House, seizing as much speaking time as possible, airing as much of the government's dirty laundry out on the Congressional record as possible. All of those "Top Secret" documents? It's not a secret if everybody knows about it.

  • Mike M.||

    Even his sycophants are emboldened enough to now openly admit that he's an angry leftist (though most of Reason hasn't quite gotten that much courage yet), and that's a little scary. I think I liked it better when they felt compelled to lie about him.

  • John||

    The guy won the election and he is more pissed off now than he was before.

  • Hyperion||

    The guy won the election and he is more pissed off now than he was before

    That's because those little peons in congress are obstructing his ability to become emperor for life.

    I mean, how is he going to save the world when no one will let him?

    Now that he's won, shouldn't he be able to save the world? For the children?

  • Guy LaGuy||

    It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

  • Sernylan||

    "The guy won the election and he is more pissed off now than he was before."

    The GOP should not have made him fight for it, that was petty of them. Running against him was just typical of their passive-aggressive obstructionism. They should laid supine, or simply curled up in the fetal position and refused to even run a candidate. Obama has so much love to give!, why do they fight?...pure selfishness, that’s why...what a bunch of assholes.

  • ||

    Angry leftist manifests itself in drone strikes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The GOP should not have made him fight for it, that was petty of them.

    I don't think they could possibly have run a weaker candidate than Romney.

  • Sernylan||

    "I don't think they could possibly have run a weaker candidate than Romney."

    That’s not the fucking point...it disrupted the unity… the healing process this country so desperately needed. It was provocative and confrontational to run ANY candidate while the president was re-adjusting the natio’s "ch'i"...dammit, the wingnuts are thick,...why can't you just accept Obama, The One™ as your lord and savior?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't think they could possibly have run a weaker candidate than Romney.

    Oh come on. Aside from *possibly* Rick Perry, none of the other GOP primary candidates would have done better against BO. Gingrich and Santorum had sky-high negatives among indies, a group went for Romney over BO by a significant margin. Ron Paul would have been obliterated after they put the newsletters and his comments about legalizing heroin and cocaine on 24/7 loop in the MSM.

    Rick Perry *may* have done better with Hispanics due to his immigration dovishness. But he was also a mediocre speaker and debater.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and even Cain or Bachman would have done better against Obama because they would have taken the fight to him and Romney was a central casting character that was exactly the opponent that Obama wanted to run against.

    He was such the perfect candidate for Obama that it makes me wonder if the whole campaign was a set up. Especially after Tag said that Romney "never wanted to be president.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    because they would have taken the fight to him

    Explain how this would have helped. I mean in reality, not libertarian fantasy land where nobody wants free shit from the govt.

    Unexpectedly large Dem turnout is what handed BO the election. MR won independents by a wide margin. Explain how Gingrich or Santorum wins indies by the same amount AND depresses Dem turnout by taking the fight to Obama.

    Bachmann and Cain couldn't even handle the primary spotlight...it would have been sad to see what the BO smear machine would have done to them.

  • ||

    Tulpa, why do you spend time here?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    He's courting Warty.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Tulpa, why do you spend time here?

    Because you don't want me to.

  • ||

    Because you don't want me to.

    There is an understatement.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Explain how this would have helped.

    Ron Paul could have beaten Obama if he hadn't been slimed by the rep establishment.

    Perry, Gingrich and Santorum would have appealed to Hispanics, apolitical evangelicals and non religious downscale (yokeltarian?) white voters.

    Cain would have appealed to some of those and pealed off black support.

    Seriously dude, even republicans didn't want Romney. He was everybody's second or third choice based on the myth that he was electable which he obviously wasn't. If he had run on the strength of his ideas, instead of his financial strength and as the establishment candidate, he would have been laughed out of the race before Johnson was.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Dude, you're dreaming wrt Ron Paul. Please don't wake up, it seems like a lovely fantasy.

    I do think Perry *may* have managed to do better, as I said before, but none of the other candidates were viable.

    If he had run on the strength of his ideas, instead of his financial strength and as the establishment candidate, he would have been laughed out of the race before Johnson was.

    Unfortunately, that's true of most of the politicians we see running for prez. The market has spoken. Americans don't want ideas, they want a guy with good hair and "empathy". It used to be they valued a guy who could "get things done" but that certainly went out the door in 2012.

    GJ isn't much of a visionary himself; he appears to be seeking to become the Ralph Nader of the LP more than anything else.

  • prolefeed||

    "That does not mean that you don't have some real big differences. The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies."

    Unlike the Democrats in the House, who are in completely ungerrymandered districts, and who care deeply about "broad based public opinion" even if that would piss off their constituents.

    I mean, if broad based public opinion showed that repealing gun control laws enjoyed 50.1%+ support among all American voters, surely Nancy Pelosi would fervently try to repeal said laws despite what her constituents want.

    /sarcasm

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And the gerrymandering was done by a totally exogenous force. It wasn't a consequence of democratic elections.

    Well, the R's anyway, the gerrymandered D districts in blue states are totally the will of the people.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's quite a bizarre statement, since the election that gave the GOP a majority in the House came 8 years after the last redistricting. A lot of those safely Republican districts had Democrat representatives, for some reason.

  • Moridin||

    Obama is pissed that the GOP would dare oppose him, though they haven't even done an adequate job at that since they took back the House in 2010. What have they stopped that has hurt Obama's reputation/record? Better question: what have they stopped or done that has been good for liberty?

  • Bam!||

    I think Obama knows that he can't really get much done due to the Democrats, so if he puffs up the Republicans, the ignorant masses will assume it's their fault.

  • Moridin||

    The worst part is that the morons don't realize that the LESS obama is able to do the better off they will be.

    /sigh

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    That's Feinstein? It looks like Pelosi.

  • ||

    All Democrats look alike.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Raci...
    oh, you're right.

  • prolefeed||

    How exactly do these features—a threaded barrel, say, or a grenade launcher without (already banned) grenades—make a gun "more lethal"?

    A threaded barrel allows a silencer or noise suppression device to be attached. A grenade launcher -- well, that is obvious.

    This ignores both the plain language of the First Amendment -- the "shall not infringe" part -- and the fact that most mass killings have not involved killers particularly interested about silence or about firing off grenades in close quarters that would FN kill or maim said killer.

  • Hyperion||

    There isn't any popular support for this bill. The old hag keeps saying that she has the support of the people. Where are these 'people' who support this?

    I read comments for about an hour over at Huffpo and there is very precious little support for it even on a far left site like that and only from a few brain dead liberals who make such totally uninformed, brain dead, statements like 'why does anyone need a AK 47 machine gun that fires hundreds of rounds in a second.' Rand Paul is more popular at HuffPo than this stupid bill.

    Also, the bill exempts herself and all other government officials. This crap will never make it out of the Senate.

    What they are going to do is try to push through what they will call 'universal' background checks. Then once they pass that, at some point, they will try to use it as a means to push for registration of all guns.

  • prolefeed||

    There isn't any popular support for this bill. The old hag keeps saying that she has the support of the people. Where are these 'people' who support this?

    Presumably most of the majority of CA voters who voted for Feinstein support this.

  • Hyperion||

    I doubt it.

    When was the last time she was seriously contested by any candidate in her district? Really, I don't know the answer to this.

    She is supposedly worth 70 million dollars and has only been in public office all of her life.

    I don't think our founders had it in mind that the duty of serving the public by getting elected was supposed to mean making a career of it and enriching yourself. This is exactly what is wrong with this country, and it will only get worse until we put an end to holding public office as a career.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    CA's gun restrictions make this bill look like the Wild West.

  • Tejicano||

    So you are saying that if you are going to be raped you're cool with it if the guy shaves first?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, I'm saying it's likely Feinstein's constituents support this garbage, since they vote for it at the state level too.

  • Tejicano||

    Are you vying with yourself to come up with even more and more retarded things to say?

    It doesn't matter if Feinstein's constituents agree, disagree, or plan to jump off a cliff en mass. She is their voice on this issue so for them the issue of a federal ban has no consequence.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Polls show large majorities favor universal bckgd checks. Slim majorities favor "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" bans, though it's unclear if the respondents really understand what those terms mean.

  • Sernylan||

    "Polls show large majorities favor universal bckgd checks of democrat policy makers don't want to risk another "gun issue" brought before SCOUTUS, until after Scalia/Kennedy retire. Slim majorities favor "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" bans a plaintiff with standing, soundly kicking their ass... and achieving a solid victory against anti-2A doctrine in an increasingly pro-2A jurisprudence, though it's unclear if the respondents really understand what those terms mean how fucking stupid they are to keep pushing it too far."

    /better

  • Guy LaGuy||

    I think this is covered by the "Well Regulated" line of the 2A

  • General Butt Naked||

    "This" what?

  • Chris Mallory||

    The "regulated" means trained to hit the same mark. It comes from adjusting double barreled weapons so that both barrels both hit the same point of aim. It has nothing to do with passing lots of laws and rules.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Er, I would assume double barreled weapons were unusual in 1789 militias.

    "regulation" presumably refers to the discipline and training of the militia.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I agree. When the BoR was written, folks like Washington had just finished the experience of turning a group of rag-tag militiamen, previously notorious for their lack of morale and discipline, into the professionalized Continental Army.

    Baron von Stuben, the primary person responsible for training the Continentals, wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual in 1777. If you'll notice the title on the first page, it reads "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States". Based on this, the evidence is very strong that the authors of the BoI used the phrase "well-regulated" to mean "knowledgeable in the regulations of the U.S. Army's manual of arms".

  • wheelock||

    The most important bit is of course the last sentence. It is usually assumed (especially by anti-gun types) that the "well regulated militia" part is meant to convey that arms are meant to be for state sanctioned militias, but this doesn't really add up for me. It would be like saying "because its important to regulate you, we can't regulate you". I wonder if it is meant in a completely different way. We all know that a major component ( if not the entire reason ) for the second is defense against tyranny. Arms in the hands of the people is the regulation on the militia/military. Is it possible that this is the true interpretation or am I nuts?

  • Dallas H.||

    I completely agree that this is a perfectly valid reading of the 2A and in line with other documents from the founding fathers.

    "We didn't want to have a standing army because that's bad for freedom, but since we have to have one for national security the PEOPLE's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

  • General Butt Naked||

    Here's a video of a mini-rally held by exiled Cubans in a Miami gun show.

    These goddamn people know what it's like to be held without arms in the face of tyranny, listen to them.

  • juris imprudent||

    Obama thinks the RKBA is all about hunting and skeet shooting huh?

    Me, I think about the RKBA more like Malcolm X and Bobby Seale.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Jesus man, be quiet.

    You're scaring the ghost of Ronald Reagan.

  • juris imprudent||

    C'mon dude, if the black guy is gonna play Fudd, can't I play angry radical?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Second Amendment protection on the people's right to keep and bear arms exists for the same reason the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights were put there: to protect the people from their government.

    But where are my manners? No government would ever oppress anyone and certainly not a government with TOP MEN in it.

  • Hyperion||

    Some of these are pretty funny. But anyone thinks they are even in the top 1000 dumbest things ever said on the internet, it just proves they have never read comments on Politico.

    35 dumbest things ever said on the internet

  • Ted S.||

    How many of them were said by Dunphy?

  • ||

    circle jerk troll-o-meter: .01

  • ||

    Get a fucking sense of humor dude.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    just last week Jose Canseco "needed" to get in touch with Minute Bol

  • ||

    Buzzfeed sucks. You want to see the dumb comments on the internet? Go to a random video on youtube.

  • IamNotEvil||

    I'm going to agree with 23, New York is not in America. After all if it was in America the bill of rights would apply and this is clearly not the case.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    FF: Have you ever fired a gun?

    Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

    "we do" not I do or I have.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Probably BO's royal We again.

  • ||

    It was probably a Hi-Point.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    People who rip on Hi Points are even more pathetic than those ripping on TV Tropes.

  • wingnutx||

    Tulpa owns a Hi Point slathered in Tapco accessories.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    By describing the bill that way, reporter Jennifer Steinhauer endorses Feinstein's fraudulent premise that "assault weapons" are especially suited to mass murder or other kinds of gun crime.

    I was just wondering: if the only thing that "assault weapons" are good for is killing large numbers of people (because they're "weapons that only belong on the battlefield") then why is it okay for policemen, politicians' security details, and celebrity bodyguards to have them? None of those people have any legitimate need to "mow down" large numbers of people. Does Feinstein et al support a requirement that such people be restricted to revolvers?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    if the only thing that "assault weapons" are good for is killing large numbers of people (because they're "weapons that only belong on the battlefield") then why is it okay for policemen, politicians' security details, and celebrity bodyguards to have them?

    A snippet for your perusal and amusement:

    ‘‘(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
    1 ‘‘(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale or transfer to or possession by a campus law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

    ‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired in good standing from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited

    Peasants like you can't handle the power of assaulty killy pistolly grippy death weapons of doom. Best to leave them in the hands of your betters.

  • robc||

    I just realized what some state should do...grant temporary service/retirement to anyone in their state who requests it.

    We can all be cops for 5 seconds!

  • wakeup||

    Hah. Look at this OUTRAGE!

  • Hyperion||

    They don't call him the divider in chief for nothin.

  • Slammer||

    That asshole Aaron Klein promoted the idea that the Sandy Hook shootings may have been part of a conspiracy of Satan Worshipers. Fuck him.

  • wakeup||

    Holder begins gun-control push

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Wow. So now if the cops confiscate your gun unlawfully, they are allowed to hold on to it until you pass a NICS check. Nope, no perverse incentives there.

  • General Butt Naked||

    But allowing LEOs to confiscate guns if you don't have a safe, or every member of your household with access to that safe passes NICS is better?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Simple answer is to not allow anyone in your house except you access to the safe. If they aren't eligible to purchase a firearm you shouldn't be allowing them access to firearms.

    A safe is way cheaper than a high-energy semiauto rifle, so I don't think it would disproportionately impact the poor (which is what a lot of existing secure storage requirements seem designed to do).

    Figuring out a way to enforce without infringing on 4th amendment rights would be a pickle.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Nope, no perverse incentives there.

  • ||

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

    Dickhead!

  • LarryA||

    and she decided that one, rather than two, was enough to qualify a gun as an "assault weapon." The latter change made the ban broader, but it did not make it more "explicit,"

    She had to make it broader. Everyone was noticing that Connecticut still had an "assault weapon" ban, and it utterly failed to protect the children at Sandy Hook Elementary.

  • ||

    OK, I read the article and got half way through the comments. You are all wasting your time discussing the merits/demerits of the technical aspects of this law. Nothing discussed here that I read is relevant to the purpose of this law.

    Get people used to the idea of guns being banned by banning some but not all. Move incrementally to complete confiscation. Erase the second amendment.

    That is the sole purpose of this law.

  • Tejicano||

    We should also notice and make the point that this law has boatloads of incrementalism built in already.

    By tacking on the ten round limit for magazines the effectiveness of a huge majority of currently available handguns have been reduced by some amount. Cuomo somewhat flashed their hand by showing how that ten round limit could be simply ratcheted down a little more.

    One other small change to this law would be to remove the word "detachable" so that any semi-auto firearm would be covered.

    The way this bill is worded is the gun grabber's perfect wet dream.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Except that didn't happen with the 1994 ban, or with the 1934 NFA. Why would it automatically happen with this one?

  • Tejicano||

    So what Cuomo just did in NY state was just a dream?

    Firearms have been added to the NFA just by BATF fiat before. You just don't know what you are talking about.

    And the CA AW ban - which is just a state level version of the federal ban - has been fiddled with and ratcheted down in numerous ways over the years.

    Just how is it that you define "did not happen" to exclude things that did happen?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Not to mention that gun rights advocates have been fighting tooth and nail against incrementalism since the NFA.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And they wouldn't have had to fight without the NFA?

  • General Butt Naked||

    And your point is...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The NFA didn't cause incrementalism to exist. Had our 1934 counterparts mustered the effort to keep the NFA from passing, there would still have been plenty of gun control battles down the road.

  • Tejicano||

    "Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 1.27.13 @ 8:56PM |#

    Except that didn't happen with the 1994 ban, or with the 1934 NFA. Why would it automatically happen with this one?"

    You say incrementalism didn't happen with the NFA. Now you admit it did but argue that it didn't cause the incrementalism.

    Please come back when you are either no longer intoxicated or no longer stupid.

  • ||

    Long fucking wait.

  • Tejicano||

    Typical Tupla argument pattern :

    Tupla : It is definitely blue!

    Commenter #2 : It can’t be blue because of X, Y, and Z.

    Tupla : No, it isn’t blue because it can’t be pink.

    Commenter #2 : (after reading Tupla’s reply for the third time - head spins and falls out of his chair)

    I have more satisfying discussions with my four year old.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's been 78 years since the NFA was passed. Tectonic plates move faster than any "incremental movement" to confiscation initiated by NFA. The firearms that ATF has added to the restricted classes during that time represent a very small fraction of legal firearms.

    CA and NY aren't exactly bellwether states for how the country will go. They were already heavily anti-gun to begin with. They didn't need any grease on the slope.

  • ||

    Tulpa -

    'Sensible' reforms that dont actually address any problems. Proposals that, if in effect ten years ago, would not have stopped a single mass shooting that has actually occurred?

    Proposing solutions that dont address the problems they profess to be addressing seems like the opposite of sensible to me....unless they have another agenda that the proposals will further.

    What the fuck do you think they are actually up to Tulpa? Dont tell me you think they want to combat gun violence, bring crime down and make all the children safer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't know what they're up to. It seems likely that they're just trying to strike while the iron is hot. In DiFi's case this bill is her legacy, a restoration of her previous "accomplishment". I don't know if there's any devious master plan of incrementalism behind it.

    If there is, it's poorly thought out, because they're going for the jugular right away. Universal background checks and 30 round limits on magazine capacity probably would already have passed if the left hadn't blown their ban-wad so early.

  • juris imprudent||

    DiFi was on the local news blurb about the proposal. She talked to the guns on the okay list as "grandfathered".

    Oh really?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Without seeing what you're talking about I have no idea what her meaning is.

    Her bill supposedly "grandfathers" currently privately owned "assault weapons" and hi-cap mags -- perhaps that's what you heard?

  • juris imprudent||

    No dumbshit, she very clearly said that the other guns - not covered by the AW ban - would be considered grandfathered. Since the usual meaning of grandfathered doesn't apply, I take that as a slip about intent. The bitch would disarm all the "little people" in a heartbeat if she could.

    You know what though, you really should move to California. I think you'll really like Sacramento.

  • ||

    I woke up this morning and the wife had left the tv on. I woke up to excerpts from Feinstein's press conference on this bill. She was prattling on about how the aurora shooter had a magazine with hundreds of rounds in it, enabling him to mow down so many people.

    We, and she know fucking well that his hi-cap magazine jammed, causing him to switch to another gun.

    Again, her sensible controls dont address the problem she professes to be addressing, but it is a step in the incremental march towards complete banning of all guns.

    She is a lying cuntstain. If you dont know what she is up to, what is it safe to assume she is up to?

  • ||

    Get people used to the idea of guns being banned by banning some but not all. Move incrementally to complete confiscation. Erase the second amendment.

    And the fuckstain Tulpa wants to compromise with them.

  • Tejicano||

    I believe the reason why the NRA does not ever attempt to claim how its efforts protect the rights of minorities to defend themselves is because the left would come out of the woodwork like a hive of cockroaches to scream them down. The democrats would parade their divisions of minorities to shout counter claims to anything the NRA might alude to doing in their favor so they (the NRA) knows it is a losing point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I agree.

    What the NRA needs, hell what we all need, is a black NRA spokesman that can take it back at the racist socialists.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Right, because the "civil rights leaders" had no answer for Herman Cain and Michael Steele...

  • General Butt Naked||

    That won't matter. The racist left will call him an Uncle Tom like they do to Justice Thomas.

  • ||

    ...and Alan West.

  • John||

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.c.....ggles.html

    Dems roll out the brain damaged US Congress woman to push gun control.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's not nice to make fun of Diane Feinstein's handicap, John.

  • John||

    At least Giffords has an excuse.

  • Tejicano||

    Exactly. She was already in possession of exactly the same model of Glock that was used on her so I'm glad to hear that she has now pre-emptively turned it in the the BATFE.

    She did already, didn't she?

  • wakeup||

    Godfather Tells Big Banks To Stop Supporting Gun Makers…

    Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support “commonsense reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales.”
  • John||

    That is called fascism.

  • ||

    No kidding. That is straight-up corporatism.

  • John||

    I am sure liberals are going to be just fine with it when conservatives go after banks who loan to abortion providers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why stop there.

    How about the government pressures banks not to allow checking accounts for the disfavored.

  • Dallas H.||

    Hey, come on. Mussolini had some good ideas, they just didn't do it right. *THIS* time it will be different.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    John| 1.27.13 @ 8:50PM |#

    That is called fascism.

    Yep.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The Mayor of Chicago has zero influence on the big banks. He's just blowing smoke.

  • John||

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sab.....ility-hit/

    World Net Daily is reporting the Israelis sabotaged a key Iranian nuke facility. Yeah, it is WND, but we can hope.

  • robc||

    Why we never needed to worry about the Iranian nuke program. Like with Iraq, Israel would take care of it.

    Its a much bigger threat to them, thus they have the incentive to deal with it.

  • John||

    I hope so. I think we are helping them. And that is fine. There is a place for covert operations. They solve problems without having full on wars.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The references to "variants" and "altered facsimiles" suggest that a gun can be deemed an "assault weapon" even if it is not listed and does not have any forbidden "military-style characteristics." Maybe that's one reason Feinstein tries to reassure gun owners with her lengthy list of exempted firearms."

    Nah, Feinstein just doesn't want us to think we have any rights--unless she says so.

    She's basically Tony in a dress.

  • John||

    She is more of a top than Tony.

  • Tejicano||

    Wait - I thought T O N Y was a bottom by definition.

    Of course I am too squeamish to ask my gay step-brother exactly what rights and responsibilities have been decided for either case so I guess I am out of the discussion.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • ||

    You know who else made home movies?

  • Sernylan||

    Brendon Small?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Bob Saget?

  • Ice Nine||

    Pecker?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Warpath Warren?

  • DWC||

    We all know that the "assault weapons" ban has nothing to do with anyone's safety and is merely a smoke screen and another step toward the real goal of the elimination of citizen's rights to bear arms. That may well be the general point of articles describing the illogic and arbitrariness of the bill being put forward, but it could be read that one is opposing the "assault weapons" ban because it is not well thought out and one might support a revised and more sensible one.

  • John||

    The thing is that it is not a compromise. A compromise is where you give up something to settle an issue. This would never settle an issue. This is a concession to fanatics. The next time there is a big shooting, they will just want more.

  • wakeup||

    Diane Feinstein - Insider Trader, War Profiteer

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • John||

    Way cool

  • John||

    Liberals are always talking about a conversation and compromise. Okay. How about they get their idiotic band and in return, Obamacare is repealed. That is a fair trade. And they do care about children's safety right?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Here's my idea of compromise.

    We propose a bill that defines the militia as every able bodied adult. And regulates it by requiring that every member has to show proof of owning an AR-15 or equivalent and has 20/hrs a year of training/practice with it.

    Which some might consider extreme. So I'm willing to compromise and accept a mandatory two semester gun safety and training course requirement to graduate from high school.

  • robc||

    On an entirely unrelated note: So, Rush should play 2112 during their HOF induction just to piss off Jann Wenner, right?

  • John||

    The whole record front to back. Refuse to leave the stage until the last note is played.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I was watching some Rush documentary, and the guy who sets up the drums takes 3 hours each night to get it right.

  • John||

    While I have the utmost respect for Neal Peart as a musician and will never deny the wisdom of the millions of drummers who love him, he has never played a single thing that moved me. And I like Rush. I just never particularly got into his playing. It never seems to swing.

  • robc||

    More true of his older stuff.

    He as all about precision. Probably less so since he changed his drumming style (referencing the documentary AP mentioned).

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    This list just popped up on twitter

    The top 10 craziest drummers

  • John||

    I think Topper Headon was the bomb. Man that guy play.

    And you have to love Moon. Crazy fucker once passed out on stage after taking a gorilla tranquilizer. You shouldn't laugh because he life ended so unfortunately. But damn I laugh every time I think about that. A gorilla tranquilizer? Who other than Keith Moon thinks that is a good idea?

  • sarcasmic||

    Love the Ministry. So what.

  • ||

    one of the best bands i have ever seen in concert.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He's technically amazing, but, no, he ain't got the groove of say a Bonham--who made chicks dance. I mean, chicks never danced to Rush...because Peart isn't that kinda drummer.

    Peart's main contribution was lyrics. Dude's a pretty amazing lyricist. Nobody can take that away from him.

  • JeremyR||

    Xanadu has really good drumming on it.

  • JeremyR||

    So does Force 10

  • robc||

    The one chick from Heart (the guitarist one) already whined about how hard the jam at the end is gonna be because Rush is difficult to play. She said something about not being able to learn the songs with a couple of practices.

    Chuck D of Public Enemy seems thrilled that Rush is going in with him.

  • John||

    When you get into rock because you are hot, life is like that sometimes.

  • John||

    http://fullcomment.nationalpos.....never-did/

    The idiocy of the long gun registry in Canada.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    The prize in the 50/50 Draw at tonight's Winnipeg Jets game was over $20,000

    /that's tax free.

  • General Butt Naked||

    This guy is awesome. He only has a couple of videos up, but they're smart and evenhanded.

  • ||

    Yes. He's good. Sharing this right away.

  • ||

  • waaminn||

    Seems liek a pretty solid deal to me dude.

    www.ImAnon.tk

  • TheZeitgeist||

    ...according to Feinstein, turn a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine into an "assault weapon": a pistol grip or forward grip, a grenade launcher or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel, or a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock...

    Thank God my home-brewed $170-in-parts flamethrower has a wooden stock. No shooting the theater up for me, no sirree, I'll bu-bu-bu-burn the fucking building down instead. Still legal.

  • HiTechSurvival.com||

    Hopefully this will die a horrible death by laughter....

  • Deadlyillness||

    Half of all rifles made are banned by the bill. Better hope the repubelicans at least stand up for us there.

  • CZmacure||

    1) To reduce assault style rifle violence mandate that owners must keep their weapons away from minors and disturbed individuals in the home or face severe civil and criminal consequences with mandatory prison time. Let your son go to school with your AR-10, AR-15, high capacity assault styled weapon because you didn't lock it away from him then lose your savings, your home and your freedom. If you locked it up and he stole it, then you are not culpable. But you run the risk to trust him or not. This would not include handguns.

    2) To reduce handgun related violence declare the Bloods, Crips, MS13, Hells Angels, mafia, .... demonstrably violent gangs.... as TERRORISTS. Treat them like enemy combatants. Use the NDAA 2012 and extended Patriot Act against them. Sure we have too many people in prison and yet our crime rates are down - go figure. Just being in a demonstrably violent gang should make it illegal to own a gun. When you are a member of a gang you are forswearing your primary secular allegiance to the U.S.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement