Proposed gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.
One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.
"What a joke," said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.
Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.
Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. "I can't imagine what the difference is," Hanlon said.
President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.
A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein's proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.
Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to "make crystal clear" that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.
The December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 students and educators dead forced Washington to focus on curbing gun violence, a risky political move not tried in decades.
The gun industry, which is fighting any sort of ban, says gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest it's ever been, with more than 100 million firearms owners.
Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have traveled around the country in an effort to gain support for new laws. Feinstein's proposal is the only sweeping piece of legislation designed to ban assault weapons currently being considered.
But some gun experts say the lists of banned and exempted firearms show a lack of understanding and expertise of guns.
"There's no logic to it," said Greg Danas, president of a Massachusetts-based expert witness business and firearms ballistic laboratory. "What kind of effect is it going to have?"
Feinstein's bill defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that has one of several military characteristics that are specified in her legislation. Examples of those characteristics include a pistol grip, which makes a firearm easier to hold, and a forward grip, which makes the firearm easier to stabilize to improve accuracy. The definition is similar to the one in Congress' original ban on assault weapons, which went into effect in 1994 and was widely criticized for outlawing firearms based on cosmetic features.
Feinstein was behind the 1994 law which, at the time, protected more than 600 firearms. The current bill would exempt by name and model more than 2,200 firearms by name and model.
Feinstein said her staff had worked for more than a year to draft updates for the ban that expired in 2004, and it was apparent in the wake of recent mass shootings that now was the time to introduce a new bill. She said her staff consulted with law enforcement agencies and policy experts for months to create the expanded list.
Naming firearms that would remain legal under an assault weapons ban is a politically motivated gesture that was used to help pass the original ban in the early 1990s, people familiar with the process said.
Any firearm that does not fall within the law's definition of an assault weapon would not be banned. As a result, the list gives vulnerable politicians cover from constituents who do not want to give up their firearms.
For example, a politician can look at the list and assure a constituent that the government would not ban the firearm he or she loves to use for deer hunting. Under the 1994 law and the currently proposed one, the government would not have the authority to take away guns people already legally own. The ban would only apply to specific firearms manufactured and sold after the law is enacted.
A list of exempted firearms was not part of Feinstein's original assault weapons ban two decades ago, said Michael Lenett, one of the lead congressional staffers on gun control issues in 1994. A separate bill in circulation exempted far fewer hunting and sporting firearms, Lenett said.
The purpose of creating such a list was to assure people that the government was not going after any legitimate hunting or sporting weapons. "The other purpose of the list was to have a high profile way of assuring certain folks - including legislators - that we would not be going after their weapons that they use for those legitimate purposes," Lenett said.
"It was a win-win situation," Lenett recalled, because, he said, if the list could help pick up votes needed to pass the bill and temper some of the opposition, it could assuage some opponents of the ban without making the law less effective.
But gun experts say the lists in 1994 and the expanded lists of today don't make much sense.
"The bill demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the product they are purporting to regulate," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association based in Newtown, Conn., that represents gun manufacturers. "I have no idea how they arrived at this list. It would seem to be random, bordering on throwing darts at a dart board."
For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP.
Feinstein said there was disagreement among firearms experts, law enforcement and gun safety organizations about whether to include the M-1 Carbine on the list of banned weapons.
"It has been used in multiple police shootings, and was originally used by U.S. soldiers on the battlefield," Feinstein said. "On the other hand, it comes in models that would not meet the military characteristics test." She said she decided to limit banned weapons to those that met the definition outlined in the bill.
At a Jan. 30 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said Feinstein's bill is "based on falsehoods to people that do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance characteristics of guns that they are trying to ban through that bill are different than the performance characteristics that they're not trying to ban."
The Ruger Mini-14 is a perfect example.
The model that has a fixed stock would be exempted by Feinstein's ban; the weapon was protected in the 1994 law as well. A Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible and folding stock would be illegal.
The guns fire the same caliber bullet and can take detachable magazines that could hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. The folding stock only reduces the gun's length by 2.75 inches, according to the manufacturer's website.
"It's irrelevant," Edmund Mireles, an FBI agent who survived the Miami shootout, said of the differences in features. "They're equally dangerous."
Mark D. Jones, a senior law enforcement adviser for the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said the folding stock does not affect the firearm's lethal potential.
"Given that both firearms will accept a 30 round or larger magazine, it renders the differences between them entirely cosmetic," Jones said.
Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, said the Ruger Mini-14 model that would be banned under Feinstein's legislation is easier to hold while firing because it has a pistol grip, and it's easier to hide because it has a collapsible stock. That's what makes it more dangerous that the Ruger Mini-14 with the fixed stock which would be exempted under the Feinstein bill, she said.
"And that's supposed to save somebody's life?" asked Hanlon, the FBI agent shot alongside Mireles.
Hanlon considered the differences between the two models and whether the events of April 11, 1986, would have been different if the shooter used a Ruger Mini-14 with a fixed stock. "I don't think it would have changed a damn thing," he said. "I don't see what makes that gun less dangerous."
One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.
"What a joke," said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.
Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.
Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. "I can't imagine what the difference is," Hanlon said.
President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.
A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein's proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.
Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to "make crystal clear" that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.
The December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 students and educators dead forced Washington to focus on curbing gun violence, a risky political move not tried in decades.
The gun industry, which is fighting any sort of ban, says gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest it's ever been, with more than 100 million firearms owners.
Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have traveled around the country in an effort to gain support for new laws. Feinstein's proposal is the only sweeping piece of legislation designed to ban assault weapons currently being considered.
But some gun experts say the lists of banned and exempted firearms show a lack of understanding and expertise of guns.
"There's no logic to it," said Greg Danas, president of a Massachusetts-based expert witness business and firearms ballistic laboratory. "What kind of effect is it going to have?"
Feinstein's bill defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that has one of several military characteristics that are specified in her legislation. Examples of those characteristics include a pistol grip, which makes a firearm easier to hold, and a forward grip, which makes the firearm easier to stabilize to improve accuracy. The definition is similar to the one in Congress' original ban on assault weapons, which went into effect in 1994 and was widely criticized for outlawing firearms based on cosmetic features.
Feinstein was behind the 1994 law which, at the time, protected more than 600 firearms. The current bill would exempt by name and model more than 2,200 firearms by name and model.
Feinstein said her staff had worked for more than a year to draft updates for the ban that expired in 2004, and it was apparent in the wake of recent mass shootings that now was the time to introduce a new bill. She said her staff consulted with law enforcement agencies and policy experts for months to create the expanded list.
Naming firearms that would remain legal under an assault weapons ban is a politically motivated gesture that was used to help pass the original ban in the early 1990s, people familiar with the process said.
Any firearm that does not fall within the law's definition of an assault weapon would not be banned. As a result, the list gives vulnerable politicians cover from constituents who do not want to give up their firearms.
For example, a politician can look at the list and assure a constituent that the government would not ban the firearm he or she loves to use for deer hunting. Under the 1994 law and the currently proposed one, the government would not have the authority to take away guns people already legally own. The ban would only apply to specific firearms manufactured and sold after the law is enacted.
A list of exempted firearms was not part of Feinstein's original assault weapons ban two decades ago, said Michael Lenett, one of the lead congressional staffers on gun control issues in 1994. A separate bill in circulation exempted far fewer hunting and sporting firearms, Lenett said.
The purpose of creating such a list was to assure people that the government was not going after any legitimate hunting or sporting weapons. "The other purpose of the list was to have a high profile way of assuring certain folks - including legislators - that we would not be going after their weapons that they use for those legitimate purposes," Lenett said.
"It was a win-win situation," Lenett recalled, because, he said, if the list could help pick up votes needed to pass the bill and temper some of the opposition, it could assuage some opponents of the ban without making the law less effective.
But gun experts say the lists in 1994 and the expanded lists of today don't make much sense.
"The bill demonstrates a shocking ignorance of the product they are purporting to regulate," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association based in Newtown, Conn., that represents gun manufacturers. "I have no idea how they arrived at this list. It would seem to be random, bordering on throwing darts at a dart board."
For instance, Feinstein's current proposal includes exemptions for three specific types of the M-1 Carbine, an assault rifle designed for the military that the U.S. currently bans from being imported. A draft of the legislation, created and modified in November and early December last year, banned the M-1 Carbine and didn't exempt any models, according to a copy obtained by the AP.
Feinstein said there was disagreement among firearms experts, law enforcement and gun safety organizations about whether to include the M-1 Carbine on the list of banned weapons.
"It has been used in multiple police shootings, and was originally used by U.S. soldiers on the battlefield," Feinstein said. "On the other hand, it comes in models that would not meet the military characteristics test." She said she decided to limit banned weapons to those that met the definition outlined in the bill.
At a Jan. 30 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on gun violence, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre said Feinstein's bill is "based on falsehoods to people that do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance characteristics of guns that they are trying to ban through that bill are different than the performance characteristics that they're not trying to ban."
The Ruger Mini-14 is a perfect example.
The model that has a fixed stock would be exempted by Feinstein's ban; the weapon was protected in the 1994 law as well. A Ruger Mini-14 with a collapsible and folding stock would be illegal.
The guns fire the same caliber bullet and can take detachable magazines that could hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. The folding stock only reduces the gun's length by 2.75 inches, according to the manufacturer's website.
"It's irrelevant," Edmund Mireles, an FBI agent who survived the Miami shootout, said of the differences in features. "They're equally dangerous."
Mark D. Jones, a senior law enforcement adviser for the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said the folding stock does not affect the firearm's lethal potential.
"Given that both firearms will accept a 30 round or larger magazine, it renders the differences between them entirely cosmetic," Jones said.
Kristen Rand, the legislative director at the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, said the Ruger Mini-14 model that would be banned under Feinstein's legislation is easier to hold while firing because it has a pistol grip, and it's easier to hide because it has a collapsible stock. That's what makes it more dangerous that the Ruger Mini-14 with the fixed stock which would be exempted under the Feinstein bill, she said.
"And that's supposed to save somebody's life?" asked Hanlon, the FBI agent shot alongside Mireles.
Hanlon considered the differences between the two models and whether the events of April 11, 1986, would have been different if the shooter used a Ruger Mini-14 with a fixed stock. "I don't think it would have changed a damn thing," he said. "I don't see what makes that gun less dangerous."
Ok, so the proposed ban won't stop a mass shooting, won't prevent criminals from acquiring firearms and won't prevent ownership of 2,200 weapons that would otherwise be considered illegal even though they are functionally identical to their banned counterparts. So I guess the goal here is just to ban something for the sake of banning it?
I like the thirty round clip - I can make a rabbit dance
Government just wants the monopoly on guns "fast and furious"
I bet we could all open a shooting range together. If we wanted to.
@TreeWizardÂ
We could put a berm right in front of my crappy neighbor's front door, if you'd like.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard We will make it are arty range.
Feinstein, the anti-gun zealot hippocrit, is also part of the problem.
@theobserverÂ
How so?
@Diogenes @theobserver I don't think she should be trying to dictate gun legislation to other states when her state doesn't even have its s*it together. She either needs to come off her high horse or someone needs to kick her off it. Yes sir. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition"
@Diogenes @TreeWizard @theobserver Cali is 13th down and here in Oregon we are like 41st from the top with .9. Yes, I get mad when a Representative from a state with a higher gun murder per 100,000 than 37 other states is the most vocal. And they have more Gun murders per 100,000 than Fing Texas. "Her jobs is LITERALLY to dictate gun legislation to other states." that is only her job if she makes it her job. Plenty of Reps. ride the Pine.
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @theobserverÂ
I'm not sure I understand your point. Â California has a lower rate of gun murders than the national average (3.4 per 100,000 in CA vs. 4.3 per 100,000 for the US). Â And besides that, Feinstein is a US senator. Â She doesn't have any control over California state law. Â Her jobs is LITERALLY to dictate gun legislation to other states.
The bill bans 157 guns but the press reports it as protecting guns...."Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms". Our propaganda press/media at its finest......Or in other words.....Welcome to "new speak", where gun control will protect guns.....
So, I wanted to clear something up, if you all wouldn't mind. Â Why is it that when Alex Jones made a fool of himself on the Piers Morgan show, all the righties called him a crank and said he doesn't represent gun owners and more than one of you said he was actually a plant meant to make gun owners look bad. Â But you're all now floating one of his conspiracy theories about how the government is buying up all the ammunition to start an arms race with the American public. Â Have y'all ever heard of cognitive dissonance? Â Because that's kind of what I'm seeing here.
http://youtu.be/gWQPZ-taYBs
@Diogenes The problem I see is not Alex Jones (though myself and most other conservative see him as a whack job). The problem is a foreigner (as in non-U.S. Citizen) like Piers Morgan is commented on US laws.
He needs to just STFU and go back the England where he came from where he can enjoy their restrictive gun laws. If he doesn't like our laws why the hell is he here? Oh I know...it's the money he's getting from CNN. Yep, it's all about the money.
@scoreboard @DiogenesÂ
So, that's called the "Genetic Fallacy." Â You don't like the SOURCE of the argument, but you can't refute it, so you impeach the speaker and ignore the argument. Â I understand the allure, but...it's kind of disingenuous. Â It doesn't MATTER whether or not he's a citizen. Â Fact and logic don't shift at the water's edge. Â Besides the fact that he's basically saying what the majority of Americans (that would be those citizens you elevate over Morgan) are saying. Â Poll after poll is showing really strong majorities of Americans want exactly what Morgan said he's for. Â Are you going to deport 80% of the country because they don't agree with you?
If so, how's about you start with me? Â My family immigrated here in the 16th Century. Â We've been active duty military in every conflict ever fought by Americans. Â I even have a cousin who took part in the Boston Tea Party, Colonel John May. Â I'm as American as it's possible to be, and I don't agree with you. Â You want to tell me that I have to "go back the [sic] England" where my ancestors came from? Â Or do you realize how silly it is to concentrate on Piers Morgan while completely ignoring what he's saying?
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Perfect.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard I don't want a full-auto I need one. Cut down some trees, insure the animal is 120% dead, scare neighbors, show off to redneck friends and start my own militia.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Well, if that's your standard, the Mac10.... Â Actually, I wouldn't want a fully automatic weapon. Â Now, if someone were giving away Benelli Super-90s, I'd bite.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Hey, that is the first full-auto weapon I would buy. At least its better than the Mac10.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Uzis suck. Â The safest guy in the room is the one the bad guy is aiming an Uzi at. Â That loosey-goosey action on those things means no two rounds are going to the same place, even if you've got the gun bench mounted.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Because of Fast and Furious, another reason I don't care what the government says. I think probably 98% of their military is armed by us, but their cartels have a lot Russian weapons that I highly doubt they got from us. Oh and Uzis. Â
@TreeWizardÂ
From where? Â All the guns being used in Mexico came from here. Â Canada only allows the kinds of guns that Diane Feinstein wouldn't have a problem with. Â If (and this is in no way a possibility) the US instituted a UK-style gun ban, the guns would dry up really fast.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard @scoreboard Which is why being located on an island is a benefit. More ways to sneak guns into the US than the UK.
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @scoreboardÂ
Actually they do too. Â They have street gangs and organized crime. Â Hell, kid. Â London is one of the largest cities in the world, and they've been at it a hell of a lot longer than we have. Â They have a criminal underground that stretches back centuries. Â They just don't have easy access to guns.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard @scoreboard mmmm, there are some pretty big differences for why at least I think England has fewer problems. They are on an island and they don't have a volatile neighbor like we do in Mexico. They also don't have the Mafia, Street gangs and Hate group problems like we do.Â
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @scoreboardÂ
Well, folks should really not get so hung up on that side of it. Â Since Morgan comes from a country with significantly less violence, maybe he has a valuable perspective to lend to the debate. Â Anyways, no matter where the voice comes from, I'm not going to shut them up (except that loon, Lee; him I don't want to hear from because he is insane).
@Diogenes @scoreboard "Are you going to deport 80% of the country because they don't agree with you?" No, I think his issue is with the fact he is not an American citizen, and yet he thinks he is worthy enough to talk about it and criticize Americans. One of the most controversial domestic issues.Â
@scoreboard @Diogenes He can't go back they disowned him. "The problem is a foreigner...commented on US laws." Amen.
@DiogenesIn this case, he's just quoting the government. Here's the GOVERNMENT link showing that they're buying 10,000,000 .40 rounds (lead), and 10,000,000 9mm rounds.Â
 https://marketplace.fedbid.com/fbweb/fbobuyDetails.do?token===wBKxmaVGYR9Kcq5Ajq%2BRH6QAAAAAHeAAgAgTFCGg/FzzqQbJAAyVXBA0Or
Here's the GOVERNMENT "Personal Defense Weapon" solicitation link showing that DHS is ordering thousands of AR-15-type rifles as "Personal Defense Weapons."Â
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0
Does that answer your question or is all of this simply dismissible because Alex Jones brought it up?
@Playanekes @DiogenesÂ
I didn't say the government wasn't buying ammunition. Â There are a lot of Federal law enforcement professionals, and they need ammunition for training and operations. Â What's crazy is to say the Federal government is in an "arms race" with the American public. Â They don't need to be in an arms race, because they have M1A1 ABRAMS TANKS, MACHINE GUNS, AND ARTILLERY!!! Â It's just a really, really bad joke. Â It's "dismissable" because it's stupid on its face to interpret a standard government procurement action as some kind of secret war plan. Â If the American public went to war with its government, it would lose in less than a day.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard "We were drilled to shoot wisely" I can get behind that (No homo), But life happens and sometimes you might have just needed that one extra round. Or an m79, one and done.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
I can respect that. Â I learned how to shoot on M1911A1s with 7-round magazines. Â We were drilled to shoot wisely because if we were boarded, we'd be fighting in steel passageways where a stray round could bounce all over the damned place and kill friend and foe alike. Â I'm real careful with my shots. Â Can't imagine needing 15 of them....
@Diogenes O yeah and the fact when I go to the range I hate to reload and "high cap mags" help me out on that. I can just load before I go and be done.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard "I can actually shoot and wouldn't spray and pray like most homeowners." I can agree with that. My issue is, I would rather have the extra rounds and not need them than need them and not have them.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Well, don't tell anyone, but I don't have a problem with high-cap magazines. Â If the government instituted a gun license that had to be renewed periodically, and if they required gun owners to pass a competency exam, I think we could eliminate a lot of shootings. Â Add that to mental health background checks and stronger anti-straw buyer legislation, and we could cut gun murders down by a significant portion. I'm not actually for banning high-cap magazines or AR-15s, though I can say I don't see the need for such contrivances. Â I've never felt like I need more than 10 rounds to defend my home, but I can actually shoot and wouldn't spray and pray like most homeowners.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Well, I just don't get why cops need 15rd+ mags, but for some reason I shouldn't be aloud to have them to defend myself and my own. I can tell you right now I can probably out shoot most cops.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Well, there just aren't a lot of examples of citizens legitimately defending themselves from the government. Â Especially not in the last 50 years. Â Now what we get are traitors who call themselves a militia and plan to kill cops. Â Generally speaking, the G-Men are the good guys (yeah, yeah, of course there are exceptions).
@Diogenes @TreeWizard I just gave that because it was fresh in the old memory bank.
@TreeWizardÂ
You wanna do the math on how rare an event that is? Â So rare that you had to reach back to 1946 for an example....
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard The men at Athens Tenn were.
@Playanekes @TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
I didn't ignore your links, I just didn't have any problem with them. Â If you think for one second that you will EVER be in the kind of firefight that Federal law enforcement officers will, you're insane.
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @Playanekes Exactly.
More importantly, when THEY buy them, the second link, which Diogenes apparently ignored, calls "military-style assault weapons" while, in their hands, calling them "Personal Defense Weapons."
Out of the other side of their mouths, of course, they're telling us these weapons are only made to inflict mass casualties.
Tin Soldiers and Nixon's Coming...
@Diogenes @Playanekes I don't think they are in an arms race. I think it would be more along the lines of the government trying to limit access to ammo. I think they anticipate Semi-autos not being banned. Arty, Tanks and machine guns are all nice things to have, but it doesn't equate to a decisive victory, too many variables to take into consideration.
@Diogenes I think it is really nice of CNN to higher the mentally Handicap.
@Diogenes lol hire* just caught that.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
I don't know. Â I don't think Alex Jones could get much higher....
@Diogenes @TreeWizard @Playanekes White Protestant, I have nothing to worry about if I go to federal Prison. I'll just join the AB for protection. heheÂ
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @PlayanekesÂ
How? Â On the black market? Â Please don't. Â I think, with your sense of humor, you wouldn't fare well in Federal prison....
@Diogenes @TreeWizard @Playanekes "When the majority of your neighbors say they don't want you having an AR-15 and a 30-round magazine" I'll tell them I don't take kindly to there ignorance in my neighborhood. Legislation be damned. I will continue to buy 30rd. standard mags and AR-15s.Â
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizardÂ
By the way, since you've decided to be uncivil, I'll note that you STILL haven't provided any evidence that you weren't full of crap about how Feinstein's new bill would confiscate weapons from their owners. Â You said it with such confidence, but strangely enough, you couldn't back up your claim, not even a little. Â Funny how that works....
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @PlayanekesÂ
I think we've beat the Piers Morgan horse to death and beyond (heh...Morgan horse). Â The United States is a democracy, as in the people (demos) rule (kratos). Â The people are speaking pretty loudly on this issue, and they're saying your need or desire for certain firearms does not outweigh their need or desire for public safety. Â And they're saying it pretty loudly.
You know I don't want guns confiscated. Â You know I like the ones I already have, and I plan on getting some more. Â But you have to understand and respect the process of self-rule also carries an element of majority chooses. Â When the majority of your neighbors say they don't want you having an AR-15 and a 30-round magazine, they can execute that legislatively and you won't be able to buy those weapons and those magazines anymore.
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard I don't need an Idiot like Piers brain dead morgan telling me I shouldn't be allowed to buy my semi-auto rifles and having regular capacity mags.
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizardÂ
In what way is Piers Morgan "trying to take away" your right to keep and bear arms? Â Nothing he's said is at all in controversion with what the Supreme Court has already said about the government's authority to regulate firearms. Â I don't think he's trying to ban guns, I think he's advocating for (AGAIN) the same solutions that most Americans think would help limit gun violence. Â Focusing on Piers Morgan because he's saying what everybody else is thinking is pointless and odd. Â And pretending that silencing dissent is anything other than a craven exercise in censorship motivated by your inability to debate the issue on its merits is delusional. Â Piers Morgan is a jackass, sure, but at least he has the balls to speak his piece. Â If you think that no gun control legislation should be passed, then say that. Â Don't tell other people what they should think or what they have the right to say.
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizardÂ
So, if you're going to say you're not a righty, then you might want to edit all those comments you've made (eleventybillion and counting) in which you claim everything wrong with everything is the fault of "hippies" and liberals. Â Did you think I wasn't paying attention? Â Just because you're not a complete jackass on every issue doesn't mean you're not a righty. Â And I didn't call you a fool. Â I said reality makes you look like a fool when you try and pretend that polls aren't accurate. That's what happened to the entire right side of the political spectrum last election season, and some of you guys seem like you haven't learned your lesson.
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard Piers Morgan has never done a f-----g thing to ensure my right to free speech.  Don't assume for a second I'm going to buy that nonsense.
I defend the rights of AMERICANS.  He's British, and trying to take away my SECOND AMENDMENT while he's using journalism as an excuse to violate the privacy of citizens in England.
I wouldn't waste American urine on Piers Morgan if he was on fire. Hope that clears up any ambiguity on the matter.
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard *YAWN*  Wayne LaPierre jokes.
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard See, first of all, when you talk about "making fools out of you," I should point out that I support gays marriage, women in combat, gays in combat, abortion (ugh) and marijuana legalization.
So... here you all calling me a "righty" and and a "fool."  Brilliant.
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @PlayanekesÂ
Yeah, I'm not trying to argue that Piers Morgan is a paragon of journalistic virtue. Â I don't care for him, like I said. Â I'm just saying I wish some actual responsible gun owners would speak up. Â Well, actually some did. Â Gabby Giffords and her husband are gun owners. Â Of course, they're on my side of the debate, so you might not like what they have to say....
@Diogenes @TreeWizard @Playanekes aw I didn't know about him. I just know Piers actions during that interview were so unprofessional, and the fact some of his stats were cooked doesn't mean a lot of his points were not accurate. When he was able to make them.
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @PlayanekesÂ
DAMMIT! Â I was in the middle of a reply to you. Â You're talking about John Lott. Â I found a bunch of references to it. Â Yeah, he's not sane, either. Â He's an economist who wrote a book titled MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. Â But he got caught cooking the books, and his work was analyzed by several different teams of statisticians and economists and was proven to be exactly the reverse of what he claimed. Â He never apologized, even after independent teams came up with the same result. Â He's no more sane than Jones. Â Or, maybe he is, and he's just a damned lying liar.
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard Well I can't seem to find it.
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizardÂ
Oh, come on. Â Freedom of speech isn't just a legal concept, it's a human right. Â When we silence the voices we don't like, we're asking for someone else to do the same to us. Â You may not like what Morgan has to say, and you may not like Morgan himself, but you should be standing up and defending his right to speak, because that's the only way to ensure you keep your right to do the same.
@TreeWizard @Diogenes @PlayanekesÂ
Well, link to the sane gun owner Morgan wouldn't let talk, then. Â Because the loudest anti-gun control voices in the gun debate right now are the absolutely insane folks like Alex Jones and Wayne LaPierre. Â I'm a gun owner, and those guys absolutely do not represent me, but they say they do. Â Where are the sane voices advocating for zero legislative response to gun violence? Â I'm not hearing them.
@Diogenes @Playanekes @TreeWizard Piers MO is to find crazy folks that make gun owners look bad, and when he actually gets a sane gun owner he refuses to let them talk.
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizardÂ
"Got him to melt down?" Â Seriously, dude, did you watch that video? Â The guy was melting down before Morgan even started. Â And as for "weirdest, wildest, least-credible jackass," I didn't see Wayne LaPierre anywhere in that segment....
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizardÂ
Do you really want to have another unskewed polls conversation? Â Really? Â Because whenever righties start talking about how the polls aren't accurate, reality steps in to make fools of you. Â Americans want gun control, and you know it. Â You can go the Alex Jones route and say that we're all lemmings, blah, blah, blah, or you can acknowledge that gun laws are too loose and we need to strike a responsible balance between freedom and public safety. Â Your choice. Â I've made mine.
@TreeWizard @Playanekes @Diogenes He was also the editor responsible for journalists who were hacking into private citizens' voice mails, cell phone records, text messages, etc.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Alex Jones is the clearing house for 9/11 Troofers, Chemtrail theorists and anti-government conspiracy.
Don't you see what Piers Morgan did here? He got the wierdest, wildest, least-credible jackass he could and then got him to melt down, and then used him as an example of "gun nuts."
Basic stuff. It's like bringing in David Duke to respresent white people against the Black Panthers. You KNOW you're going to get TV ratings and everybody's gonna talk about the beat down.
@Playanekes @Diogenes @TreeWizard Wasn't he responsible for having faked photos published of UK troops mistreating prisoners. Â
@Diogenes @TreeWizard You took this poll yourself?
About 80% of Americans? Somebody asked you, or, you just read that somewhere?
@Diogenes @TreeWizard No. He's not a citizen and he's trying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. He's on the run from accountability for ethics problems in Europe, so, why would an American patriot allow some arrogant liberal, unethical limey who is the very paragon of corrupt journalism become the figurehead for the American gun debate?
Can't they find Americans to do it?
@Diogenes At least Alex Jones will eventually tell the truth after blabbering on for an hour, not the case with Piers Morgan.Â
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Good thing I am not an NRA member than. I'll make like a Kennedy and get involved in the illegal gun trade if they are ever banned. And one of my kids will become president.Â
@TreeWizard @Diogenes
Seems like some Glenn Beck wannabe. Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Who is he?
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Jesus Christ, I just got done watching that video I posted. Â I'd never seen the whole thing. Â No WONDER righties disavowed Alex Jones. Â That guy if a friggin' LOON!
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
He said that he was for limiting magazine sizes, banning military style semi-automatic rifles, and boosting mental health care. Â Several dozen polls have showed that Americans, including NRA members, agree.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Delete the last sentence and I can like your comment. What did he state I don't have sound.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Meh. Â He's a talking head. Â But the reforms he said he's for at the beginning of the video I posted are pretty mainstream stuff. Â About 80% of Americans agree with him, including me.
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Am fine defending people that have opposite opinions from me. Just not him because he is so uniformed it hurts. I have never heard one fact come from him, and the fact he is on TV makes it worse.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Yeah, but even the symbolic act of silencing someone because you don't like what they have to say is troubling. Â We should be defending those most who have opinions the least like ours. Â If we all did that, wouldn't our democracy be stronger?
@Diogenes @TreeWizard I think it was, for most people that signed it, symbolic. I was going to sign it, but I didn't want to create an account on a Government site. We have enough Cave Trolls in America.
@TreeWizard @DiogenesÂ
Yeah, I've never much cared for Piers Morgan. Â He was a Rupert Murdoch lieutenant, which makes it hard to ever take him seriously. Â But I do love the irony of all the 2d Amendment defenders trying to deport the man for speaking his mind. Â Kind of ridiculous and maybe even tragic, isn't it?
@Diogenes @TreeWizard Uhh, I can't even watch that with that troll piers being shown and heard.Â