Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die So That Broader Gun Policy Legislation Can Live

WASHINGTON -- Barring an unexpected turn of legislative affairs, a ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons will not make it into law, top Hill aides and gun policy advocates say.

The ban will get a vote. But the purpose of that vote will be in part to facilitate its demise. The expectation is that there won't be 60 members of the upper chamber to support the bill's inclusion in the final legislative language.

The likelihood that an assault weapons ban ends up in the legislative scrapheap is hardly unexpected -- the Wall Street Journal also reported on the issue on Monday morning. The ban is the most controversial of four major components of the gun control platform that the Obama administration introduced and that congressional Democrats have touted. The other three -- a universal background check for firearms sales, a federal trafficking law, and a ban on high-capacity magazines -- are likely to be part of a final bill, Democratic aides say, though there is growing concern about whether a ban on high-capacity magazines can make it into law.

SOURCE!

GOOD NEWS to hear it looks like emotional kneejerking making unecessary gun control laws when they obviously don't work because it doesn't solve the root problem. The liberals and those Brady Campaign retards are going to be losing this one. thank god I didn't take that loan out for the next gun show..

At 2/5/13 11:11 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die So That Broader Gun Policy Legislation Can Live

WASHINGTON -- Barring an unexpected turn of legislative affairs, a ban on military-style semi-automatic assault weapons will not make it into law, top Hill aides and gun policy advocates say.

The ban will get a vote. But the purpose of that vote will be in part to facilitate its demise. The expectation is that there won't be 60 members of the upper chamber to support the bill's inclusion in the final legislative language.

The likelihood that an assault weapons ban ends up in the legislative scrapheap is hardly unexpected -- the Wall Street Journal also reported on the issue on Monday morning. The ban is the most controversial of four major components of the gun control platform that the Obama administration introduced and that congressional Democrats have touted. The other three -- a universal background check for firearms sales, a federal trafficking law, and a ban on high-capacity magazines -- are likely to be part of a final bill, Democratic aides say, though there is growing concern about whether a ban on high-capacity magazines can make it into law.

SOURCE!

GOOD NEWS to hear it looks like emotional kneejerking making unecessary gun control laws when they obviously don't work because it doesn't solve the root problem. The liberals and those Brady Campaign retards are going to be losing this one. thank god I didn't take that loan out for the next gun show..

Gun Control Laws just won't solve anything, again due to the fact that criminals will find alternative ways to get there hands on such weapons, witch in turn leaves the law-abiding citizen defenseless.

Even then whatever the case, people need to learn weapon responsibility and the reason for that is simple, everyone is armed, down to the body itself.

Thank goodness.

Too bad for gun manufacturers though. The idea of a ban really boosted their sales quite a bit.

At 2/7/13 02:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Thank goodness.

Too bad for gun manufacturers though. The idea of a ban really boosted their sales quite a bit.

3 million AR-15s and 5 million handguns in two months and the US's public supply regular and hi-cap magazines are completely out on Backorder.

There's some wishful thinking well with the impeding police state also very highly unlikely that Citizens will be holding onto any weapons in the near future and I say good riddance. Do you guy's want to sit in Jail for a good long time or do you want to go home to the family the choice is yours but I suggest you think your options through cause you actually have none as resistance to the incoming Police state is futile.

Yeah, it's not like I've been saying this from the start or anything. Good thing I get to keep my account.

At 2/8/13 06:27 AM, Feoric wrote: Yeah, it's not like I've been saying this from the start or anything. Good thing I get to keep my account.

and the gun laws stay the same as they ever were.

At 2/8/13 09:41 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and the gun laws stay the same as they ever were.

Did you ever think Feinstein's proposals ever had a snowball's chance in hell to ever be seriously considered, let alone pass Congress or something? The whole point of this was to make it seem to everyone like they were trying to do something in the wake of a tragedy all the while knowing that gun control has been dead as an issue for over a decade and that realistically there is basically nothing that can be done about it. What were you expecting?

At 2/8/13 02:35 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/8/13 12:26 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: There's some wishful thinking well with the impeding police state also very highly unlikely that Citizens will be holding onto any weapons in the near future and I say good riddance. Do you guy's want to sit in Jail for a good long time or do you want to go home to the family the choice is yours but I suggest you think your options through cause you actually have none as resistance to the incoming Police state is futile.

1 problem with your theory.

1st it's not a theory it's a fact that you do fuck with the Police.

in order for that to happen congress would have to agree to such a thing.

LOL just like the people agree to get molested and abused at the airport. People will do what they are told and it's a proven fact. The few that get stupid will be made an example of.

the only way for that to happen would be a democrat supermajority. Good luck on that one.

Oh my god I can't believe you don't realize they have already pulled the wool over your eyes LOL you live in a Police state if you live in America.

As much as the Obama administration and his lackeys in the media are fighting to try and demonize the GOP, the odds of them getting a large enough majority in the house and senate to do such a thing is pretty much nil.

They don't need a vote to make the rules as they go along they need a War and they got one ever since 9/11.

the wave of brain dead zombie college students that Obama managed to whip up on his first term are now unemployed college graduates and drop outs.

More like Black people from the Ghettos. The sheep/students will follow whatever is popular and it doesn't hurt the students that Obama is the king of Welfare and I ain't knockin on social Welfare programs and monetary hand outs cause god knows that's the back bone of a stronger and more educated society. Just look at Sweden, Norway, Finland they are Welfare central and they have some excellent educational systems and a very high national happiness rate.

the odds of either party forming such a large majority in either house, let alone both ever again are very slim unless one party does something extremely stupid.

Once again you are inferring the system works when it does not as it is completely broken down and the power lies with the elite not the people. See that's why Wars are fought for and excuse to take power away from the people and into the hands of the benevolent dictators and saviors and banksters. For the people to be in power they would need to be in control of the money supply which they are not and they would need to control the Police and Military which they don't therfore all power lies in the hands of the power elite aka not the people.

At 2/8/13 10:05 AM, Feoric wrote: Did you ever think Feinstein's proposals ever had a snowball's chance in hell to ever be seriously considered, let alone pass Congress or something?

out of the emotional butthurt yeah I kinda did.

What were you expecting?

half expecting something to happen other than political posturing.

At 2/8/13 10:23 AM, Korriken wrote:

If that's the case, why are foreigners sending their children to the USA to get an education?

US has a failed Educational system that's why people go to US to get an education because where they come from only the best get a top education whereas in US anyone can get an Online deploma and become and overnight expert for $29.95. The American education system is a joke as is the Government.

At 2/8/13 01:22 PM, Light wrote:

At 2/8/13 10:39 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/8/13 10:23 AM, Korriken wrote:

If that's the case, why are foreigners sending their children to the USA to get an education?

US has a failed Educational system that's why people go to US to get an education because where they come from only the best get a top education whereas in US anyone can get an Online deploma and become and overnight expert for $29.95. The American education system is a joke as is the Government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/why-
us-schools-are-better-than-we-think/2013/02/06/0943418c-701e -11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

A Washington Post article is kind of not a good thing use to try and advocate for the US educational system as of course the Washington post is going to look at it through rosy glasses and sugar coat the real problems.

At 2/7/13 02:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Thank goodness.

Too bad for gun manufacturers though. The idea of a ban really boosted their sales quite a bit.

too bad their boom in profits didn't get followed up with with their businesses being closed.

At 2/8/13 08:32 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 2/7/13 02:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Thank goodness.

Too bad for gun manufacturers though. The idea of a ban really boosted their sales quite a bit.

too bad their boom in profits didn't get followed up with with their businesses being closed.

yeah, then millions of people could lose their jobs! wouldn't that be great. More unemployed people! So exciting to think about how many people relying on that paycheck will be out of work!

you've got to be kidding.

At 2/8/13 08:33 PM, thegarbear14 wrote:

At 2/8/13 08:32 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 2/7/13 02:31 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Thank goodness.

Too bad for gun manufacturers though. The idea of a ban really boosted their sales quite a bit.

too bad their boom in profits didn't get followed up with with their businesses being closed.

yeah, then millions of people could lose their jobs! wouldn't that be great. More unemployed people! So exciting to think about how many people relying on that paycheck will be out of work!

you've got to be kidding.

At any rate they should not have even had those jobs to begin with I mean get a life instead of profiting off the taking of others.

At 2/5/13 11:11 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: GOOD NEWS to hear it looks like emotional kneejerking making unecessary gun control laws when they obviously don't work because it doesn't solve the root problem. The liberals and those Brady Campaign retards are going to be losing this one. thank god I didn't take that loan out for the next gun show..

I don't really get this. Of either side, the gun rights people are definitely the ones with lowest mean IQ and biggest kneejerk reactions. You may say try to say they're painting the gun ban with emotion, but there are people out there who think the Sandy Hook shooting was staged by Obama to try to ban guns, the NRA for example also ran an ad instead of attacking say gun control just attacked Obama himself and tried to paint him as an elitist. Out of this the NRA grew by alot. Besides I don't really think the AWB was fueled by emotion, some people simply think it's a good idea and it being a relevant political issue now was a good time to do so.

At 2/8/13 08:33 PM, thegarbear14 wrote:

you've got to be kidding.

oh you know me all to well

At 2/8/13 10:44 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't really get this. Of either side, the gun rights people are definitely the ones with lowest mean IQ and biggest kneejerk reactions. You may say try to say they're painting the gun ban with emotion, but there are people out there who think the Sandy Hook shooting was staged by Obama to try to ban guns,

try the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, Feinstien and Clinton saying "Ban Guns because they kill children" or "guns are bad" while blaming legal gun owners. the Gun rights activists are just trying to protect their Second Amendment Right.

the NRA for example also ran an ad instead of attacking say gun control just attacked Obama himself and tried to paint him as an elitist.

he is a elitist, wanting restrict certain guns civilians can own when the police and military have them and his protection detail by the secret service (for the rest of his LIFE) and he goes off saying he enjoys shooting while trying to pull this shit off?

right..

Out of this the NRA grew by alot. Besides I don't really think the AWB was fueled by emotion, some people simply think it's a good idea and it being a relevant political issue now was a good time to do so.

and the NRA should grow currently we are one of the biggest Heavy Hitters in lobbying, most of the Republicans have support from the NRA and a good handful of dems. and the AWB didn't work the first why would it have this time? and its not a political issue its been dead for years but people get all butthurt about it.

At 2/8/13 09:03 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: At any rate they should not have even had those jobs to begin with I mean get a life instead of profiting off the taking of others.

Jobs are bad now?

How were their profits based on "taking from others"....do you even know how money works?

At 2/9/13 12:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/8/13 09:03 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: At any rate they should not have even had those jobs to begin with I mean get a life instead of profiting off the taking of others.

Jobs are bad now?

How were their profits based on "taking from others"....do you even know how money works?

LOL yes many jobs are terrible and at a minimum should not even exist and the only reason they do is that they are manufactured to appease the corrupted "Market". I can think of all the life sucking jobs that could in a moment be replaced 100% by automation and mechanization. That's not even going into the fact that guns now in day's at a minimum should not exists as we are fucking advanced to thy tit's now in day's this is 2013 not 1813 lol.

At 2/9/13 02:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: LOL yes many jobs are terrible and at a minimum should not even exist and the only reason they do is that they are manufactured to appease the corrupted "Market". I can think of all the life sucking jobs that could in a moment be replaced 100% by automation and mechanization. That's not even going into the fact that guns now in day's at a minimum should not exists as we are fucking advanced to thy tit's now in day's this is 2013 not 1813 lol.

But the people who work those jobs are provided a good (or service) that people want, and exchange money for. Do you have a problem with a person, making a non-violent choice to exchange money THEY earn for something someone else makes and sets a price for? If someone is willing to give you money for something you grow in your garden, for example, would you say no?

100% automation and mechanization can be, in most cases, too expensive. And even still, people would still have to design, build and maintain said machines.

And yes, guns exist, as no matter what year it is, 1000, 1813, 2013, or 2050, there will always be violent, insane people. Therefore, guns, or weaponry in general always has a need to exist.

At 2/9/13 02:33 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

But the people who work those jobs are provided a good (or service) that people want, and exchange money for. Do you have a problem with a person, making a non-violent choice to exchange money THEY earn for something someone else makes and sets a price for? If someone is willing to give you money for something you grow in your garden, for example, would you say no?

So what you are saying is that a gun dealer is not responsible for selling death devices much as a coke dealer is not responsible for an addicts addiction.

100% automation and mechanization can be, in most cases, too expensive. And even still, people would still have to design, build and maintain said machines.

Actually health care insurance and high employee training costs and turn over rate, vacation pay, pensions, health benefits etc cost much more.

At 2/9/13 03:54 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So what you are saying is that a gun dealer is not responsible for selling death devices much as a coke dealer is not responsible for an addicts addiction.

Well, no. People make a choice to drink Coke. No one forces one to buy a Coke. It's 100% someone's choice whether or not to partake in a soda.

And a gun dealer sells an object. Are you saying a knife dealer, or someone who sells things in glass bottles, or car dealer is selling "death devices"?

Actually health care insurance and high employee training costs and turn over rate, vacation pay, pensions, health benefits etc cost much more.

No they don't

At 2/9/13 04:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Well, no. People make a choice to smoke/snort/inject Coke. No one forces one to buy /smoke/snort/inject Coke. It's 100% someone's choice whether or not to partake in a drug addiction.

And a gun dealer sells an object. Are you saying a knife dealer, or someone who sells things in glass bottles, or car dealer is selling "death devices"?

Whats this oh it's a dam troll post ... hops back into bat mobile and gets the f... outa dodge ! see ya.

At 2/9/13 05:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Well, no. People make a choice to smoke/snort/inject Coke. No one forces one to buy /smoke/snort/inject Coke. It's 100% someone's choice whether or not to partake in a drug addiction.

A) I thought you meant the drink
B) Yes, it is absolutely someone's personal choice to participate in drug use. I support legalization of drugs.

Whats this oh it's a dam troll post ... hops back into bat mobile and gets the f... outa dodge ! see ya.

LOL Well, at least I got through to you and you realize your logic doesn't hold up

At 2/9/13 01:31 AM, Korriken wrote: proof?

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/sandy-h ook-hoax-is-falling-apart-2447988.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/272098/proof-the-sandy-hook-childre n-are-a-hoax-bardens-fake-pictures

Yah I don't see gun control people doing anything remotely like that.

there are retards on both sides, like some gun grabbers thinking that banning guns will stop gun crime.

My point is that the ones on the Gun rights side are delusional and more insane.

it doesn't take an NRA ad to know Obama is an elitist. that much is plain as day.

He's an elitist because people say he is apparently. He really isn't, it's just that whereas Obama is making gains in groups with higher incomes the Republicans are trying to crack into the people with low incomes and so painting him as an elitist helps them appeal to poorer people.

the AWB is 100% emotion. it turns a blind eye to the real problem, and seeks to ban scary looking weapons that are less dangerous than a hunting rifle or shotgun and has a few cosmetic features. 'assault weapons' are simply a boogeyman for the gun grabbers to use to scare people. If i was going to assault a place, I would use a shotgun before I even thought of grabbing an AK or M16... or any other semi automatic rifle with a bullet slightly larger than a .22.

That's a better argument. I just wish the NRA and gun rights people talked like that alot more often instead of just throwing unrelated insults and offensive conspiracy theories.

At 2/9/13 07:28 PM, Warforger wrote: http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/sandy-h ook-hoax-is-falling-apart-2447988.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/272098/proof-the-sandy-hook-childre n-are-a-hoax-bardens-fake-pictures

Fringe does not define a side of an argument.

My point is that the ones on the Gun rights side are delusional and more insane.

Let's not start calling out which side is more "insane"

He's an elitist because people say he is apparently. He really isn't, it's just that whereas Obama is making gains in groups with higher incomes the Republicans are trying to crack into the people with low incomes and so painting him as an elitist helps them appeal to poorer people.

He's an elitist for the same reason Mitt Romney is. Out of touch with the real world. Gets everything handed to him on a golden platter. For shit's sake he owns the most advanced private jet on the planet. And uses it for shopping trips for fucks sake.

As for republicans cracking into people with low incomes...well, my taxes were lower under their plan, and I didn't have a mandatory insurance bill under their plan. So much for that theory.

At 2/9/13 06:12 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/9/13 05:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Well, no. People make a choice to smoke/snort/inject Coke. No one forces one to buy /smoke/snort/inject Coke. It's 100% someone's choice whether or not to partake in a drug addiction.

A) I thought you meant the drink

I couldn't think you were for real LOL.

B) Yes, it is absolutely someone's personal choice to participate in drug use. I support legalization of drugs.

For sure people should be able to hurt, damage, maim, and otherwise abuse there own person in anyway they choose just as much as the opposite is true so long as it's not hurting other people. A middleman such as a drug dealer or gun dealer weather legalized, decriminalized or otherwise is an abuser of human rights and should be tried for crimes against humanity. That being said if any grown adult of legal age and ability to make a clear and lucid decision wants to learn how to make weapons and drugs for personalty use then by all means go for it but it's when the individuals actions adversely affect other peoples rights is when it becomes a problem. I live as a peaceful entity and I consider it an infringement on my rights to a peaceful life to have a gun dealer in my community and gun owners as my nabours. If I am peaceful enough and happy to be in control of my emotions and actions than so can everyone else have the same control so i give to you the reason for no arms necessary. The only reason for guns now is to keep the ones that still own them in line but I am trying to advocate a leveling of the playing field in a more peaceful manor which is no guns rather than leveling the playing field on the extreme which is to arm everyone. Furthermore if we need to arm everyone then the Government should be mandated to arm and train every of age citizen equally but we all know this will never happen as the root word of Government is "Govern" which means to hold back, retard, Subjugate and oppress the masses. Once again I rather live in peace and I do so no need for guns here.

Whats this oh it's a dam troll post ... hops back into bat mobile and gets the f... outa dodge ! see ya.

LOL Well, at least I got through to you and you realize your logic doesn't hold up

At 2/9/13 08:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: For sure people should be able to hurt, damage, maim, and otherwise abuse there own person in anyway they choose just as much as the opposite is true so long as it's not hurting other people.

I didn't read past this because evidently you went off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my post, which was people should have rights over their own bodies and therefore the right to consume what they please.

At 2/9/13 08:09 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 2/9/13 08:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: For sure people should be able to hurt, damage, maim, and otherwise abuse there own person in anyway they choose just as much as the opposite is true so long as it's not hurting other people.

I didn't read past this because evidently you went off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my post, which was people should have rights over their own bodies and therefore the right to consume what they please.

Drug dealers are pushers or death and disparity just as a Gun dealer is a gun pusher and advocate of violence in a round about way which is an aggressive act against other people rights to a society free from violence, death, unease and general negativity.