Scum politicians will sneak this in on something they have to pass....like debt reduction or similar.

 

"Now, will it (gun violence legislation) only be assault weapons? No, most likely. There will be a package put together. If assault weapons is left out of the package ... I've been assured by the majority leader I'll be able to do it as an amendment on the (Senate) floor, which is the way I did it in 1993," Feinstein added.

 

Feinstein has assurance assault weapon ban will get a vote | Reuters

Scum politicians will sneak this in on something they have to pass....like debt reduction or similar.

 

 

 

Feinstein has assurance assault weapon ban will get a vote | Reuters

 

Okay, could you please explain to me why offering something as an amendment to a bill - any bill- makes a politician "scum". You do know that amendments have to be voted on before they become part of the bill, don't you? Read the article. It says that if an assault weapons ban doesn't make it into the gun safety law as it is voted on in the Senate, she will get the chance to offer it as an amendment, What is the big deal?

The lies and misrepresentation of the amendment make them scum in my book.

The lies and misrepresentation of the amendment make them scum in my book.

 

Could you please list the lies and misrepresentations that are contained in this hypothetical amendment to a hypothetical bill. Please be specific.

Could you please list the lies and misrepresentations that are contained in this hypothetical amendment to a hypothetical bill. Please be specific.

Hell, just look at the title alone. "Assault Weapons Ban"

 

The lies of why they want them banned for another. Looks are the only real issue here, but they try to tell you otherwise. It's simply an agenda they've had for a long time. Has nothing to do with protecting children, you or anyone else. It's not a bout being proactive it's about being reactive.

 

If you TRULY believe they're being ethical and principled in all of this, please answer the questions posed in this thread.

Hell, just look at the title alone. "Assault Weapons Ban"

 

The lies of why they want them banned for another. Looks are the only real issue here, but they try to tell you otherwise. It's simply an agenda they've had for a long time. Has nothing to do with protecting children, you or anyone else. It's not a bout being proactive it's about being reactive.

 

If you TRULY believe they're being ethical and principled in all of this, please answer the questions posed in this thread.

 

Here is the US ARMY definition of an 'assault rifle'

 

GunFax.com - the unofficial Calico fan site and Rockin' Rimfires

 

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

 

Selective-fire = ability to switch to full automatic or 3-round burst.

 

All other definitions are the Josh Sugarmann scare words.

Okay, could you please explain to me why offering something as an amendment to a bill - any bill- makes a politician "scum". You do know that amendments have to be voted on before they become part of the bill, don't you? Read the article. It says that if an assault weapons ban doesn't make it into the gun safety law as it is voted on in the Senate, she will get the chance to offer it as an amendment, What is the big deal?

 

Why attach a gun amendment to a bill for let's say clean water. It has nothing to do with clean water.

 

Just because it happens all the time doesn't make it right.

I feel that the issue is important enough to be debated on it's own, not attached to some other bill. The fact that this happens all the time is one of the problems in DC.

Here is the US ARMY definition of an 'assault rifle'

 

GunFax.com - the unofficial Calico fan site and Rockin' Rimfires

 

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

 

Selective-fire = ability to switch to full automatic or 3-round burst.

 

All other definitions are the Josh Sugarmann scare words.

Oh, I thought they just had to look scary to be an assault weapon.

I feel that the issue is important enough to be debated on it's own, not attached to some other bill. The fact that this happens all the time is one of the problems in DC.

Something I thought president Transparency was going to change. :sssh:

Oh, I thought they just had to look scary to be an assault weapon.

That's the official Obama/Feinstein definition.

Hell, just look at the title alone. "Assault Weapons Ban"

 

The lies of why they want them banned for another. Looks are the only real issue here, but they try to tell you otherwise. It's simply an agenda they've had for a long time. Has nothing to do with protecting children, you or anyone else. It's not a bout being proactive it's about being reactive.

 

If you TRULY believe they're being ethical and principled in all of this, please answer the questions posed in this thread.

 

I'm missing the questions. There is nothing unethical about proposing legislation out in the open. This thread is about the ethics of proposing a weapons ban as an amendment to another bill. First, the article referred to in the initial post says that if an assault weapons ban is not part of the bill that comes out of committee, Sen Feinstein will have the opportunity to offer it as an amendment. That amendment would then be subject to a vote. Wow, doesn't sound too underhanded to me. Second, I object very strongly to the I'm agin it chorus that labels the possible author of an amendment that hasn't been written, to a bill that hasn't been written, "scum" because of lies and misrepresentations in the unwritten amendment to the unwritten bill. None of that has anything to do with the merits of the bill or the amendment. It has to do with calling a United States Senator "scum" over something they might or might not do. Senator Feinstein has made no secret of the fact that she believes some weapons should be banned. There is no lie or misrepresentation in that. Believing that does not make her "scum" any more than it makes someone with a different viewpoint "scum". A little civil discourse please.

I'm missing the questions. There is nothing unethical about proposing legislation out in the open. This thread is about the ethics of proposing a weapons ban as an amendment to another bill. First, the article referred to in the initial post says that if an assault weapons ban is not part of the bill that comes out of committee, Sen Feinstein will have the opportunity to offer it as an amendment. That amendment would then be subject to a vote. Wow, doesn't sound too underhanded to me. Second, I object very strongly to the I'm agin it chorus that labels the possible author of an amendment that hasn't been written, to a bill that hasn't been written, "scum" because of lies and misrepresentations in the unwritten amendment to the unwritten bill. None of that has anything to do with the merits of the bill or the amendment. It has to do with calling a United States Senator "scum" over something they might or might not do. Senator Feinstein has made no secret of the fact that she believes some weapons should be banned. There is no lie or misrepresentation in that. Believing that does not make her "scum" any more than it makes someone with a different viewpoint "scum". A little civil discourse please.

Now you're misrepresenting Feinstein. Please, be honest with yourself as well as us. She misrepresents, through lies and scare tactics, the weapons she wants banned. If you know anything at all about guns and rifles, you know that's what she, the administration and the rest of the supporters of the ban are doing. That makes her scum, sorry if that offends you, but lies and misrepresentation to push an agenda that isn't pro-active but merely reactive and meaningless offends me.

 

Again, I'm curious as to why you don't address the questions in this thread: http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/if-some-semiautomatic-249230.html

Now you're misrepresenting Feinstein. Please, be honest with yourself as well as us. She misrepresents, through lies and scare tactics, the weapons she wants banned. If you know anything at all about guns and rifles, you know that's what she, the administration and the rest of the supporters of the ban are doing. That makes her scum, sorry if that offends you, but lies and misrepresentation to push an agenda that isn't pro-active but merely reactive and meaningless offends me.

 

Again, I'm curious as to why you don't address the questions in this thread: http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/if-some-semiautomatic-249230.html

 

I don't address that question because I don't have a good answer. And by the way, that is a different thread. That is why I don't favor the AR ban as it has been presented. I think a ban on some weapons would pass constitutional review, but as I understand the last AR ban, as fast as you could put a weapon on the list the manufacturers would modify it to get around the list. I don't want any law that people can get around that fast. I do favor background checks on all sales or transfers. I do favor magazine limitations. I do favor mental health reviews as part of the background check. As far as the rhetoric being offensive, yes I find it offensive. To me it sounds like something you would have heard in 1860 South Carolina. (How did that work out?) Nothing is to be gained by constantly questioning the motives of anyone that disagrees with you. Senator Feinstein has been very clear about what she wants to do. How can that be a misrepresentation? I've asked before for you to show me the lies and misrepresentations. So far you haven't even tried. You just choose to say she is scum. Okay, thanks for the inciteful and intelligent discussion.

I don't address that question because I don't have a good answer. And by the way, that is a different thread. That is why I don't favor the AR ban as it has been presented. I think a ban on some weapons would pass constitutional review, but as I understand the last AR ban, as fast as you could put a weapon on the list the manufacturers would modify it to get around the list. I don't want any law that people can get around that fast. I do favor background checks on all sales or transfers. I do favor magazine limitations. I do favor mental health reviews as part of the background check. As far as the rhetoric being offensive, yes I find it offensive. To me it sounds like something you would have heard in 1860 South Carolina. (How did that work out?) Nothing is to be gained by constantly questioning the motives of anyone that disagrees with you. Senator Feinstein has been very clear about what she wants to do. How can that be a misrepresentation? I've asked before for you to show me the lies and misrepresentations. So far you haven't even tried. You just choose to say she is scum. Okay, thanks for the inciteful and intelligent discussion.

 

Let me make this statement very clear. I find it extremely seedy and slimy to use the shooting in the Northeast to push an agenda that she, and several others, have had on the plate for a long time. However, I suppose that is politics, and it is seedy and slimy. She is misrepresenting information to the media. Especially the fact that she is keeping crime statistics using these so called "assault weapons" out of her discussions. If you want to present a point of view on a subject, lets at least look at all the facts concerning the subject. The fact is that far more crimes are comitted using knives than "assault weapons" in this country every year. She would be a lot less seedy if she would bring these facts up to the media, but say that "assault weapons" have a larger death potential. At least then she would have a leg to stand on. As it is, she is lying by intentionally ommitting several facts that are pertinent to the issue.