If she had indeed "seen the bodies" she would know that the overwhelming majority of firearms related homicides are connected to handguns. Rifles, the primary target of her bill, account for about 5% of all guns used in crimes. Handguns account for over 90%.

Why then does her bill primarily target rifles? Why is it only concerned with the aesthetic features of the rifles, instead of their function?

Though to be fair, the lecture was awfully condescending.

Also, life as a gun owning liberal democrat sure is weird at times.

The whole gun control debate is a farce, as usual, to drum up support from the base. Feinstein is supported by left of center liberals with lots of money. They are scared of rappers with AK-47's.

Another question is: Why does the Right play so easily into her hands? Since this is all political grandstanding, why do conservatives break a sweat and whine about how they need AK-47's to defend themselves from NAFTA superhighways?
All they would have to do is take the high road, but when it comes to any kind of gun control, self-righteousness and idiocy abound.

32,163 Americans were killed by guns or people using guns in 2011.

If we leave only the 5% who were killed by assault weapons, that's 1,608. Or sixty-one Sandy Hooks.

I don't know, that seems to be worth a few senate hearings to me.

1) Speed limits are a threat to Freedom that will lead to banning of all cars.

2) Why don't Brave Internet Soldiers demand that grenades, tanks, and weapons-grade uranium be legal for all American citizens to own unregulated?

3) The seconds I took out of my life typing this were completely wasted.

Im glad it could be someone other than me saying that. I'm tired of repeating myself. Preconceptions are dumb.

5 for the evil of feinstein.

yep, wasted

Ted Cruz is a dullard and, because he fetishizes both guns and the Constitution, does not want to know that no right is absolute. The Bill of Rights is all about the relationship of citizens to the government; what is required to keep the peace between citizens is another story altogether. As an obvious example, just because I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I have the right to keep my neighbors awake at night blasting AmazingAtheist videos. And just because I practice the religion of the Aztecs doesn't mean I have the right to conscript my neighbors into human sacrifices.

Assault rifles may make up a tiny minority of gun deaths, but that's no reason not to go there; at least it's relatively clear-cut that nobody has a legitimate reason to own an assault rifle. Handguns may kill many more people, but there are also legitimate reasons to own them, so it's much more difficult to figure out what to do about handgun violence, and how to curb irresponsible use without impinging upon responsible use. As someone (I think FABIO) once pointed out, that's cultural, and we're not going to get there until it's commonly understood that gun nuts are compensating for underpowered genitalia.

That was a weak answer at best. Why not state the truth; you've shat all over the 1st and 4th amendments without any complaint from Ted Cruz or associates, what's so special about the 2nd? The 1st and 4th actually permit citizens to effect change in their government, whereas the 2nd is just a piece of window dressing for the ignorant.

Oscar wildcat, hang your stupid head.

Again, every one of you seem to be dead-set on not exercising what I normally observe as critical thinking, and instead basically reduce your arguments to the level of validity of your average republican. This is why I consider myself "left-leaning" and not a card carrying democrat. You are awful, awful people to be seen next to when you speak with such contempt for history and reality.

I knew I was saving these for something special. Here you go Gmork.

Also; you and I both own guns ( in fact, I'll bet a majority here do ) and yet the government is pissing all over us. I guess these magic beans are not the ladder we need to keep the giant away. Who sold us these magic beans? (grin). Caveat emptor.

Actually I don't own a gun. I have at one point, but I don't have a personal need for one.

I'm also not an imbecile like yourself who believes just because I don't need something others should be denied it, given responsible use.

The bill targets civilians who agree to be registered and known gun-owners, which gives comfort to the powers that be (which is illusory anyways).

Please do explain in great detail how gun laws will affect those who ignore laws entirely. Nobody here has once addressed this, and it is the core of the argument. Pathetic showing, Oscar.

If your only argument is "Yeah, but the government has more resources for warfare, so who cares if we are neutered? We didnt have a chance anyway."

You defeatist. It also makes the assumption the military as a whole would be complicit in slaughtering its own populace on a massive scale.

There may be enough people at the top to send the orders around but do you really think the PEOPLE who make up our military numbers, the vast majority of them, are going to unquestioningly kill civilians en masse?

I'm a cynical bastard, but you're just a loopy cunt.

And no, me pontificating on the possibility that things like that could happen is not condemning evidence that i'm a survivalist gun-hoarding republican in disguise, it's simply evidence i've given the subject more critical and objective thought.

The response from POETV has been superficial and reactionary, I really expected more from fellow liberals that in most other video threads appeared to be rational and even somewhat moral - and far more aware of missteps in logic.

In case it's not abundantly clear, the core of my argument is that the gun is a ring through your nose that any political junky looking for a fix can tug on. Said ring can be fitted to Right or Left nostril, depending on the polarity of the head. If one side be Ghey or Strait greater minds than myself can inform.

Xenocide: "32,163 Americans were killed by guns or people using guns in 2011."

You must be counting suicides to get that high of a number. Post mid-90s the typical number for gun related homicides has been around 10,000.

5% of that is ~500 / year.

There are far more deadly things that our government should be focused on. Especially since we have tried assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions, and they did *nothing* to reduce deaths from firearms or violent crime in general. See the relevant CDC and NIJ studies.

Bort: "it's relatively clear-cut that nobody has a legitimate reason to own an assault rifle."

First, I disagree. Rights are often thought of as unreasonable by those who do not hold them dear. As a mental exercise, try putting any right you hold dear into the same sentence. A few examples:

"It's relatively clear-cut that nobody has a legitimate reason to have an abortion."

"It's relatively clear-cut that nobody has a legitimate reason to marry someone of the same sex."

"It's relatively clear-cut that nobody has a legitimate reason to question the actions of the president."

Secondly, assault rifles are already illegal. An assault rifle is, by definition, a rifle capable of selective fire, a feature which was made illegal for the general populace in 1934. You can own one in a handful of states if you have the appropriate permits and tax stamps, but they are extremely rare and expensive.

Thirdly, there is no functional difference from the type of weapon this bill attempts to ban and a non-banned semi-automatic hunting rifle. Zero. The bill bans certain kinds of rifles that are "scary looking". Why is it legal to own a certain kind of rifle, but illegal to own it if it has a bayonet lug or a plastic stock? Such categorizations are simply illogical, AND completely ineffective.

"As a mental exercise, try putting any right you hold dear into the same sentence."

No, that would be fucking retarded; the rights I hold dear tend to have peace-time applications. And where the rights I hold dear stand a chance of harming others, I support legal limitations for the common good.

Gotta second you on being stupid glasseye. Assault rifles (or whatever you want to call them) are on a spectrum of things we call "guns." Insert "Rocket-Propelled Grenade" or "Stinger Missile" into that sentence and see how it looks.

You need more mental exercise.

Shrug, I'm all for reasonable restrictions which actually have an impact on violence. Grenades, stinger missiles, etc are clearly dangerous devices which have no clear use. Semiautomatic firearms have a wide variety of legal and safe uses, and citizen ownership of those firearms has been upheld by the courts.

I'll say it again. Assault rifles are already illegal. What Feinstein wants to ban are certain kinds of scary looking semi-automatic firearms which are *identical* in function to other weapons which she does not wish to ban, because they do not look scary.

Does that sound at all rational?

Instead of "assault rifle" you may also hear the term "assault weapon" or "military style rifle". These are meaningless terms. How exactly do we define "assault weapons"? In the 94 AWB this was done by putting together a list of "scary" features such as pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc. A firearm with a certain set of these features was illegal. Strip away those features, and it was legal. This lead to the bizarre situation where minor cosmetic differences made a firearm illegal, not function. Furthermore, the 94 AWB and magazine capacity restrictions did nothing to reduce gun violence, according to the CDC and the NIJ. Feinstein's new legislation has the same fundamentally flawed approach.

Banning semiautomatic weapons is just not going to happen. Banning "scary" features is illogical and ineffective. I fully support reasonable gun control measure that actually make a difference (expanding background checks, safe storage laws, etc), but things like an AWB are not only silly, to me, they're also very politically risky. The 96 Republican revolution in congress was, in part, driven by a response to the AWB. I would hate to see another ten years of Republican domination in congress in exchange for a bad and ineffective law.

There are a lot of knees jerking around on both sides of this debate ("second amendment!" "think of the children!"). I think that the dialogue sounds awfully like our debates regarding abortion and marriage equality. One side sees a fundamental right, and one side sees a terrible thing that needs strong regulation. Unfortunately most people on both sides are utterly incapable of having a reasonable discussion about something they feel so strongly about.

And Bort, you seem to be confusing me for a rabid NRA member.

Again, I'm all for rational gun policies which make an actual difference in gun violence, and do not overly restrict people's rights.

Banning grenades/stinger missiles/etc? Great. We already do this.
Expanding background checks? Great, provided we can create a workable system.
Expanding funding for mental health care? Great!
Promoting safe storage? Great!

The "assault weapons" ban / magazine capacity restrictions? Illogical, ineffective, and overly politically risky.

"And Bort, you seem to be confusing me for a rabid NRA member."

Well, you're the one who just tried to frame assault rifle ownership as no different from being allowed to marry someone you love. I'll let you decide for yourself how that makes you sound.

No different? No. What I was implying is that rights are uncomfortable. To understand people across the political spectrum it is useful to take a restriction you think is reasonable on right A, and apply it to right B.

YOU think owning "assault rifles" is unreasonable. We'll leave your confusion regarding what is and what is not an assault rifle out of this for the time being.
The person across the street may think that marrying someone of the same sex is unreasonable.
A third person thinks that allowing abortions of any kind is unreasonable.

So when you think "who needs that kind of scary gun, we should ban it!" You ought to consider how you feel when people say things like "only welfare moms need abortions, we should ban them!" or "gay marriage is an offense against god, we should ban it!"; whatever your most dear rights are, I'm sure you find assaults against them very troubling. Especially when the people doing the assaulting clearly do not understand the existing law or the finer details of what they seek to ban.

This is one reason why arguments like "nobody really needs X" don't sit well with me.

And recall that the overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country never harm another human with their firearms.

"To understand people across the political spectrum it is useful to take a restriction you think is reasonable on right A, and apply it to right B."

Now here's why that's still fucking retarded. If two gay people want to marry one another, it hurts nobody and there is no way for it to hurt anybody. Owning an assault rifle, on the other hand, opens up all sorts of new opportunities to harm others, while not having any constructive purposes that couldn't be met just as well with other types of firearms.

As to my confusion over which firearms can be called assault rifles, I'll concede that there are lots of people who know more about the topic than I do. But I'll be honest, I can't consider you a reliable source on the matter. Twice now you've put assault rifles on the same level as gay marriage, without grasping the highly significant differences between the two that invalidate the comparison.

Shrug, I didn't say it was *valid*, but people can construct arguments about how it destroys society, and feel very strongly about it. I similarly do not believe most of gun control measures being bandied about lately will do one whit of good, despite their good intentions.

I cannot believe "assault weapons" harm our society in any significant way. The data appears to agree with me - the overwhelming majority of semiautomatic firearms in this country are never used in any crime. Homicides due to rifles (of ANY sort) are a tiny minority compared to dozens of other causes. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but I do not believe that passing illogical and ineffective legislation which bans certain kinds of rifles only on cosmetic grounds makes any sense.

Regarding assault rifles, don't believe me, educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle or look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

I guess my point is that people argue quite strongly against others having rights that they do not understand.

You clearly do not understand firearms. You wish to ban certain types because they look scary, regardless of the fact that other weapons with exactly the same functional characteristics are allowed under the proposed law. This makes no sense.

People who want to ban gay marriage don't understand basic human rights.

In both cases, I've found that a little education goes a long way.

"Assault rifles" are capable of selective fire (burst and/or fully automatic). These are already illegal, and are virtually never used in crimes in the US. The proposed bill seeks to ban certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic features. Other rifles with exactly the same action are allowed, because they have wood stocks instead of plastic ones.

How exactly will this bill reduce gun violence? The last time we tried it (the 1994 AWB) there was no statistically measurable drop in gun violence, see the CDC and NIJ studies. Do we really expect a different result this time around?

Also potentially of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Relation_to_assault_ri fles

See my comment above.

My bad for voting before commenting, but there it is.

What can we say?

Glasseye is a douchebag for all seasons.

Its easy to tell who the unthinking people are by comments like yours. Let me know how your idea that criminals bow to laws works out for you.

their reasoning is frequently simplistic, usually overly simplistic to the point of uselessness

if you have a different opinion than they do, they will explain it slower until you too are stupid enough to agree with them

Both of you are beyond ignorant. And wrong.

If she knew anything about guns she wouldnt have swept an entire conference room full of people with the clip in handle charged and finger on the trigger of a drum fed AK-47.

Please. Stop being stupid.

Ignorant fake liberal Gmork accuses others of being stupid.

I suppose a personal attack is uncalled for (although you've said some offensively stupid shit in the past).

What I find most appalling is that she is pushing for essentially the exact same legislation that did absolutely nothing to curb gun violence the last time it was enacted.

And the political backlash from said bill was astounding.

As a democrat I think pushing an ineffective and illogical laws in exchange for a decade of republican domination of congress is a bad trade.

Hahaha. It _is_ bullshit that the debate isn't framed with outrageously leading and irrelivant questions, isn't it?

Far be it from you to be able to articulate why, however.

I was being sarcastic. I don't believe it's bullshit.

You don't get to use the words "critical thinking" anymore.

We don't have rape laws because rapists will suddenly fucking obey them, we have rape laws so as a society we can respond to rape in a unified and powerful way. Because rapists have an ass beating coming, and it should be the same with gun hoarding social fascists who are breeding out God's dirty white garbage and plotting mass murder.

Every right comes with a duty. Your right to bear arms comes with the duty towards other Americans to not kill them. You do not immediately have the right to shoot someone because you own a goddamned gun. It does not make you James Bond, you sanctimonious, violence loving, prick.

You have absolutely no civic education and no concept of critical thinking. None. You are the last person who should own a gun.

Killing people is already illegal, regardless of the weapon used.