Jackson Jambalaya

First they take my silencer, then they say I can't fish with dynamite, now they want my Uzi. This country sucks.

The Kel Tec SU16 looks just like a regular semi-auto hunting rifle....The SU16CA does anyway.

It's just this kind of overreach on the left and absolutism on the right that keeps anything worth doing from getting done in this country.

μολὼν λαβέ, Sen. Feinstein. μολὼν λαβέ.

“No weapon is taken from anyone,” Feinstein emphasized. “The purpose [of the legislation] is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

/facts

So you can't have an AK, but you can have an SKS? Makes no sense at all.

What happened in CT was horrible, but this whole gun control movement is such a knee-jerk reaction. I'd venture to say that very few of these types of weapon are ever used in a crime. Crooks don't want to shell out that much money. Since drugs and mental illness seem to cause a large proportion of gun-related crimes, why don't they focus there? Those folks are going to kill and maim with whatever they get their hands on, and if they dealt with them on a preemptive basis we'd see great results.

Yet it's all political theater because Republicans in the House will never let this reach the floor. Meanwhile, the national debt increases by about $25,000 per second and our "real" unemployment is hovering just above 15%. Small wonder everyone hates Congress.

This 150 is just the first list. They will go after everything within the next 4 miserable years. Liberals have won the war in small battles over a long period of time and they NEVER give anything back.

Prepare for Anarchy.

2:38
You are a moron. The God given right to defend myself from over-reaching government is one that I will ABSOLUTELY defend. The marching order code phrase of "absolutism on the right", given to you by Obama shows just what a brown-shirt you are. The 2nd amendment is absolute.

Bans weapons with a clip over 10 rounds? Horseshit.

4:06

Apparently you're a perfect example of half of what I was talking about: a nut. You and Feinstien are cut from two halves of the same cloth.

Us folks here in the real world like to consider and act, not succumb to knee-jerk bans or wing-nut name-calling. But kudo's on perfectly spouting the talking points and Nazi analogies. Well-done!

PS: I bet I own more "assault rifles" than you do.

4:24
Do or don't you believe that the Constitution is based on our God given rights? It would appear that you have bought into the notion that it is a living document that can be altered by anyone with an agenda and the votes. True?
And your sex toys only count as "assault rifles" in your world.

does this make possession of these weapons or possession of 15-100 round clips illegal?

4:24

*yawn*

From Nazi analogies to sex analogies. Try a communist one next.

The constitution spoke of a "well-regulated militia" and then the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Lots of people (like Feinstien) still mistakenly think that means the right to arms is confined to members of a militia. Then there are the nuts like 4:24 who ignore the "well-regulated" language, thinking that the 2nd Amendment means they can have a TOW Missle system if they want it. They're both wrong.

The "militia" spoken of in the constitution meant entire armed populace, which is what made up the militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, and be well regulated (not over-regulated), is exactly what the constitution meant then and means now. Go read some history and the Heller v. DC case -- or think up some more insults, I don't care.

PS: I also bet I own more 30 and 40 round mags than you.

As I understand bill, it would function like the previous AWB. Retail sales of newly manufactured items would stop. Private sales and ownership of pre-ban items could continue.

Anyone else notice the Ruger Mini 14 Tactical is listed, but not the regular Mini 14 or Mini 30? So ridiculous.

5:07, since you bring historical perspective into the Second Amendment discussion, there are scholars who believe the phrase "well regulated" means well trained and doesn't have anything to government regulations. The SA is already strong, and I think this interpretation makes it stronger.

I'm sure Matt Eichelberger and Donna Ladd are happy and cheering this on. Such is the way of those who hate their fellow man.

5:07 is right, although I don't recall discussion - in my admitted skim - in Heller about "well regulated," other than to say the right is not limited to the enlisted military. Discussion about what particular guns/weaponry might be banned centered on what fell under the definition of "arms," and not a "regulated militia" although please correct me if wrong.

No one has mentioned the economic impact. There are LOTS of American companies that produce nothing other than AR platform rifles and accessories. I doubt seriously if many of them have the resources to retool and start making pump shotguns, although with the unprecedented recent run on ARs, mags, and ammo, they might have a little extra cash on hand...

A well regulated militia is a local fighting unit which is a state force. We have no such animal today. Our militia is a national force. Reason being the post-Reconstruction use of the state militia by bourbon governors like Robert Lowry, a former Confederate commander. It is a buried Delta memory that makes the Till murder look tame.

In the American Revolution, the 'well-regulated militia' helped the regulars win. The assault weapons would be needed in such a unit if we had one today. Separate individuals owning military style weapons for self defense is not a genuine constitutional provision.

The MAC was used in New Orleans recently in horrific fashion in the perpetual gang wars.

The inability of liberals to learn lessons from past actions never ceases to amaze me. How many times and how many different ways do we have to explain the banning guns, whatever the type, will NOT make them go away? What bubble do they live in that they can not understand that the United States of America is just a PORTION of this earth upon which we live? Why is it so hard to understand that no matter what we legislate HERE, it will have no effect whatsoever on the manufacture & distribution of weapons throughout the rest of the world. Gun WILL be brought into the US and they WILL be sold to anybody who will pay the price. Certain drugs are illegal in this country but you can buy them on almost any street corner any time of the day or night. Prostitution is illegal but you'll have no trouble at all picking up a hooker if you want one. Prohibition did NOT eliminate alcoholic beverages. The list goes on and on. But the most absurd thing of all is to propose a ban on guns under the pretext of "protecting children" while simultaneously pledging to fight for the freedom to butcher unborn babies for the sake of convenience. Liberals sure have some seriously mixed up priorities.

A smoke screen to take the attention off Benghazi and financial problems of our country. They know full well we will NOT give up our guns. Or maybe they do want another civil war with all the race and class propaganda being vomited all over the lame stream media.

Charlie Ali,

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Please explain how that sentence implores a requirement on only a regulated militia bearing arms? What is the subject and verb of that sentence. That is the root of the protection of the individual right.

If, as you propose, only a militia would be the extended a right to bear arms, why would astute writers of the Constitution bungle the wording so badly, even under the pretense of protection natural right?.

If that was truly the intent, would it not read something like this:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of members of a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead, they wrote that the natural right to bear arms shall not be infringed and provided one of the important reasons for such, not an exception for only how or when.

The Bill of Rights are limitations instituted to protect certain natural rights of the people. Many argued against adding a "Bill of Rights" because they felt them unnecessary. There wasn't a reason to explain why certain powers not even granted to the government to begin with, should be limited with words.

Hamilton said of this: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

That's some accurate foresight.

At least I get to keep my SKS. I was afraid someone was going to have to pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Yes, Hamilton was interesting in his defense of the national powers and blind to its particular 'claim to more than were granted'. Witness our surveillance state. His quote would have special meaning if it was concurrent to the western Pennslyvania rebellion. We have nothing currently to resemble the Revolutionary militia. I'm saying that is the problem. We have no well-regulated people's force. We have roaming criminals, madmen, gun enthusiasts, and organized crime without the proper peoples military structure to have a free state.

The second amendment is all about the individual protecting themselves, their family and property over a tyrannical govt overstepping the boundaries. It coincides with the third amendment that everyone seems to forget about which states that a citizen cannot be forced give up their property to govt agents/ soldiers. These were created so that soldiers representing a govt and said govt could not tyrannically take ones property and livelihood. The second amendment allows the citizen to protect himself in relation to the third amendment

Sadly we are headed down that road with the chipping away of basic fundamental rights by the current administration. Taking one at a time is less noticeable than taking all at once. And forcing gun registration only shows the govt who owns the guns.

First thing Castro did in Cuba was ban weapons, ban Religion and provide the schools with new history lessons. Sound familiar? Look where they are today.

The second amendment is all about the individual protecting themselves, their family and property over a tyrannical govt overstepping the boundaries. It coincides with the third amendment that everyone seems to forget about which states that a citizen cannot be forced give up their property to govt agents/ soldiers. These were created so that soldiers representing a govt and said govt could not tyrannically take ones property and livelihood. The second amendment allows the citizen to protect himself in relation to the third amendment

Sadly we are headed down that road with the chipping away of basic fundamental rights by the current administration. Taking one at a time is less noticeable than taking all at once. And forcing gun registration only shows the govt who owns the guns.

First thing Castro did in Cuba was ban weapons, ban Religion and provide the schools with new history lessons. Sound familiar? Look where they are today.

The right to own an assault rifle does not come from God. Our right to enjoy the freedom to own and justifiably defend ourselves comes from the consent of the people. The Constitution, regardless of any individual interpretation of it, will have its meaning determined by the legislatures and the courts it established. Currently, there is more than enough political power and public sentiment for us to keep and bare arms, including the deadliest assault rifles made, that is not in danger of actually being taken away.

In the event that the people should by popular vote and public sentiment find the majority favors some regulation, legislation is passed and certified as constitutional. To resist would be of a matter of right by the laws of nature. No body can stop you. It would be out and out rebellion against your country and its laws. What would you really do if gun regulations were past? Die for the right to have a 30 round magazine?

The problem with this proposal is not the named firearms, but the one-prong test of what is an "assault weapon." In the law that expired in 2004, the test was two-prong. Now, many weapons will be "assault weapons" that weren't before, and that are not named. That includes the Ruger Mini-14, regardless of name or design.

And the mandatory background check, supposedly to "close the gunshow loophole," will require a federal registration of all guns you own and a paper trail (or electronic paper trail) of all transactions you make. How else will this be enforced? The only way it is currently enforced is by a paper trail of each FFL dealer. Get ready, many conservative on firearms laws support this one.

@William Claude Coon:

No rouge government will take away my freedoms without me standing up to it. I'm %100 ready to keep my rights, even it means death. Period.

Hope that cleared things up.

Cliff Cargill
III Percent Patriot

I dont want the govt knowing if I own a gun or not. The right is to protect us from our own govt overstepping into the citizens lives and becoming tyrannical. The second amendment gives us this right to protect ourselves from the govt. It's all part of the checks and balances of our system.

Even if guns are banned, criminals will still get their hands on guns. They do everyday when they use the guns to commit crimes. Taking the right of citizens to arm themselves is the first step to a complete take over.

Just ask Cuba haw that is working out for them.

4:06 PM, your "defense" consist of what you did here.I get so sick of keyboard commandos. Pecking away at a keyboard like an impotent nonce. I don't have a problem with the ban. I've got a house full of guns. Do I " need" a 30 round mag? Will my live be ruined if I can't buy any more? Of course not. Nope. Most of the guns on that list serve no sporting purpose at all other than to make noise and shoot cans. Anybody with a problem with universal background checks has something to hide. What is laughable to me is some of these idiots think the 2nd is to protect them from the government. These militia hicks are the best, with their dip of tobacco and their pot belly run out over their belt a foot.. A pair of Longbows could vaporize the best of their militia in seconds.

Yes, stricter gun control WILL save lives.
Now, write your elected officials and tell them to really get serious about saving lives and ban tobacco.

By the way...99% of this is just people whining about things that don't effect them anyway. None of them know the difference in a CLIP and a MAGAZINE.