PDA

View Full Version : Dianne Feinstein to Discuss Gun Control on 60 Minutes Tonight


Seed
04-12-2009, 10:46 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

kermit315
04-12-2009, 10:53 AM
I definitely cant watch that.....I cant stomach that much bias in a week, and I watched the 20/20 hit piece already.

Echidin
04-12-2009, 10:53 AM
Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl that the political timing isn't right and she will move to renew the ban at a future time of her own choosing.

She is relentless...

But even if she pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association.

.454
04-12-2009, 10:54 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml

I'm sure she won't disappoint her fellow liberals (including the ones on this forum)

JagerTroop
04-12-2009, 10:57 AM
Well, I actually agree with Feinstein... This is definitely not the right time to push for gun control.

Nor is anytime in the near future. By "near future" I mean, anytime in the next 6 or 7 centuries :p

.454
04-12-2009, 11:01 AM
Well, I actually agree with Feinstein... This is definitely not the right time to push for gun control.

Nor is anytime in the near future. By "near future" I mean, anytime in the next 6 or 7 centuries :p

Please elaborate: when did she said that?

Some Guy
04-12-2009, 11:39 AM
"The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

It's not tight enough, they still have enough air to talk.

berto
04-12-2009, 11:40 AM
I'd like to keep my dinner down.

sideshowhr
04-12-2009, 11:42 AM
Please elaborate: when did she said that?

3rd post in this thread, first paragraph in the op's link :p

CCWFacts
04-12-2009, 11:52 AM
Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl that the political timing isn't right and she will move to renew the ban at a future time of her own choosing.

That's good, because Senator Feinstein's time is running out. Her term is over in 2012 and she's not running again after that. She's already 75. The Dems are not even going to try to do this close to an election so her window of opportunity is almost non-existent.

I realize she's not the only crazy gun-banner in Congress but she is "Brother Number One" of the gun banning movement there.

gcvt
04-12-2009, 1:24 PM
Gag, I'll watch MotoGP instead.

copenhagen269
04-12-2009, 1:49 PM
I'm still getting over the stomach flu, I don't want to spend another night with my head in the bowl. I think I'll just stick to Bully beat down and Deadliest catch re runs. :puke:

Bizcuits
04-12-2009, 2:03 PM
Ah, when her term is finally over dis be drinks for all! :thumbsup:

KWA-S
04-12-2009, 2:11 PM
Ah, when her term is finally over dis be drinks for all! :thumbsup:

Hear! :cheers2:

MontClaire
04-12-2009, 2:14 PM
this is forum for them. the media. they pay for these PR minutes. there will be usual anti's blah blah blah.

7x57
04-12-2009, 3:03 PM
That's good, because Senator Feinstein's time is running out. Her term is over in 2012 and she's not running again after that. She's already 75. The Dems are not even going to try to do this close to an election so her window of opportunity is almost non-existent.


Then, as she seems to be a true-believer, the best guess would be that she'll wait until after 2010, unless we screw up so horribly she sees opportunity before then. Assuming not, then I imagine she'll try one more time after the 2010 elections. If she isn't going to run again, then she'll be working for her legacy, and to her a renewed AW ban would be a jewel in her crown.

7x57

yellowfin
04-12-2009, 5:04 PM
The question is who in the senate that would vote for an AWB bill can be removed in 2010 to keep her from having the votes then.

Beatone
04-12-2009, 5:33 PM
Oh I can't miss this. The stuff that will come out of her mouth will be a joke. She is saving our country. :rolleyes:

AJAX22
04-12-2009, 5:44 PM
I watched it... now I have an upset stomach and acid reflux..... :(

biglou_71
04-12-2009, 6:36 PM
Just watched it. Evil f@#king hag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 6:39 PM
my favorite part was when they were talking about campus carry, Lesley Stahl mentioned we trust troops in their teens and 20's overseas with firearms but can't trust them in college?

Kudos to Mr. Stahl for helping make the segment balanced.

Canute
04-12-2009, 6:46 PM
I have lots of other reasons to dislike Senator Feinstein, and this just adds one more.
The segment definitely had a point of view but at least they let the pro-gun side get a few words in.
Lesley Stahl kept harping on the "gun lobby" thing. To bad nobody got to point out that the "gun lobby" is at the bottom of campaign contributors.

otteray
04-12-2009, 6:49 PM
I just watched it and it wasn't nearly as bad compared to what most folks here had disgustedly described about the recent ABC 20/20 shamefully lopsided firearms special.
Of course, there was the media's typical misuse of the words "loophole" and assault weapons."
At least the show's hostess walked and talked to a pro-gun guy and didn't make him out to be an extremist; but instead, knowledgeable, down to earth and friendly.

Exposed
04-12-2009, 6:58 PM
"I wouldnt push it right now either, Im going to choose the right time" That killed me, that really F'N pissed me off!!!!! :censored:

Zebra
04-12-2009, 7:00 PM
The best part was that Mrs. Feinstein was really running on empty. There was no catchy line, no new argument, and no glaring example -- nothing. She repeated the same, old, tired lines while acknowledging that these arguments do not register anymore.

I did think it curious that the ever-banning Dianne thought that now is not the right time. Is it because she's planning on running for governor? Forget her!

The gunny came across as collected and rational. Maybe we really are winning...

Frank

A324
04-12-2009, 7:01 PM
The best part of this story is that Ed Bradley isn't around anymore. Remember his attack on the Barrett rifle and it's ability to 'shoot airplanes out of the sky'?

ivanimal
04-12-2009, 7:03 PM
I was screaming at the TV! For one they said the 2 police officers in Oakland were killed with an assault weapon:cool: then the look of dicgust on the faces as they discussed guns was appalling. Never did the say that there were good gun owners or that it was our constitutional right. Total press making us look like zealots and not responsible gun owners.

A324
04-12-2009, 7:05 PM
The best part was that Mrs. Feinstein was really running on empty. There was no catchy line, no new argument, and no glaring example -- nothing. She repeated the same, old, tired lines while acknowledging that these arguments do not register anymore.



Diane Feinstein has run out of steam, her face looks tired and worn, all she seems to have left is her hate for the NRA.

JagerTroop
04-12-2009, 7:08 PM
I just watched it and it wasn't nearly as bad compared to what most folks here had disgustedly described about the recent ABC 20/20 shamefully lopsided firearms special.
Of course, there was the media's typical misuse of the words "loophole" and assault weapons."
At least the show's hostess walked and talked to a pro-gun guy and didn't make him out to be an extremist; but instead, knowledgeable, down to earth and friendly.

I agree. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.

The one thing that has always irritated me about anti gun people is when they complain about background checks. California has some of the highest crime rates in the country, yet also has some of the most strict gun laws. It doesn't jive with their theory of "if only they performed a BG check...":rolleyes:

Another thing the gun grabbers fail to realize, is that I (like most people) have at least 1 deadly weapon that I got without a BG check. It's far more dangerous than most any gun, can be used to slaughter multiple people in seconds, and blends in easily to most surroundings, urban and rural alike... I'll give you a hint: it's got seats and a steering wheel!

I don't hear people calling for a ban on all cars... just ridiculous... those things are deadly :rolleyes::p

gcvt
04-12-2009, 7:15 PM
I agree that it wasn't as bad as it could have been, but it was still pretty bad.

newtothis
04-12-2009, 7:17 PM
I thought it was interesting that there are apparently a significant number of congressional dems that have signed to support 2a. Evidently it's this that prevents the anti-2a from pressing their side directly. Anyone know how many? If it's a large enough margin then a new awb will be difficult.

RomanDad
04-12-2009, 7:17 PM
I have to tell you, I just watched that and LOVED IT. LOVED LOVED LOVED!

I sat there with RomanMom and she LOVED IT TOO.... We had a great conversation about the National Firearms Act, the definitions of "Assault Rifle" and the Second Amendment (we're both attorneys. this is the kinda boring stuff we talk about) And she agreed with me when I said "Im going to buy every gun I can get my hands on while I still can..."


Wheres that classifieds section again?

RomanDad
04-12-2009, 7:18 PM
I thought it was interesting that there are apparently a significant number of congressional dems that have signed to support 2a. Evidently it's this that prevents the anti-2a from pressing their side directly. Anyone know how many? If it's a large enough margin then a new awb will be difficult.


65 in the house and several more QUIET members of the Senate (but they include the Senate Majority Leader, which is pretty damned important)

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 7:20 PM
I was screaming at the TV! For one they said the 2 police officers in Oakland were killed with an assault weapon:cool: then the look of dicgust on the faces as they discussed guns was appalling. Never did the say that there were good gun owners or that it was our constitutional right. Total press making us look like zealots and not responsible gun owners.

yes it was biased (not too bad) but i didn't care because i expected it to be.

newtothis
04-12-2009, 7:23 PM
So how many (dems + rep) pro 2a vs anti - senate and congress? And why is Majority Leader's position so important - one vote right?

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 7:28 PM
65 in the house and several more QUIET members of the Senate (but they include the Senate Majority Leader, which is pretty damned important)

Montanaís U.S. Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester wrote the AG i believe are the most outspoken in the Senate.

Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is in regards to your recent comments suggesting the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons. We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership. Your comments noted increased violence among international drug traffickers as a reason to reexamine the ban on assault weapons within this country; however, this statement fails to acknowledge laws already in place that work to address this issue.

Under current law, both transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime as well as possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Federal drug trafficking crime are already federal felonies punishable by imprisonment. We will strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners. We value our outdoor heritage, and a large part of that is our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Passing this heritage down from one generation to the next is a sacred part of being a Montanan, and something that we will always fight to protect. In the light of the Supreme Courtís landmark ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right, we urge you to avoid any legislative proposals that would jeopardize the Constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms. Sincerely, U.S. Senator Max Baucus U.S. Senator Jon Tester

CALI-gula
04-12-2009, 7:28 PM
Ah, when her term is finally over dis be drinks for all! :thumbsup:

You do realize she has openly discussed running for Governor of CA in the future as her last hurrah in politics? She is still bitter over her 1990 loss to Pete Wilson. It's the one thing she would like to "give back" to California.

She might win in this sate that continues to surprise again and again in leaning hard left, with a Republican governor that is about as left as it gets. :rolleyes:

.

Beatone
04-12-2009, 7:32 PM
The best part was that Mrs. Feinstein was really running on empty. There was no catchy line, no new argument, and no glaring example -- nothing. She repeated the same, old, tired lines while acknowledging that these arguments do not register anymore.

I did think it curious that the ever-banning Dianne thought that now is not the right time. Is it because she's planning on running for governor? Forget her!

The gunny came across as collected and rational. Maybe we really are winning...

Frank

Exactly what I thought. Same old babble out of her.

RomanDad
04-12-2009, 7:37 PM
So how many (dems + rep) pro 2a vs anti - senate and congress? And why is Majority Leader's position so important - one vote right?

Math With Romandad.

255 Democrats in the House
178 Republicans. (who have shown REMARKABLE unity... And that doesnt look to change on this issue)

Take 65 from the first number and add it to the second and you get:

190 For the AWB
243 Against.

Bill Fails. (miserably)



In the Senate, NOTHING, and I MEAN NOTHING, gets to the floor without the approval of the Senate Majority Leader's office.... Not a Bill, not a Confirmation, not even a proclamation to recognize Robert Byrd's particularly nice hair frosting.... NOTHING.

This thing is DRT....

Now.... Will everybody relax so I can go buy some cheap *** ammo?

bubbapug1
04-12-2009, 7:40 PM
No too biased? Put that crack pipe down and back away from the table!!!!

It was a F'ing lynching...what is up with that?? I have never seen a piece so biased in my life. Not many facts, and I was glad they brought up arming civilians to stop shooters, but CBS is out for our guns as is Feinstien...we need a different senator..she is not playing to her base, she is a gun hater period.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 7:40 PM
So how many (dems + rep) pro 2a vs anti - senate and congress? And why is Majority Leader's position so important - one vote right?

guesstamite 243* agaisnt AWB 192 for.

from 178 (R) 65 (D) vs. 192 (D)

Pro-Gun Senators i can think of

Reid

Begich

Webb

Tester

Baucus

Gilibrand

need 4 more to aviod tie breaker

newtothis
04-12-2009, 7:45 PM
Math With Romandad.

255 Democrats in the House
178 Republicans. (who have shown REMARKABLE unity... And that doesnt look to change on this issue)

Take 65 from the first number and add it to the second and you get:

190 For the AWB
243 Against.

Bill Fails. (miserably)



In the Senate, NOTHING, and I MEAN NOTHING, gets to the floor without the approval of the Senate Majority Leader's office.... Not a Bill, not a Confirmation, not even a proclamation to recognize Robert Byrd's particularly nice hair frosting.... NOTHING.

This thing is DRT....

Now.... Will everybody relax so I can go buy some cheap *** ammo?


Who am I to question Roman math? Sounds like we're in good shape - at least on this issue and at this level.

SigAlert
04-12-2009, 7:45 PM
I'm a little thick, and I live in California, so I have two strikes against me.

Can someone explain Assault Weapon to me (or for that matter, the media?)

I was under the assumption that an Assault Weapon is one that when the trigger is pulled, will fire continuously until the trigger is released, or runs out of ammunition.

Anything else, be it with a Pistol stock, Detachable Magazine, etc. is a semi-automatic rifle.

Am I right?

bubbapug1
04-12-2009, 7:45 PM
I agree. I (like most people) have at least 1 deadly weapon that I got without a BG check. It's far more dangerous than most any gun, can be used to slaughter multiple people in seconds, and blends in easily to most surroundings, urban and rural alike... I'll give you a hint: it's got seats and a steering wheel!

I don't hear people calling for a ban on all cars... just ridiculous... those things are deadly :rolleyes::p


OK, I'll call for a ban on cars...maybe it will slim down some of the trim down here in OC if we all ride bikes instead.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 7:49 PM
I'm a little thick, and I live in California, so I have two strikes against me.

Can someone explain Assault Weapon to me (or for that matter, the media?)

I was under the assumption that an Assault Weapon is one that when the trigger is pulled, will fire continuously until the trigger is released, or runs out of ammunition.

Anything else, be it with a Pistol stock, Detachable Magazine, etc. is a semi-automatic rifle.

Am I right?

that is the definition of an automatic weapon, an assault rifle is a "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fires a cartridge intermediate in power" as defined by the army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

RomanDad
04-12-2009, 7:50 PM
guesstamite 243* agaisnt AWB 192 for.

from 178 (R) 65 (D) vs. 192 (D)

Pro-Gun Senators i can think of

Reid

Beigich

Webb

Tester

Baucus

Gilibrand

need 4 more to aviod tie breaker


Nope- Ties dont count in the Senate.... 40+1 is FILIBUSTER PROOF. And I count 43 (including the Majority leader) counting those dems.

SigAlert
04-12-2009, 7:53 PM
Funny, I have never heard the term "Selective Fire" used in the media.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 7:53 PM
Nope- Ties dont count in the Senate.... 40+1 is FILIBUSTER PROOF. And I count 43 (including the Majority leader) counting those dems.

i see what you mean I was thinking that we would have to aviod Biden breaking a tie. but you have to get cloture to get that point.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 7:54 PM
Funny, I have never heard the term "Selective Fire" used in the media.

welcome to calguns :D

anyway the political definition of an assualt weapon is based on cosmetics not function

RomanDad
04-12-2009, 7:58 PM
i see what you mean I was thing that we would have to aviod Biden breaking a tie. but you have to get cloture to get that point.

Now... Things arent all roses and sunshine.... Ive taken Senator Franken(stein) into my calculations even though he hasnt been seated yet, and weve got at least 3 republicans that I can think of that have a strong chance of voting with the dems.... But as long as we have 41, and Dingy Harry stays healthy, we should be fine.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 8:01 PM
Now... Things arent all roses and sunshine.... Ive taken Senator Franken(stein) into my calculations even though he hasnt been seated yet, and weve got at least 3 republicans that I can think of that have a strong chance of voting with the dems.... But as long as we have 41, and Dingy Harry stays healthy, we should be fine.

well senate talk is fine and well but it has to pass both houses and the numbers as is make things grim for Rep. McCarthy.

MontClaire
04-12-2009, 8:07 PM
I think my kids will live in republicans anti -gun and liberal pro-gun world sometime soon. it might be the joke the puppet masters have played on us again. the same masters are behind the 5 major usa parties. we need to pull back the curtain and meet the wizard.:owned:

AlexBreya
04-12-2009, 8:08 PM
errrrrrrrr! Feinstein, I HATE YOU SOOOO MUCH!!!! why the hell does she think a gun ban would have stopped these shooting sprees? the ignorance of some people makes me sick!

CnCFunFactory
04-12-2009, 8:15 PM
That's good, because Senator Feinstein's time is running out. Her term is over in 2012 and she's not running again after that. She's already 75. The Dems are not even going to try to do this close to an election so her window of opportunity is almost non-existent.

I realize she's not the only crazy gun-banner in Congress but she is "Brother Number One" of the gun banning movement there.

Unfortunately she will most likely be replaced by another anti-gunner because this state is so anti to begin with.

chaunbot
04-12-2009, 8:17 PM
love the reply to college kids being armed on campus comment. something like Do you think its smart having 21 yearolds being armed?? guy says Who do you think is fighting in iraq? lol, wish i could quote better

gcvt
04-12-2009, 8:17 PM
She sure did look even more smug than usual tonight. Is she taking lessons from Obama on how to look more smug?

SP1200
04-12-2009, 8:26 PM
Anyone have a link to this vid?

eflatminor
04-12-2009, 8:27 PM
If the majority of Americans now support no further gun control, why then are your reports so biased toward regulation?

60 Minutes also needs a dictionary. An AW has the ability to fire bursts/full auto, right? Restricted since 1934, correct? What am I missing?

Watching that tripe literally made me feel ill.

gcvt
04-12-2009, 8:29 PM
If the majority of Americans now support no further gun control, why then are your reports so biased toward regulation?

60 Minutes also needs a dictionary. An AW has the ability to fire bursts/full auto, right? Restricted since 1934, correct? What am I missing?

Watching that tripe literally made me feel ill.

Well, if they say semi-automatic, it makes the guns only seem "semi" bad. Assault weapon sounds much scarier. :eek:

calixt0
04-12-2009, 8:29 PM
The think I think is sad is when people lie to try to make a point. Over the last couple of days there was a lot made of the brother of the Virginia Tech who went in and bought a bunch of guns and how bad "the loophole" is. I notice not only is the networks and he either inflating what he bought (count how many he actually bought in the clips) or are not disclosing everything he bought. now on this 60 mins clip he says someone said they wouldn't need his ID if he would pay them an extra $50 where in the other clips it was an extra $100.

How twisted do your views of a "better society" have to be if you have to lie to get them in place?

KylaGWolf
04-12-2009, 8:40 PM
What got me the most about that part of the 20/20 piece is the FIRST gun he bought happened to be the same make and model that the gunman used to kill his sister. Now to me that screams SET UP in more ways that one. Either he went looking for that gun to get sympathy OR 20/20 had the person right there to sell it to him first gun out of the gate. While yes I think that it is sad that he lost his sister he is going about it the wrong way. He totally ignored the fact that the guy that did that murder was mentally ill. Why doesn't he concern himself on making the laws in dealing with them mentally ill his prioirty instead.

dfletcher
04-12-2009, 8:47 PM
guesstamite 243* agaisnt AWB 192 for.

from 178 (R) 65 (D) vs. 192 (D)

Pro-Gun Senators i can think of

Reid

Begich

Webb

Tester

Baucus

Gilibrand

need 4 more to aviod tie breaker

I don't know how solid he is, but Leahy is a gun owner and shooter, in general progun and said so during Holder's confirmation hearing.

Hoop
04-12-2009, 8:50 PM
Who am I to question Roman math? Sounds like we're in good shape - at least on this issue and at this level.

Right now isn't a year or two from now.

But no, it's dead for now.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 8:57 PM
What got me the most about that part of the 20/20 piece is the FIRST gun he bought happened to be the same make and model that the gunman used to kill his sister. Now to me that screams SET UP in more ways that one. Either he went looking for that gun to get sympathy OR 20/20 had the person right there to sell it to him first gun out of the gate. While yes I think that it is sad that he lost his sister he is going about it the wrong way. He totally ignored the fact that the guy that did that murder was mentally ill. Why doesn't he concern himself on making the laws in dealing with them mentally ill his prioirty instead.

he actually said it was "more powerful" im assuming he meant a larger caliber.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 8:58 PM
I don't know how solid he is, but Leahy is a gun owner and shooter, in general progun and said so during Holder's confirmation hearing.

yea will anyway the jist is they ain't got the votes in the house or filibuster breaker in senate.

RomanDad
04-12-2009, 9:10 PM
She sure did look even more smug than usual tonight. Is she taking lessons from Obama on how to look more smug?

Those were wrinkles.

Seed
04-12-2009, 9:11 PM
Anyone have a link to this vid?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937731n
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937729n

A324
04-12-2009, 9:26 PM
The think I think is sad is when people lie to try to make a point. Over the last couple of days there was a lot made of the brother of the Virginia Tech who went in and bought a bunch of guns and how bad "the loophole" is. I notice not only is the networks and he either inflating what he bought (count how many he actually bought in the clips) or are not disclosing everything he bought. now on this 60 mins clip he says someone said they wouldn't need his ID if he would pay them an extra $50 where in the other clips it was an extra $100.


Did he say $50 or $15? I noticed that same thing. During his 20 20 interview he said $100. I'll have to watch it again.

yellowfin
04-12-2009, 9:59 PM
From what info I've gathered it appears Gillibrand isn't reliable for us: Chuckie is getting his hooks into her :mad:

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 10:40 PM
From what info I've gathered it appears Gillibrand isn't reliable for us: Chuckie is getting his hooks into her :mad:

hey a flake is better than a pure-breed anti. at least we could get support on somethings.

Sgt Raven
04-12-2009, 10:44 PM
If the majority of Americans now support no further gun control, why then are your reports so biased toward regulation?

60 Minutes also needs a dictionary. An AW has the ability to fire bursts/full auto, right? Restricted since 1934, correct? What am I missing?

Watching that tripe literally made me feel ill.

That's a Assault Rifle. A Assault Weapon is a term 'coined' by us gunnies' in the '80s for anything that looks like a military weapon. The anti's found the term used in gun magazines and took it and ran with it. :eek: :rolleyes:

SP1200
04-13-2009, 12:05 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937731n
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937729n

Thanks.
Guys I gotta be honest. I was actually impressed. Here are the key points she made in our defense.

Said that Obama fear is creating the gun and ammo buying spree. And she showed those stupid collage students when she said that Chow did get a background check! That he purchased his gun legally through a FFL, not a FTF gun show! And she to let the 2end amendment guy have his say. All and all, it could have been worse, and I actually think its one of the best of the worst I've seen lately.

KWA-S
04-13-2009, 1:24 AM
A Assault Weapon is a term 'coined' by us gunnies' in the '80s for anything that looks like a military weapon. The anti's found the term used in gun magazines and took it and ran with it. :eek: :rolleyes:

Jeesh, what did you older guys expect? Of course they were going to run with it. Its kinda like the Street Sweeper shotgun is just begging to be banned. :p

colossians323
04-13-2009, 4:29 AM
Love the muzzle control in the beginning with the 50:thumbsup:

chefdude
04-13-2009, 5:13 AM
Senator Feinstein owes her political career to guns, if it were not for Dan White and his gun she would still be an SF city council woman.

RomanDad
04-13-2009, 5:49 AM
Senator Feinstein owes her political career to guns, if it were not for Dan White and his gun she would still be an SF city council woman.

Yet another reason Dan White can rot in hell.

cousinkix1953
04-13-2009, 6:26 AM
I definitely cant watch that.....I cant stomach that much bias in a week, and I watched the 20/20 hit piece already.
If you have "On Demand" on your cable TV service, then watch it. This 60 Minutes story was nowhere near the kind of hatchet job that we saw on 20/20 a few nights ago...

RomanDad
04-13-2009, 7:05 AM
If you have "On Demand" on your cable TV service, then watch it. This 60 Minutes story was nowhere near the kind of hatchet job that we saw on 20/20 a few nights ago...

I thought it was very balanced.... They had a VERY articulate, very respectable advocate for gun rights, and gave him plenty of time to make our case.

And Stahl asked the two vtu kids the KEY question, "Cho didnt buy his guns at a gunshow.... So how is the gunshow loophole relevant?"

Sorry but the response "The NEXT cho will buy his guns there" doesn't pass the psychic friends network test.

Im actually in favor of background checks for people buying a gun. I dont want violent criminals buying them. However, Im also an advocate of HONEST debate on issues, and waving the Virginia Tech banner as a reason WHY the "Gunshow loophole" should be closed is intellectually dishonest.

Sgt Raven
04-13-2009, 7:10 AM
Jeesh, what did you older guys expect? Of course they were going to run with it. Its kinda like the Street Sweeper shotgun is just begging to be banned. :p

It was just 'marketing' and without it all those rifles and shotguns would not have become as popular and we wouldn't have what we do today. ;)

eflatminor
04-13-2009, 7:12 AM
Im actually in favor of background checks for people buying a gun.

Really? What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you get? Do you have any evidence whatsoever showing that people that do bad things with guns would be stopped from doing so were they subject to Federal regulations?

You've been living in the People's Republic too long.

RomanDad
04-13-2009, 7:29 AM
Really? What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you get? Do you have any evidence whatsoever showing that people that do bad things with guns would be stopped from doing so were they subject to Federal regulations?

You've been living in the People's Republic too long.

Preventing violent felons or the mentally ill from obtaining firearms is not an "infringement" of the second amendment.... Any more than outlawing slander or rioting is an infringement of the first amendment.

And its not just the "peoples republic" that says it.... So does Antonin Scalia. http://romandad.com/heller.pdf

And since he has a robe hanging in his closet and you dont.... HE WINS.

eflatminor
04-13-2009, 8:46 AM
Preventing violent felons or the mentally ill from obtaining firearms...

Preventing? Really? What exactly do background checks prevent? Felons, crazies...they don't obtain their guns legally. What can't Liberals get that?!

mblat
04-13-2009, 8:51 AM
Preventing? Really? What exactly do background checks prevent? Felons, crazies...they don't obtain their guns legally. What can't Liberals get that?!

Oh, please...... All that is advocated here is the fact that felons should be prevented from obtaining guns legally.... Obviously they can get them on black market.
Frankly I haven't seen too many conservatives that would advocate that Charles Manson should be allowed legally to posses a machine gun..... or any gun for that matter.

PIRATE14
04-13-2009, 9:03 AM
While the math is looking good for the moment......it's all politics and can change overnight......

The media is def trying to hammer out the political agenda for the future....

turinreza
04-13-2009, 9:18 AM
Well, if they say semi-automatic, it makes the guns only seem "semi" bad. Assault weapon sounds much scarier. :eek:

all the online dictionaries say "semi auto"

RomanDad
04-13-2009, 9:21 AM
Oh, please...... All that is advocated here is the fact that felons should be prevented from obtaining guns legally.... Obviously they can get them on black market.
Frankly I haven't seen too many conservatives that would advocate that Charles Manson should be allowed legally to posses a machine gun..... or any gun for that matter.

Exactly. If you have proven through your past behavior that you have a propensity to hurt other people, the government should make it as difficult as possible for you to rearm yourself, and do it again. There is no 100% prophylactic to prevent criminals from getting weapons, but prophylaxis is not the sole determination of what makes a proper law. Making sure violent felons cant buy weapons through legal means is not an INFRINGEMENT upon my rights as a lawful gun owner as it is a REASONABLE restriction to prevent the easy purchase of firearms by people that 99% of law abiding society agree shouldn't have them.

"Infringement" is a LEGAL term. It was not invented by the framers of the Constitution. It had been defined by 572 years of English Common law before those men ever decided to use it in their Bill of Rights. Some of those men were Attorneys. ALL of those men were LAWYERS (in the purest sense of the word- People "Learned in the Law" after all, they WROTE the greatest law mankind has ever seen, and they did a DAMNED FINE JOB OF IT!), and they chose the words they used VERY carefully.

"Infringement" comes from property law. It means an UNLAWFUL or CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

Not every interference with your rights is an INFRINGEMENT. The girlscout who knocks on your door to sell cookies is not TRESPASSING on your property. The English Professor who takes a paragraph from your novel to teach his students the proper use of grammar is not INFRINGING on your copyright. The Police office who gets a valid warrant to search your home for evidence of criminal wrongdoing is not INFRINGING on your right to privacy. The Warden who locks you away in prison after you've been convicted of a crime is not INFRINGING on your right to freedom. The Judge who signs your death warrant after you've been convicted of a heinous murder is not INFRINGING upon your right to life. ALL of the above are interferences with your rights (some of them are VERY significant "interferences" with your rights, especially that death penalty one), but they are not UNLAWFUL, CRIMINAL interferences with your rights, thus, they AREN'T "Infringements"..

Now.... The way California tries to prevent criminals from getting guns (ten day waiting periods etc) MAY be an infringement of the Second Amendment.... Time will tell. But the way MOST states do it (running your info against FBI records to see if youre a scumbag and then letting you walk out the door with your guns if you aren't) CLEARLY IS NOT.

RRangel
04-13-2009, 10:47 AM
The question regarding new background checks is; are they really needed, or is this another hurdle being imposed by politicians to push their agenda? Those who espouse the socialist viewpoint love a dependent society.

We have already witnessed numerous incremental losses when it comes to firearm ownership. Every law has been treated as a solution unto itself, but next year there's another one. When does it end?

There is bias from our media, a meme, that crime should automatically merit we consider new restrictive gun laws. The problem is that the benefits to our society are never fairly examined, if given any consideration at all.

Imposing regulation has become a knee jerk reaction from the usual anti-gun representatives regardless that it is detrimental. This is a very elitist position. When inmates run the asylum the answer should be a resounding no.

Canute
04-13-2009, 3:43 PM
If you have "On Demand" on your cable TV service, then watch it. This 60 Minutes story was nowhere near the kind of hatchet job that we saw on 20/20 a few nights ago...

It was far from perfect, but the difference in the level of journalism between this show and 20/20 is striking.