Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Democrats Push Weapons Ban

Proposal would prohibit 157 types of guns

January 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines like those used in the school massacre at Newtown, Conn....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(77)

DisplacedWVian

Jan-25-13 2:01 AM

"Democrats Push Weapons Ban"

Of course they do. They Democrat party is full of socialist, communist, and fascist. That's part of their modus operandi.

11 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

justmytake

Jan-25-13 6:19 AM

Frankenstein at it again. How about addressing the budget, the deficit, and mental health issues? All of which will have a larger affect on crime than attacking the second amendment. That's all.

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-25-13 6:33 AM

How did the first ban work out, DiFi??

Oh yeah, gun crime WENT UP!

BBBWHAHAHAHAH!

Democratic party: best gun salespeople in the world!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Smith & Wesson

Glock

Colt

Remington

Mossberg

Barrett

.....

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Jan-25-13 6:52 AM

1st we train their youth to think and be our informers.Then we disarm them. Then we take their money.Then we are in control of their very lives. Any one who doesn't obey, will be sent for re-education. Yes, Adolf you have come up with the plan, master.

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

zip064

Jan-25-13 7:17 AM

another finger pointing communist liberal is what needs banned.

11 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-25-13 7:54 AM

The real story is how long these people are in power!

"Feinstein aimed to improve upon the previous assault weapons ban she authored, which expired in 2004 when Congress did not renew it. Original passage of that bill in 1994 was blamed for costing Democrats control of the House and Senate after they supported it. There's also considerable debate about its effectiveness during the years it was in effect, in part because of loopholes that allowed gun manufacturers to work around it. Feinstein's new version is more comprehensive in defining what kinds of weapons are banned."

California has 37 million people and she is the best you got?

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Jan-25-13 8:14 AM

there are still some who lived through the Germain slip from being a Republic into becoming a Fascist/Dictatorship. Ask them. How could the freedom loving people of their country let that happen? then you will have your answer.Of where the USA is headed if the direction is not changed.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Triton

Jan-25-13 8:35 AM

Like everything else, the answers are somewhere in the middle, not on the extremes. Democrats are there in full frenzy trying to exploit a tragedy for purely political purposes. Not long ago Obama set up a tragedy by funneling assault weapons to Mexican drug gangs in the hope that he would then be able to lie and point to that mayhem as a reason to restrict weapon ownership. He killed about 300 people in that failed effort, and not all in Mexico. Exploiting the deaths of children is disgusting, making policy and altering the Constitution based on the tragedy is also disgusting. This is political theater with the lapdog US media beating the drums. It also points to the failure of the Feds to enforce the laws that we now have concerning guns. Each tragedy has shown the failure to enforce laws now in force. Trying to ban guns will be no more successful. Ordinary citizens have not failed, the Feds have consistently failed to enforce gun laws, choosing shows rather than deed

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dolphin3111

Jan-25-13 10:14 AM

The A**hole Jay Rockefeller is a co-sponsor of the bill (S.150). What an arrogant {censored}!!

Look it up at Library of Congress-Thomas.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-25-13 10:42 AM

Will the people be required to turn-in our "legally" purchased weapons when those on the list are "considered" illegal?

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dolphin3111

Jan-25-13 11:16 AM

The actual text of the legislation has hot been released to the public yet. But I understand the legally purchased weapons on the "banned" list would have to be "registered" so that the Feds know where they all are in preparation for future confiscation.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

readerx

Jan-25-13 11:26 AM

Huh..another case of "pass the bill to see what is in it." bullcrap from the very people who believe they are above the laws they write.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-25-13 11:49 AM

"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."

I must have missed the "shall be registered" section! He Ha

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldmansvan

Jan-25-13 12:26 PM

Definition of Militia, A military service of armed forces called upon in case of an emergency, Look it up and show us your dog tags or give up your assult weapon.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-25-13 12:29 PM

Definition of a toothless local idiot: oldmansvan.

"DC versus Heller" 2008 Supreme Court Deciion.

Look That UP, dillweed. SCOTUS ruled the well regulated militia is every CITIZEN of the country.

Guess that leaves you out, though.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-25-13 12:43 PM

oldman, What exactly is an "assault weapon?"

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

intresting

Jan-25-13 1:58 PM

For all you nipple au king liberals--this ban would apply to all citizens EXCEPT federal officials--sig heil!!!

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

intresting

Jan-25-13 1:58 PM

Suc-king

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

richardwhee

Jan-25-13 2:16 PM

Appears to me that some are getting worried that these weapons will be used against the idiots in gov. So be it!

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-25-13 2:52 PM

"In the United States, full-automatic firearms are heavily restricted, and regulated by federal laws such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, as well as some state and local laws."

"The American political and legal term "assault weapon" is highly controversial. Critics assert that the term is a media invention,or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are fully automatic firearms when they are not."

As defined for the sheeple.....

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shark88

Jan-25-13 4:10 PM

Democrats push control of guns & people.

Democrats push homosexuality - even on children.

Democrats push global warming & green energy.

Democrats push world unity.

Democrats push welfare.

Democrats push multi-trillion dollar spending & debt.

Democrats push abortion, regardless of the time of gestation.

Democrats push higher taxes.

Democrats punish sacrifice, obedience, hard work and success.

Democrats push rights for illegal aliens.

Democrats overtly push The Almighty out of their party. (Actually you can't push out that which was never in, in the 1st place.)

Satann has boldly stripped off his mask.

Whose side are you on?

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Jan-25-13 5:12 PM

Severe income inequality is the biggest risk facing the world, according to a study by the World Economic Forum. World Bank's research group, said that severe income inequality could fuel mass migration and popular uprisings. Severe income disparity was given a risk rating of 4.14 greenhouse emissions (3.91) no need of guns or will their be a need of guns.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Jan-25-13 5:13 PM

The world can expect more two-tier societies like that in Brazil, where gated communities and elite private schools for the rich exist cheek-by-jowl with "third world" ghettos. We may need our guns to defend our selves in the near future.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wvhoopie2

Jan-25-13 5:17 PM

World Bank's research shows severe income inequality could fuel mass migrations and uprisings. With a population of 310 million which will double in say 20 or 30 years we will need to find jobs, income and food for the US. Their may be a need to protect you life, food and home in the near future.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

boxerboy

Jan-25-13 6:19 PM

Shark, is that what you preach on Sunday morning at the Baptist church?

You must be the most popular mullah in your sect.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 77 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: