Awright - who forgot to give the old coot her meds THIS time!
Posted on 05/01/2005 8:49:51 AM PDT by risk
Sunday, May 1
All Times ET/PT 7:00 60 Minutes 8:00 Cold Case 9:00 Riding the Bus with My Sister
Bay City News Wire FEINSTEIN SEEKS TOUGHER REGULATION OF RIFLE 05/01/05 12:40 PDT
By Bay City New Service
Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced Friday the introduction of legislation that would classify .50-caliber rifles in the same category as machine guns or sawn-off shotguns.
The legislation would change the .50-caliber's classification as a "long gun,'' requiring all future sales to go through a licensed gun dealer and a background check on the buyer, Howard Gantman, a Feinstein spokesman, reported. If the legislation passed, the Internal Revenue Service would also record all future purchases of the weapon under the National Firearms Act.
The U.S. military commonly uses the large weapon, which California banned in 2004, as a sniper rifle. According to Feinstein, the destructive power of the rifle makes it different than a standard rifle, requiring more safeguards before a person can purchase the weapon.
"For instance, a sniper atop the Washington Monument (with a .50-caliber rifle) could target anybody or anything within a four-mile radius, including the White House, the Capitol, every building on or around the Mall, and aircraft flying in and out of Reagan National Airport,'' Feinstein said in a statement.
The rifles are currently classified in the same category as .22-caliber target rifles and .30-06-caliber hunting rifles.
There they go again... (For your ping lists.)
You think Feinstein gives a damn about either?
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars. (THR)
And how do I sneak up the Wahington Monument with one?
This has about as much chance of going anywhere during the next 3 1/2 years as I have of being elected a Senator from California.
(I live in New Jersey.)
Wahington -> Washington
In 1968, the left was concerned about small, inexpensive firearms because they were small and inexpensive. Now they're worried about big weapons because they're, well...big.
We can only hope that a CCC(Credible Conservative Candidate) comes forward in January to run against this liberal relic, Feinstein, in November 2006!
She desperately wants her constituents to believe so.
Diane, you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers. Better make sure I am dead before you try, I play possum.
I thought they banned the .50 in California.
It's all about the terrifying imagery. Never mind facts. Facts would interfere with the campaign of fear.
Awright - who forgot to give the old coot her meds THIS time!
facts? Logic?
not from Fienswine....
'nuff said.
i wish somebody would ask that SKANK in public what she'll do when everybody starts making .4999 guns instead?????? wellll... we'll just have to ban them toooo, right???
I wonder when Feinstein will go after the .43 Mauser?
The answer is yes.
I hope I can still buy a .577Nitro or a .600JDJ.
This is just more of "LPD" - Liberal Perception Disorder.
If it looks or sounds scary it must be outlawed (for the children of course).
How about tougher regulations on criminals.
HHHOOOOOORRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Feinstein has been tough on crime, from what I've seen. But she's quite confused about the merit and constitutionality of gun control.
Definitely not your "conceal weapon" of choice. LOL
Any one ever see a sawn-off shotgun?
More hysterical hyperbole from Californistan's favorite gun grabber.
I believe you're correct. But Feinstein and Boxer have nothing else to whine about at the moment. They should just stay home and collect their paychecks.
Two major flaws with what that gun-grabbing goon has laid out: The Barret weighs in at about 30 pounds, making it a prone position weapon, and a .50 BMG round doesn't have a four mile range.....that's more in the realm of field artillery than a rifle.
Again, the anti-gun crowd plays upon the fears and ignorance of the wine-and-brie crowd to strip the liberties from the rest of us. In short.....
YOU CAN HAVE MY GUN ONLY UNDER ONE OF TWO CONDITIONS: WHEN YOU PRY IT OUT OF MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS OR AFTER I SHOOT YOU FIRST!
Scores of well-financed anti-Second Amendment groups who are determined to alter the original intent of the Founding Fathers want the American public to believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right nor is it an unalienable right.
Gun control extremists, seeing no redeeming value in individual gun ownership, assume laws restricting firearms reduce crime. They assume human behavior can be controlled by passing another law. Most gun control laws do not in any way reduce crime. In fact, gun control legislation that limits the rights of law-abiding citizens literally aids and abets criminals by increasing crime rates while guns in the hands of innocent victims prevent crime.
Sure. It's also possible to knock one down with a crossbow (it was done in Vietnam). Helicopters are also vulnerable to all other types of rifle fire, so why not ban all rifles?
It would be easier to ban helicopters.
Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal". Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States, 1993-2000
"The more people are dependent upon the government, the more controlled they are". United States Secretary of State Madeline Albright, March 20, 1998.
The best part of her silliness her office is also in that idiotic target area!
Could it be women of her meglomaniacal persuasion are short a couple of connections in the cabeza and like an old timey hand cranked record player gets stuck on occasion and needs a nudge to put it in the right groove that produces pleasant sounds instead of the raucousness for which she is (in)famous!
What a maroon!
Yes, but we should be concerned about fours years from now and beyond. Please remember that the GCA of 1968, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Extended Capacity Magazine Ban all originated from, and were promoted by, the American firearms industry (SAAMI, NSSF, etc) as short sighted attempts at protectionism. They have a long history of throwing babies out of the sleigh to pacify the wolves and convince the public that they are "reasonable" Since none of them have a dog in the fight - look out.
The dark side is defeating us by attrition. One little piece at a time. It is hard to defend the 50 BMG's without invoking logic or the fun and freedom arguments. Those arguments that don't go far in the public debate.
Our best defense is a good offense by electing Republicans (RINO's or not) to every level of government. Gun Control is a Democrat dream. Period.
In the words of fellow Californian Nancy Reagan - "Just say NO!!"
Yes, but our founding fathers knew that citizens ought to be trusted with arms powerful enough to challenge government authority. After all, at Lexington and Concord, the war started over an attempt to disarm American colonists who were stockpiling military-grade weapons.
James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: Americans have the right and advantage of being armed unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.
Yup. That said, you can also shoot down a helicopter with a .22 rifle, too. *ANY* firearm caliber can bring down a civilian aircraft.
>>If the legislation passed, the Internal Revenue Service would also record all future purchases of the weapon under the National Firearms Act.
can someone explain just what the irs has to do with gun registration? what is batf for?
Does DiFi have a permit to carry? That was confirmed a few years ago. How would we find out if she still does?
Has there been a mad rush to buy 50.ca rifles that I'm not aware of? /sarcasm off.
You don't think 2-3 repeat shots from a .22LR through a rear prop couldn't disable a helicopter? In any case, do you think ability to knock down a helicopter is a valid argument against a particular weapon system given the intent of the founding fathers with the second amendment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.