Vicious Scapegoating Is the Whole Point of Beto O'Rourke's Gun Grab

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Consider the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, introduced in January by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who also sponsored the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004. Feinstein's bill bans more than 150 models by name, but it also includes a general definition that covers semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and one or more "military-style" features. Those features include barrel shrouds, which would seem to condemn one of my guns, an Iver Johnson M1 carbine:





Yet Feinstein's bill specifically exempts this rifle, as long as it does not have a folding stock. (Thanks, Dianne!) Does a folding stock make this gun more deadly? No, it does not. With or without a folding stock, the gun has the same ammunition capacity, and it fires the same rounds at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Feinstein's distinction makes no sense. Neither did O'Rourke when he said an "assault weapon" ban would cover guns that fire "high-impact, high-velocity round," since the legal definition of "assault weapons" has nothing to do with the size or velocity of the ammunition they fire.

https://reason.com/2019/09/13/vicious-scapegoating-is-the-whole-point-of-beto-orourkes-gun-grab/
 

Tech

Well-Known Member
Consider the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, introduced in January by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who also sponsored the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004. Feinstein's bill bans more than 150 models by name, but it also includes a general definition that covers semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and one or more "military-style" features. Those features include barrel shrouds, which would seem to condemn one of my guns, an Iver Johnson M1 carbine:





Yet Feinstein's bill specifically exempts this rifle, as long as it does not have a folding stock. (Thanks, Dianne!) Does a folding stock make this gun more deadly? No, it does not. With or without a folding stock, the gun has the same ammunition capacity, and it fires the same rounds at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Feinstein's distinction makes no sense. Neither did O'Rourke when he said an "assault weapon" ban would cover guns that fire "high-impact, high-velocity round," since the legal definition of "assault weapons" has nothing to do with the size or velocity of the ammunition they fire.

https://reason.com/2019/09/13/vicious-scapegoating-is-the-whole-point-of-beto-orourkes-gun-grab/
Mine's an Underwood, when they say so and so has killed more than my gun, I can't make that claim.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
One would think that Diane Feinstein would have enriched herself enough in her position to think about retirement instead of gun grabbing.
The old lady is 86 years old she has been getting rich in Congress since 1992.
Do we need term limits? We do. Do we need age limits?? We do
Do we need an 86 year old "lady" hypocrite who once owned a weapon telling us we don't need one?----We don't.
 
Top