The great guns debate: Grabbers rise anew
Post-Sandy Hook, the great debate over guns has sunken to new levels of deceit and misrepresentation, all in the name of unconstitutional gun-grabbing. Consider legislation being proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
The California Democrat seeks to dishonestly redefine “assault weapons” — heretofore machine-gun-type weaponry banned nearly 30 years ago — to be just about any weapon that liberals think looks especially menacing or they simply don't like. She proposes measures clearly in violation of the Second Amendment.
Under Ms. Feinstein's nomenclature, millions of quite common and quite popular semiautomatic handguns, shotguns and rifles (the latter two simply because they have a pistol-like grip) would be banned. Outlawed, too, generally, would be magazines, fixed or detachable, capable of holding 10 or more rounds. (As if a six-round magazine makes a difference, given the mere seconds it takes to change one.)
According to one analysis, not one handgun could survive the legislation.
And adding a new level of tyranny to this Bill of Rights nose-thumbing, the Feinstein measure additionally would go after existing owners of these newly offending weapons. Their guns would have to be registered with the government (including telling the feds where they're stored). The guns could not be transferred. Should the owner die, the government would seize and destroy them.
What's the real threat here — guns or the government? Consider it a rhetorical question.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.