A summary of the 2013 AWB Directly from Mrs. Feinstein website...

[jsanchez]

Do any of you people listen to KIRO RADIO. The Ron and Don show and the Andrew Walsh shows today were very anti gun. But alot of people have texted and emailed them with alot of pro gun facts and opinion during the show, and they got 100 pro gun emails from angry gun owners for Tuesdays show. I was just wondering if any of you had texted or email them. I have. It seems all they want to do is take guns away, they don't want to talk about the young shooters and their inability to adjust to the stresses of life. We need to change the conversation to understanding and fixing these troubled shooters and get them help before these anti gun people take our gun rights. Just saying.

 

[tombrewster421]

Do any of you people listen to KIRO RADIO. The Ron and Don show and the Andrew Walsh shows today were very anti gun. But alot of people have texted and emailed them with alot of pro gun facts and opinion during the show, and they got 100 pro gun emails from angry gun owners for Tuesdays show. I was just wondering if any of you had texted or email them. I have. It seems all they want to do is take guns away, they don't want to talk about the young shooters and their inability to adjust to the stresses of life. We need to change the conversation to understanding and fixing these troubled shooters and get them help before these anti gun people take our gun rights. Just saying.

Don't call them shooters anymore. WE are shooters. Those guys are murderers.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Don't call them shooters anymore. WE are shooters. Those guys are murderers.

This is truth! I heard this earlier today on the radio. A good point and a common misconception. "No Ma'am, I'm a shooter, that boy was a murderer."

 

[Difdi]

My understanding is the firearm claimed to be a "Assault weapon" was in the trunk of the car and wasn't even used in this tragic event. My second understand is that all the rounds were fired from the two handguns found next to Lanza. So why if an "Assault Weapon" was not used in this tragic event are so many calling for it to be banned?

Someone please feel free to correct me here but if no "Assault Weapons" were actually used in this tragic event, why is all the focus on them? Not that I am suggesting we need to ban all handguns either, but I just don't understand why if handguns were what was actually used, why are we focused on so called "Assault Weapons"?

Years ago, I used to share a house with three other guys. We split the cost of rent and utilities, each had our own bedroom that was ours alone, and had rules for the common areas. None of us could tell the others what we could or could not do in our own bedrooms, aside from things like noise or smells detectable from out in the common areas being against the rules.

I had a small collection of martial arts display weapons (shatter on the first hit in a real fight), my guns (locked up when not on my person) and some blunted/padded martial arts practice weapons in my room. Per house rules, as long as I didn't leave them lying around the common area or threaten my roomies with them, they were my business and only my business. The other three guys were die-hard capital-L Liberals though and they HATED the things. But they couldn't find any excuse to make me get rid of them that wouldn't bite them in turn (each of the four of us had at least one thing in our rooms the other three HATED).

So one of the other three guys had this friend. The friend was a complete jerk to everybody else in the house, and one night that friend decided to kick my ass for fun. I handed him his, completely barehanded. The only reason he got hurt at all was he tried to blindside me with a baseball bat, and kept jumping back up from where he landed and attacking again. After the fifth time he tried to hit me with the bat, I put him down a little harder and he didn't get back up that time. I didn't use a weapon to do it, even though he had one.

Despite me being completely unarmed throughout the attack, this was the excuse the other three needed to try to force me to disarm.

Liberals will find an excuse to do what they want to do. They think conservatives are idiots, so we won't notice how transparent they are.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Liberals will find an excuse to do what they want to do. They think conservatives are idiots, so we won't notice how transparent they are.

Good story.

I call these neo-liberals, since the word liberal has its roots in being free and modern liberals seem to want the most rules and restrictions and the least amount of "freedom".

I though could also make the same conclusions about modern conservatives, who stand behind things like , drug wars, strict law and order, large militarism, government regulated morality, patriot act/homeland security, special treatment for corporations. They too look for the "crisis" not to waste.

 

[Difdi]

I call these neo-liberals, since the word liberal has its roots in being free and modern liberals seem to want the most rules and restrictions and the least amount of "freedom

I've occasionally commented around the web that our liberals aren't like your liberals (usually when talking to someone from another country wondering why liberals are seen as anti-freedom here).

Liberals want change, Conservatives like the status quo. In most places in the world, the government rules with an iron fist, and most changes produce more freedom. Liberals in those places are freedom activists.

But the U.S. at least in theory starts from freedom, although the government and the people haven't always been that great about actually following through, particularly in the 1800s and early 1900s.

So if freedom is the status quo, what do Liberals want to change? What they talk about wanting and what they actually achieve are often two different things, and the end result is often a loss of freedom for somebody.

Quite a few of the Liberals in the U.S. would be Conservatives anywhere else on the planet.

 

[John Hardin]

I call these neo-liberals, since the word liberal has its roots in being free and modern liberals seem to want the most rules and restrictions and the least amount of "freedom".

LINOs?

 

[nonameisgood]

The actual bill cannot be filed until Jan 22 (a date agreed to by the new Senate on the first day of the 113th Congress.)

Do not fool yourself into thinking that the summary on Senator Feinstein's webpage reflects the true content of the forthcoming bill. It would be unexpected if the bill contained those, and only those, provisions. Most likely, the webpage is floating a few red herrings ("look, we listened and removed the things the people rejected"), and doesn't list a few controversial items.

It's not that all Congressmen are dishonest, but that politics demands obfuscation and a little bait-and-switch, because you can't please all of the people all of the time. The problem is that our Congress has decided that trying to force The People to do things is a just easier than convincing us that what they want is the right thing to do.

Government doesn't fear The People, and that is the root of the problem. Our government thinks it is ruling us, which is NOT its purpose, it is here to serve us. When the government becomes an entity of its own, it's time for a change.

 

[Alpine]

Chuck has spoken-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o&list=PLC663CD5422E29D1E&index=1

Spread the truth-

That's a great video. Thanks for sharing it.