Carbajal, Feinstein Reintroduce Gun Violence Prevention Bill

It won't prevent violence without guns so why bother? Is that whataboutism, or what?

Baby steps in this direction is better than no movement at all. There are those who mistake the ability to own guns as a universal right without a connection to responsibility to randomly use them to injure or kill others.

All these gun nut arguments are worn out. If people need licenses for cars they should have them for guns. It's not an anti-gun position, I have guns and don't want some wack job who can't see, has mental problems, or is a violent criminal in the lane next to me at the range. The problem for gun companies is that the wackos buy the most guns and ammunition because they think they're about to fight through the apocalypse or start a violent revolution, or whatever clinically insane nonsense the GOP is spouting on any given day.

CHILLIN- I'm not saying that I'm pro gun license, but here's what I had to go through in Uruguay.:
1-Full application w/ certification (like notary) of all documents
2-A clean criminal record from Interpol
3-Certification of income*
4-Physical evaluation
5-Phycological evaluation
6-Complete a course on gun safety and gun law
7-Written competency exam
8-Live fire competency exam
9-Photo & Fingerprints
10-Proof of domicile (current utility statements in my name)
This took months and they govt. decided to retest us, written and practical, as they were double checking on the shooting instructors. I had to drive 45 min to a military installation where I got 95% on the written (in Spanish) then to an Army shooting range where we were tested and videoed (passed @ 92% ).
* Nº 3 above is exceedingly problematic as it precludes the poor, who may live in the worst neighborhoods, from owning a defense, or any, firearm.
Licensing owners might not be a bad idea, but the gun registration and banning is unenforceable. I won't get into the stupidity of their registration laws!

12:26 - Almost anything beats our policy of letting every nutcase have a truckload.

or a Black Market truck full.

Sales are way up in 2021, nearly 16 million guns sold in the first four months of the year. Last year about 40 million guns were sold, and this year is on track to exceed that by a substantial margin. This makes sense given the political changes and widespread rioting and civil unrest that have taken place recently. A big portion of these sales are first time buyers. It’s really encouraging to see more and more people take an interest in firearm ownership.

Sure Chipper with almost 400,000,000 guns in the US already, people need more guns due to the "widespread rioting and civil unrest." Most gun ownership is driven by NRA, the gun industry's lobbing group, scare tactics. The modern GOP and the rightwing press with Fox News in the lead, push and amplify that message. And the body count keeps on growing. Do you feel safer?

Yes, I feel a lot safer. Remember, when there is danger and seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Without a gun, you and your family are helpless. With a gun, you have a lot more options. Every responsible and mentally fit person should own a weapon and take the time to learn how to use and handle it safely and effectively.

Chip you are fooling yourself.

But how do you determine who is mentally fit? And yes, it's going to take awhile...but in 20-30 years if there are drastically less guns in the US everyone will be safer.

Chip likens all of us to some Quick draw McGraws! Love that Logic!! Good luck sniper!

Cip--LOL, bro. These defend the home types are living in a paranoid fantasy.

Just lock your doors and buy a good machete. No teenager ever committed suicide or accidentally killed a pal with a machete.

Ask Google if anyone has committed suicide with a machete, or accidently killed a friend with one.

Edney, no kidding, what do you think the ratio of suicide and murder by machete is to suicide and murder by gun?

I'm sure someone has killed themselves by jumping in an animal enclosure at a zoo, if your conclusion is that this is a more pressing problem than hundreds of millions of guns then, again, fantasyland.

The majority of the words in your post made two hyperbolic claims.
So I Googled it.
Something I already knew but did not google was that the word "amok" is usually used in machete attacks because they are so prevalent in Malaysia and Indonesia that they have a special word for it.
The shortened version of hyperbole is "hype" and if you need to hype up your argument go ahead.
I got some historically illiterate resonses earlier. Lend Lease started in 1941. The Committee for American Aid for the Defense of British Homes started sending weapons from USA to the UK in 1940 shortly after Dunkirk.
I was also told that American civilians did not send arms. They did, and the photos of Brits practising with broomsticks are easy to find.
I was also fed some white, eurocentric dribble about developed nations and gun violence. Developed nations is nothing more than a racist socio economic construct that allows Japan and Korea in as junior members.
China is a "developing nation" and they welcome the designation because they get economic benefits and ecological passes on emmissions until 2035. China is a case study on turning racist paternalism into a gravy train

Edney, if we are going to talk about gun ownership policies in Malaysia, then you better start a new topic. We are talking about gun ownership in the United States--try and keep your focus.

Yup, sure enough, Google turned up ==> 1 <== case of suicide by machete (and the weapon is never shown, and the guy who made the video actually says "suicide with a knife") and no accidental killings. Of course, this is completely irrelevant except to serve bad faith pedantry.

While people running amok sometimes do so with machetes, the word itself does not refer to machetes, so this seems to be a paradigmatic example of hyperbole and hype, as well as hypocrisy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181064/

BTW, it's worth noting this sentence from my link: "The number of victims in modern episodes is similar to the number in amok despite the fact that handguns and rifles are used in contrast to the Malay swords of 2 centuries ago. "

(No mention of machetes--although it's possible that "Malay swords" actually refers to parangs or goloks, which are machete-like tools that may be mistaken for swords.)

Do you really believe the founders wrote the second amendment to allow people to posses weapons in order to serve in the military? All the other countries in the world have managed to have armed services without any provision like the second amendment.

The founders of the USA were against having a large standing army. That is the reason for the second amendment, to provide for a militia made up of not professional soldiers but ordinary citizens.

Yes, the amendment is an obsolete provision for national defense not a unlimited license to carry. The gun fetishism tries to compensate for perceived loss of status and power, relying on a mythical gunslinging past that never existed.

Actually yes.
Private citizens were able to buy the most advanced weapons of the time, and were able to buy weapons the standing army could not afford. The founding fathers who wrote the constitution were constrained only by cost in what the could purchase and often owned better, more modern rifles than the US Army.
Private parties were able to buy Gatling guns (machine guns of their day) and carry them across state lines.

In WWII the British Army was routed out on Europe at Dunkirk by the Germans. The British were rescued out of Dunkirk by a citizen navy and found themselves back in Britain without guns or ammunition to meet the German invasion threat. For some reason the Germans did not follow through and immediately invade Britain. Which was lucky because the defeated British arrived back at home with no weapons and realized there was no short term fix by asking the citizenry because in 1937 the British had confiscated and destroyed almost all the privately owned firearms. What to do?
They had to outsource. Within a year the USA had to produce 1 million rifles and the ammunition to go with them for the British and that many more again to arm the US Army to the size needed to take on a two front war.
So the USA 2nd amendment saved Britain because Britain had managed itself out of firearms and had unarmed services.
Rent this movie April 9th
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/go-to-war-alongside-denmark-in-april-9th-d0076198b5d3
The movie is set in Denmark on the eve of the Nazi invasion that follows the Danes on bicycles who stood against the Nazi's. The Danes on bicycles were each issued a rifle and 20 bullets and were well drilled on changing flat tires quickly. Spoiler alert: The Danes armed services lose and their country is taken over in a matter of hours.

Our country's war production was not dependent upon the ability of private citizens to own guns that were produced for WW II.

Edney: Wow, the 2nd amendment defeated Hitler, that's a new crock of nonsense I haven't seen yet. This undiscovered species of cliche Internet Hitler argument be more laughable if we weren't talking about innocent people being gunned down by heavily armed, usually mentally unstable gun owners. The WW2 help for the British was made through the Lend-Lease Act, a large government foreign aid program you would probably refer to as socialist and "not America First." There were no individual gun owners somehow shipping over their guns to the Brits, it would have been logistically, legally, and ideologically impossible and the US didn't enter the war until December 1941, over a year after Dunkirk. The US is the greatest country in the world but we are the only developed country with this many mass shootings. This is not normal, something is wrong.

Where is the 2nd Amendment found? It is found in the Bill of Rights whose intent was to establish the rights of the INDIVIDUAL. That it also mentions militia is to say that these rights are not limited to the individual. That means that if Billy Bob, Skeeter and Bubba want to play war games in the woods, it is OK, whether we like it or not.

Everyone in Switzerland gets military training and most of the populace is very well armed. This includes disguised pill box and fortified artillery installations that exist today. This and the terrain have made all think twice about invading Switzerland.

Pay attention?
Didn't say our countries production was. I said that a country who had banned and conficated guns ran short after Dunkirk.
Because of this, they could not arm their militia
They did not enough have guns in England to re-arm their soldiers. If you *read* the history you will see that the British government tried to round up weapons from their citizenry for the 1,000,000 member Home Guard (militia) but only came up with antiques and some shotguns. The Home Guard was called the "Broomstick Army" becuse the drilled with broomsticks. Look it up and look at the photos of Brits practicing with broomsticks.

That is a misrepresentation of history.
If you look it up you will see American citizens sent guns overseas to arm the Home Guard. It was a drop in the bucket because the Brits militia was supposed to be 1M and American citizens only sent 26K firearms.
Americans were moved to send the firearms when the saw photos of the Home Guard training with broomsticks because their firearms had been confiscated... remember at that point invasion seemed imminent and if Hitler wasn't such an idiot he'd have followed through after Dunkirk and taken Britain.
Britain's expeditionary force (338,226 rescued) lost much of their equipment in France
Britain in the summer of 1940 was being called to:
Re-equip it's existing 27 divisions who had been rescued at Dunkirk
Equip an additional 28 divisions deemed necessary by British military leadership (as soon as possible).
Equip the better part of a million civilian volunteers who came forward after Dunkirk known as the home guard,
Export a sizeable amount of Britain's production capabilities and stockpiles to strategic parts of the empire (Egypt, Suez Canal) in order to safeguard them from German aggression in a time when Britain's home islands were under imminent threat of invasion
While 500,000 rifles from the United States seems like a lot, it was a fraction of what Britain required after Dunkirk. A fraction of the rifles Britain already had on hand in stockpiles after Dunkirk (1 million + rifles), not to mention what they already had spread across their active duty military divisions, and what Britain was able to produce domestically in the months following Dunkirk.

Is Brazil a developed nation? South Africa? Isn't developed nation a sort of snobby, eurocentric and white idea that allows a few Asians to participate?

Edney--you say the 2nd amendment saved Britain.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

Oh my goodness. First, those arms were manufactured by the US for MILITARY APPLICATION, not civilian ownership and use.

Second, remember when the Germans hit the beaches of England and they were beaten back by civilians armed with US made rifles?

Oh, yeah, THAT NEVER HAPPENED!

Man you gun nuts live in a totally fictional world.

"2nd amendment defeated Hitler, that's a new crock of nonsense I haven't seen yet."
I didn't say that but you got 4 up arrows

"The WW2 help for the British was made through the Lend-Lease Act"
I am familiar with the Lend-Lease act, but wouldn't call it socialism by any stretch of the imagination and if you pay attention that was signed in March 1941 Six months before we officially entered WWII ("the US didn't enter the war until December 1941")

"There were no individual gun owners somehow shipping over their guns to the Brits, it would have been logistically, legally, and ideologically impossible"
Completely inaccurate. There were individual American gun owners who sent weapons. Logistically, they were literally shipped. A very common method of conveyance.
Legally, it was just fine at that point in history. 26,000 guns were sent and am unaware of any legal jeopardy. The Brits had to allow firearms in for obvious reasons.
Ideologically impossible it obviously was not.

I never said that
I was correcting a historically inaccurate statement.

"Oh my goodness. First, those arms were manufactured by the US for MILITARY APPLICATION, not civilian ownership and use."
I should just refer you to the larger category of " history books"
The weapons sent by US civilians went to the UK Home Guard which started off as a civilian group but since the Germans had a penchant for shooting civilians theBritish tried to protect them by calling them a militia.
The weapons sent initially by the US government eventually were all given to the UK Home Guard because US ammunition was not standardized with UK ammunition.
(it's why today we have 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO etc.)

"Second, remember when the Germans hit the beaches of England and they were beaten back by civilians armed with US made rifles?
Oh, yeah, THAT NEVER HAPPENED!"
Never said it HAPPENED
The UK Home Guard did manage to shoot down a few German planes (and were thought to have shot at RAF pilots who were parachuting down after bailing out after mistaking them for German paratroopers)

Since I never said any of the things you mention, who lives in the fictional world?

Edney, pretty sure the person who said and I am quoting you:

"So the USA 2nd amendment saved Britain because Britain had managed itself out of firearms and had unarmed services."

...is living in a fantasy land. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with providing military weapons to our allies. Absolutely nothing.

"The Home Guard was called the "Broomstick Army""

Not because the UK "had banned and conficated guns" ... that, like most of what you wrote. simply isn't true. As noted in https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2018/09/28/britains-broomstick-army/
"In town squares, outside timbered village inns and taverns, and in country lanes and meadows, the new citizen soldiers drilled with aging shotguns, pistols, hunting rifles, pitchforks, clubs, hoes, broom handles, and even ancient pikes donated by museums."
Also, "By late 1940, the Home Guard had grown to 5,000 companies (or 25,000 platoons) and was commanded by Maj. Gen. Thomas R. “Rusty” Eastwood, a Rifle Brigade veteran of Egypt, Gallipoli, North Russia, and the 1940 Battle of France. Regular Army ranks were introduced, and a cadet corps of 25,000 youngsters was even formed.

The Broomstick Army had become an effective and disciplined military force, and on the march its members were often mistaken for Regular Army troops. "

You say "you will see that the British government tried to round up weapons from their citizenry for the 1,000,000 member Home Guard (militia) but only came up with antiques and some shotguns. " but in fact you will see no such thing ... those antiques and shotguns were mostly provided by the irregulars themselves. From the same article,
"Home Guard personnel also manned new multi-barreled rocket guns to bring down low-flying enemy dive bombers."

"There were no individual gun owners somehow shipping over their guns to the Brits"

That's not true, but it was a small fraction of the weapons used by the Home Guard:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-England-have-to-borrow-firearms-from-US-citizens-during-WWII

and had nothing to do with the false claims about the UK being short due to "confiscation" ... they were short because, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(United_Kingdom) notes,
"domestic production of new Lee-Enfield rifles had ceased after the First World War; and in the summer of 1940 there were no more than 1.5 million serviceable frontline military rifles available in total. Contracts had been placed in the UK, Canada and the United States to build new factories for an updated Lee-Enfield model (designated Rifle No. 4), but in 1940, they were still a long way from volume production."

"For some reason the Germans did not follow through and immediately invade Britain. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

"As a precondition, Hitler specified the achievement of both air and naval superiority over the English Channel and the proposed landing sites, but the German forces did not achieve either at any point during the war, and both the German High Command and Hitler himself had serious doubts about the prospects for success. Nevertheless, both the German Army and Navy undertook a major programme of preparations for an invasion: training troops, developing specialised weapons and equipment, and modifying transport vessels. A large number of river barges and transport ships were gathered together on the Channel coast, but with Luftwaffe aircraft losses increasing in the Battle of Britain and no sign that the Royal Air Force had been defeated, Hitler postponed Sea Lion indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and it was never put into action."

See, it's really not hard to find out these things.

"They had to outsource."

They had to *contract* for the manufacture of weapons, in the U.S., Canada, *and the UK*.

"Within a year the USA had to produce 1 million rifles and the ammunition to go with them"

None of which came from private citizens or had anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

"So the USA 2nd amendment saved Britain"

Simply not true.

A major factor in the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution was that the federal government lacked of power to put down Shays' Rebellion, which alarmed folks like Washington and Madison. When the Whiskey Rebellion occurred in 1794, Alexander Hamilton was able to raise an army of 13,000 men.

"Do you really believe the founders wrote the second amendment to allow people to posses weapons in order to serve in the military?"

The word you want is "militia", which is the fourth word of the 2nd Amendment.

"All the other countries in the world have managed to have armed services without any provision like the second amendment."

As has the U.S., *once it established a standing army*, which the Founders were initially very wary of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_army#United_States

Yet she still more class and brains than you do.

Sadly, she should retire IMMEDIATELY, says a liberal.

I was, actually, wondering about this yesterday. I remembered last year where some of her peers were concerned about her health and mental status. Thinking she should step down, and then never heard anything more about it, nor heard anything from or about her since. Guess since her name is tied to a bill, she must be active and well.

Search "dianne feinstein news" for most recent input. I've had grave concerns since her meeting with kids supporting environmentalism in Feb 2019. She wasn't demented, she was, in my opinion, extremely non-politic. I did not vote for her in 2018.

I used to be against term limits, believing that the electorate would decide. I now support term limits. Just look at national bodies to see why. (rolling eyes)

It's easy to have an experienced staff to make policy. Those behind the scenes are the unsung heroes and villains on Capital Hill; the power behind the throne.

Coast - When the gun laws change I look forward to getting guns out a lot of people’s hands and (over time) making this wonderful country we all call home safer and better.

Keep those self-defining comments coming, CW.