HB 22-02: Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act (Passed)

[thumb21]

Vote is tied

4-4-1-0

Vice presidential tie-breaker needed

[fhtagn]

re-reading this it needs some work. Still agree with the general concept, just needs a bit more.

I agree with RC's vague concerns, but I feel like he meant to vote "abstain." Anyway I'll cancel that out and vote aye!

And I trust the Senate--including the recently-elected member from my own region!--to improve the substance of this bill and get us something we can all agree with!

RIP Sensible and independent thinking Leinad

[fhtagn]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

[RC]

re-reading this it needs some work. Still agree with the general concept, just needs a bit more.

I agree with RC's vague concerns, but I feel like he meant to vote "abstain." Anyway I'll cancel that out and vote aye!

And I trust the Senate--including the recently-elected member from my own region!--to improve the substance of this bill and get us something we can all agree with!

RIP Sensible and independent thinking Leinad

Oh wow, Leinad thinks my statements are vague even though I just want everything in the bill to be crystal clear, and even tho he agrees he’ll vote to advance a bill that’ll potentially come back around in a year with imperfections. Classic old man yells at cloud moment.

[fhtagn]

re-reading this it needs some work. Still agree with the general concept, just needs a bit more.

I agree with RC's vague concerns, but I feel like he meant to vote "abstain." Anyway I'll cancel that out and vote aye!

And I trust the Senate--including the recently-elected member from my own region!--to improve the substance of this bill and get us something we can all agree with!

RIP Sensible and independent thinking Leinad

Oh wow, Leinad thinks my statements are vague even though I just want everything in the bill to be crystal clear, and even tho he agrees he’ll vote to advance a bill that’ll potentially come back around in a year with imperfections. Classic old man yells at cloud moment.

People do crazy things when they trade in their values to become a puppet.

[thumb21]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

No.

[fhtagn]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

No.

Your actions suggest otherwise

[thumb21]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

No.

Your actions suggest otherwise

A large part of my concern with the original bill was that there'd be mass confiscations, this version allows people to keep their existing guns.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Everyone who disagrees with me must be corrupt or stupid!

[fhtagn]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

No.

Your actions suggest otherwise

A large part of my concern with the original bill was that there'd be mass confiscations, this version allows people to keep their existing guns.

Worth noting the bill as amended still goes completely against your own statement quoted above.

Even if you won't admit it, we all know someone forced your vote on this.

[Sestak]

Why the f[inks] do you people always come up with some stupid conspiracy theory whenever you lose on a bill?

And actually nothing's even been "lost" as of yet, the Senate hasn't seen this and probably faces it with at least three pro-gun Senators there. Really baffling as to why this dumb accusation's being thrown out.

[fhtagn]

Everyone who disagrees with me must be corrupt or stupid!

If anything it's more like Stockholm Syndrome. Especially when some of the people supporting this or allowing it to be supported were brought up in authoritarian settings, so of course they'll back wildly authoritarian policies such as this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While I respect passionate debate, lets try to keep things civil in here while we do it.

[thumb21]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

No.

Your actions suggest otherwise

A large part of my concern with the original bill was that there'd be mass confiscations, this version allows people to keep their existing guns.

Worth noting the bill as amended still goes completely against your own statement quoted above.

Even if you won't admit it, we all know someone forced your vote on this.

I've abstained on most of these sorts of issues, so I don't know why you think this case is particularly special.

Some people have adopted guns as part of their identity and some people have adopted hating guns as part of their identity, and I'm not particularly interested in playing that game.

The concerns I listed were the right to own guns, people still have their guns; and an authoritarian confiscation programme, which isn't in the new version. However, I also listed that this would be divisive, and the new version still is; and the bill is too restrictive than what I'd like.

That was my thought process, think what you want about my view but don't make up bullsh**t.

[Leinad]

re-reading this it needs some work. Still agree with the general concept, just needs a bit more.

I agree with RC's vague concerns, but I feel like he meant to vote "abstain." Anyway I'll cancel that out and vote aye!

And I trust the Senate--including the recently-elected member from my own region!--to improve the substance of this bill and get us something we can all agree with!

RIP Sensible and independent thinking Leinad

Oh cry me a damn river and open up a steamboat tour.

RC literally changed his vote on the bill. You guys will deny it but do you think any of us are stupid enough to buy that you or LT or whoever didn't send him a PM about that? Really?

Also the fact that you continually insult my intelligence and/or mental stability (it's a pattern!) for disagreeing with you is a f**king joke. I'm probably pretty similar on guns to Thumb--I don't always buy into every gun control argument that's made, I think a lot of them miss the point and probably won't do much good. But I also haven't drowned myself in NRA propaganda to think that one god damn law is a "slippery slope to everyone losing their guns" like so many people have. The right-wing position on guns these days is literally just repeating dogma and never even considering that someone else could have a point. Yes a similar echo chamber exists on the pro-gun control side, and I think both sides get certain things wrong and overall it's a very toxic debate that I frankly prefer to let people with more patience discuss, but so often the "pro-gun" side's takes just show such a sociopathic disregard for any victims of gun related deaths that it feels dirty to align with them even if I sometimes share their cynicism on the effectiveness of gun control laws.

But no, I didn't agree with you on something, so I'm a senseless puppet, literally incapable of independent thought. Good to know!

[Peanut]

After seeing the discussion on this thread, I vote a very strong AYE on a bill I could've easily voted otherwise. Good job to the right.

Passes 5-4-1-0. I'll wait for the Speaker's certification.

[thumb21]

Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act

SECTION I: Name and Intent

A.) This bill may be cited as the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act.

Section II: Criteria

1.) There shall be a nationwide ban on the purchasing, manufacturing, sale, or possession of assault weapons. The criteria laid out in Section 3A to shall be used to classify assault weapons.

2.) The prohibition does not apply to a firearm that is (1) manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) permanently inoperable; (3) an antique; or (4) a rifle or shotgun specifically identified by make and model.

3.) Any of the following features shall classify a firearm as an 'Assault Weapon'.

A.) Any semi automatic rifle which has a High Capacity Magazine (see Section III) which can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

B.) Any firearm which has a bayonet lug.

C.) Any firearm which has a threaded barrel.

D.) Any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine in front, or outside of the pistol grip.

E.) Any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine which can accept more than 15 rounds.

F.) Any semi-automatic shotgun with one or more of the following criteria; a pistol grip, a forward grip, a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

SECTION III: High Capacity Magazine Ban

A.) A large capacity ammunition feeding device is hereby classified as any device including a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, helical feeding device, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept rounds above the limits in Section 2 A, E and F.

C.) The above shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of this Act.

Section IV

A.) This Act shall not apply to any firearm purchased, owned, manufactured or possessed before the enactment of this act.

B.) This Act shall not apply to any firearm purchased, owned, manufactured or possessed for law enforcement or Military purposes.

SECTION V: TIMING

1. This bill shall take effect 6 months after being enacted.

House of Representatives
Passed the House of Representatives 5-4-1-0

[thumb21]

Interesting. The people who were so sure that I'd been threatened by a party with a pro-gun chair have gone silent. Make the accusation with no evidence, then run like the cowards you are. The decline in the quality of debate has been spoken about, I wonder why?

[fhtagn]

Interesting. The people who were so sure that I'd been threatened by a party with a pro-gun chair have gone silent. Make the accusation with no evidence, then run like the cowards you are. The decline in the quality of debate has been spoken about, I wonder why?

We all know those who allowed this to pass don't actually care about reducing gun deaths, and we all know that the current administration played a role in your votes on this, especially when it goes against the very things some of you have previously spoken about in this issue.

Say whatever you want, but we all know this was purely just the hivemind doing what the hivemind does. I'm sure the current administration is proud to see you being a good little worker bee.

[Blair]

I don't support this.

Unless I am mistaken, we already have a universal background check system and so long as we can ensure the people buying guns have a clean record and who know the safety requirements, I think the right to own guns should be respected. The issue of gun violence is very serious and a lot more can be done to reduce gun deaths. There are many underlying issues that may lead someone to commit a gun crime: mental health issues, their financial situation, their social relationships and even if this bill was extremely successful in its aims, these crimes would move to other weapons, like knives. Obviously, gun crime and knife crime are not equivalent in terms of the damage they cause, but the point I'm highlighting is there are other approaches to dealing with this issue which aren't going to be so divisive and which won't require an authoritarian approach to policing.

Also curious if the current administration threatened thumb (which is a very likely scenario)

To quote the great Emily Thornberry you can't just go around making sh**t up about us.

And to quote Gordon Brown your other comment was frankly bigoted.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

A great day in our government when we pass this commonsense legislation!

[Peanut]

The Senate will continue debating its version of the bill, but it will be seen as a continuation of this one and will be brought back here if amended.