No, and you're right. Bringing the bill to light and questioning it is fine. It's just that when Oberon made his joke about the references he was so right on the money that I had to laugh, and make my comment. That got Augusts dander up, and he had get serious, which made it all the funnier.

No, it's not even 34.6. I'm pretty sure it's more than 3.46, but you've been gone awhile and it seems like a new one crops up every week or so, but that's probably an exaggeration too. The point is a funny joke was made and I responded in kind. I apolgise if that's become a bad thing.

As for Feinstein, there have been some fun links to exchanges between her and her opponents, and I agree she's an idiot, and possibly a dangerous one. I just see that it's been said a lot, so there it is.

I found an interesting article.
-----------------------------------

The gun debate is a culture debate
By Trevor Burrus

( Trevor Burrus is a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies )

Nearly three months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, we are still debating the place of guns in American society. That debate is not just about statistics and laws—it is about culture.

In a recent appearance on PBS's "NewsHour," Vice President Joe Biden admitted an assault weapons ban would do little to stop crime, but argued the weapons should still be banned if they don’t have “real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs[.]”

Here, Biden forgets a founding American principle: we permit the government to have guns, not the other way around. Citizens don’t need to justify owning an “assault weapon,” the government needs to justify taking it.

Biden should be applauded for his honesty, but this begs the question: If honest gun-control advocates know that laws they support are ineffective, why fight for them? Because the gun debate is fundamentally a cultural debate.

One cultural tradition believes government is a necessary evil, best kept small, contained, and subordinate to the people. The other tradition views government as a force for good that can often do better with fewer restraints.

One tradition views private gun ownership as important for resisting tyranny; the other views guns as, at best, a necessary evil, and at worst, something we should discard to become a fully civilized society.

Gun-control advocates scoff at the suggestion that personal arms can stand up to tanks and drones. But the anti-tyranny argument is not so much based on efficacy as it is on power: who has it and why.

In America, the government derives its power from the people. But the cultural divide goes deeper than the role of government.

Some Americans teach their children that gun ownership is a right a responsibility, and that guns are tools to respect and enjoy. Others discipline five-year olds for fashioning pretend guns out of pipe cleaners; they view guns with something resembling disgust.

Productive conversations about guns can thus be difficult because the anti-gun movement gives little to no weight to the values of private gun ownership. That is because “gun disgust” engenders a bias against guns.

In 2001, the American Medical Association recommended that doctors ask patients about gun ownership during office visits. They did not recommend that doctors ask about swimming pools or bicycles, both of which are much more likely to result in accidental deaths than a gun. Yet gun-control advocates have no problem “allowing” private swimming pools and bikes because they understand how someone could enjoy biking and swimming.

Gun disgust is also one of the primary reasons gun-control advocates promote laws that have little to no effect on reducing gun violence. On many questions, the debate over the effects of gun-control laws on crime is surprisingly uncontroversial.

The National Academy of Sciences found that gun-control laws have had no measurable effect on gun violence rates. The study was not written by gun-rights advocates—in fact, all but one member of the committee were gun-control advocates. Programs ranging from gun buybacks, to the famous “assault weapons” ban, to “gun-free zones,” were all found to be ineffective at curbing gun crime.

Gun disgust certainly explains the persistence of “gun-free zones” as a proposed solution to tragedies like Sandy Hook. If guns are viewed as contaminants, then the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to carry weapons on school grounds is revolting.

What is truly revolting, however, is when mass-shooters ignore the polite request to leave their guns at the door and take advantage of a building full of defenseless victims.

When challenged on the effectiveness of their proposed laws, many gun-control advocates will say, “Well, it’s a start.” And here is where gun-rights supporters get understandably worried about what “a start” means. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) recently said in response to a question about whether the assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”: “Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns.”

When it comes to guns, the much ballyhooed red state/blue state cultural divide is real. If we want to have a productive discussion on guns we must find a way to cross this cultural divide.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...#ixzz2O1PfL4Yl

^^^^^

That's pretty interesting :hmmm:

Sorry to quote this again, but on the point of knowing the terminology, what I find irritating are the people advocating the ban that can't find the fifteen minutes it takes to educate themselves on the object of their ban. They don't need range time, or to be marksmen, but they need to know what they are talking about above a comic book level.

And the main point is closed. The Senate has said that the ban will not be part of the bill.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/201...DA54CHIG4.html

Of course what the bill will entail might still be interesting.

Grrrr.....and I was getting a snarky reply all ready. Now who will I zing?

Main point closed? Not really. This is a legislative battle without end. I've read some of the really fervent stuff posted by the anti-gun crowd. They will never quit, and never give up. If they can't get what they want one way, they'll try another. They won't stop until they see unicorns , rainbows, and the year becomes 1984.

Father of Newtown victim begs senators to ban assault weapons
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1274978

And another newtown father says something to the complete opposite in testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRpYHzWiU8s

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.

Yep.

tend to... which means.. not always.

Feistein's gun grab foiled
 

If you can't tell I'm doing my happy dance. Heard it on Rush, and went into the gun shop to spread the good news and got a new job, sorting brass well it ain't the mail room and it's better than peeling potatoes thanks Rush.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-19-13-51-09 hope I didn't spell foiled wrong:woot::woot::woot::salute::up: