Government Officials Exempt from new Weapons Bill - Page 1

Who didn't see this coming? Half the Government Officials wouldn't pass a backround check IMO.

http://www.ibtimes.com/government-officials-can-still-own-assault-weapons-under-feinstein-bill-1039506

The anti-gunners should be all over this. Come on.

Why do Government Officials need assault rifles?

Why do they need high capacity magazines.

Some mental case ( probably another government official) could break into their house and steal their assault rifle and high capacity magazine and kiil a bunch of children.

This will surely bring outrage from the anti-gunner crowd.

So the people we elected to represent us, have now used that authority to descriminate against us. How clever.

They're all watching Once upon a Time,  Ninja.

Here little anti-gunners, where are you?

So evidently some government official with 3 or 4 DUIs, bankrupting several companies in the private sector, a prior fellon conviction, a few domestic violence disturbances ( hey the bitch deserved that punch in the mouth) is ok to own them demonized assault weapons? No backround check for him, he's a govenment official. That there title overides everything.

Where are you anti-gunners?

You need to check in on this one.

Hello, read what it says. This means police and other government officals in enforcement roles. And not private weapons owned by government officals. Gawd man get a life. You are acting like a tea party moron. You have yourself all wound up about losing your assault weapons, get over it. When the 2nd says weapons it doesn't mean all weapons or you would have missile launchers and a flamethrower. I have seen babies cry less than you. Sad from a grown man.

Have you read the bill?  Here take some time and read. I know you don't want law enforcement to have guns to protect themselves from these assault weapons, right?

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4



Weapons used by government officials and law enforcement will not be prohibited by the law proposed by the California Democrat, which would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named semi-automatic weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The Second Amendment does not say that the government can limit the type of weapon anywhere in it's entirety GSD.

You can get a flame thrower anywhere by the way.

I can own a destructive device with the proper paper work GSD, hell people own tanks privately.

You don't get to interpret the Second Amendment GSD.

The second also says well regulated militia and I haven't seen a well regulated militia as of yet.

Again, I say that this law spells out that these guns will be available to law enforcement and our alphabets and not privately by government employees.

And you want to talk about debating the issues but you turn it all on me. Nice way to debate the issues Mr Credibility.

Once again, their way or the highway. You can forget about having any sort of constructive discussion here about gun control.

a militia is a citizens army, called upon when needed.  It doesn't say a citizen must be a part of that militia to own a gun, it doesn't say a militia must be ever present, always at the ready or anything else.  I think it's a rather simple and straight forward statement myself.

and it says gov't officials.  It's vague and unless it specifically singles out which "gov't officials" it can be all inclusive.  So how you read it, and how it will be interepreted are 2 different things.

and just what would a "constructive" discussion entail?  agreeing with you?

well regulated militia

It does not say anywhere when needed. You can read your own opinion into it but a well regulated militia is what it says and not a militia that doesn't exist until someday when needed.