No it doesn't. Your conclusion amounts to irrational paranoia or play-acting.
Hey, just because I might be paranoid ...doesn't mean everyone's not out to get me.
Play-acting? Now
that's an interesting prospect for someone to pull out of the blue.
If banning 120 specifically-named firearms along with "certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic" (such as the characteristic of accepting a detachable mag, given the the bill's further move from a 2-characteristic to 1-characteristic test), all semiautomatic rifles and handguns with fixed magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds, and all magazines with greater than 10-round capacities ...wouldn't amount to gutting the public's arsenal and significantly hampering the capacity of citizens to take up arms against government tyranny (should the need ever arise), I can't imagine what would.
It's also important to note that the grandfather clause and the hunting and antique exemptions would be subject to review on the basis of their pre-registered status.
That's Feinstein's bill in a nutshell.
Whatever else you *think* you know about me, SAYIT, my
rationale is completely in tune with the facts on the ground.
