I'll do the CNN quotes in bold, followed by my response in plain text.
"Would ban"? "Looks to ban?" They chose not to be clear (by simply say "bans") to instill uncertainty about the outcome. The bill BANS quite a few weapons and accessories.
"Or"? CNN doesn't know which of the two things (assault weapons / military-style weapons) the bill bans?! More likely, they just want the reader to consider them the same thing.
Lastly, the bill doesn't actually outright ban these weapons, it only restricts their ownership and use to the state - this is a ban on the people owning certain weapons and accessories, not total prohibition.
Fixed: A bill has passed that bans semi-automatic weapons - except for government, military, and law enforcement.
That's a historically common tactic, used to incrementally remove rights from the people, and pass otherwise unpopular laws. Either wait for an unfortunate event, or create one, and then immediately pounce on the public's fear and sense that "something must be done". It's called the Hegelian dialectic, and summed up as "problem, reaction, solution".
"Common sense", implying the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights lacked common sense because they didn't disarm the populace? In fact, the framers believed the populace ought to be at least as dangerous as the government, if not much more dangerous. That's because they believed, as I do, that government must always be controlled by the people, must always fear the people, must be limited by the people - otherwise it will end up being the other way around. Control of the people by government is tyranny, the opposite of liberty and freedom.
(I feel a bit silly having to spell this out, but apparently governor Northam and quite a few other corrupt insiders high in US government ranks haven't heard the message. Which is weird, because they swore a sacred oath to protect that Constitution with their lives, so you think they would have at least skimmed it at some point.)
"Safety laws"? Speaking of the Constitution, the highest law of the land, which limits the powers and roles of government..... is there anything in it about safety laws? No, nothing. Safety isn't a government role, and HB961 is unconstitutional.
"Gun safety advocates"? Are they going around reminding gun owners to clean their equipment, switch the safety on when not in use, and wear protective eyewear? No, these aren't safety advocates, they're minions of the state, trying to disarm their liberty-loving neighbors.
The only thing stopping Canada from being a COMPLETE police state right now is the American 2nd amendment to their Constitution! We lost our right to bear arms in Canada over a generation ago, also as a result of a mass shooting. We aren't safer today, and our only rally cry is "give us back our guns, like the Americans still have!" If the Americans give up their guns, what do you think is going to happen to places like Canada, that are already under a de facto police state?
What happens if somebody starts a killing spree, and you need to protect your family with a semi-automatic rifle, but all you've got is a single-fire pistol (which took months of paperwork and biometric ID to acquire)? Just call 911 and let the state handle it?
Bad guys don't obey gun bans, and prohibition never works. They get guns anyway, and they use them anyway. Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns from getting the upper hand. Yes, even when those bad guys are paid by the state.
They're coming for our right to protect ourselves from them. Armor (physical protection) is already banned, and so is encryption (digital protection). They're stripping the right to speak freely and to protect ourselves, which means something nasty is on the horizon. Tyrannical states don't grant themselves this kind of power without eventually using it.
I strive for peace, but prepare for anything.
DRutter
