Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[Squatch]

Link

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

<snip>

---------------------------------------

The RW is going to beat Obama about the neck and shoulders with this, and rightly so.

Making policy decisions that adversely affect US citizens for the sake of a foreign country's internal security problems is not particularly "good" governance, in my opinion.

[ixion]

1. it's a stupid idea...

and I don't understand why the dem leadership keeps proposing things that they know fires up the opposition, and defiles the Second Amendment.

If they want to hurt Mexican drug cartels, legalize drugs.

[Xenotime]

214. So you think kids walking around with assault weapons is a good idea?!?

[ManiacJoe]

319. Do you really think that is currently legal?!?!?!?

Regardless of what common definition of "assault weapon" you choose to use, in reality there is nothing special about those guns that would lead a knowledgeable person to think extra regulations were needed for them but not other guns.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

425. If the 'kids' are over 18... then yes, it is legal.

[ManiacJoe]

436. If they are over 18 then they are not kids.

[JonQ]

457. If you consider people over 18 as children a chilling trend emerges

all murders in this country (literally 100%) are child murders.

Also all murderers are children.

All rapists/rape victims as well.

Everyone who died in the oklahoma city bombing was a child.

Won't somebody please think of the children!!?!?

[NeedleCast]

2. Are there really a large number of guns going from the US to Mexico?

I'd love to see some hard data on that.

[Tesha]

16. NPR reported several says ago that the answer to your question is "Yes!" (NT)

[TwilightGardener]

36. Yes--Mexico is a war zone now--the Mexican army and police are outgunned, and

they wear masks to protect themselves from retribution.

[Statistical]

92. Mexican army has AUTOMATIC weapons.....

So called "assault weapons" are civilian semi-auto rifles (not used by any police form or military in the world). They fire a small caliber cartridge so they lose both in terms of firwpower/stopping power and in rate of fire.

If Mexican Army w/ fully automatic ASSAULT RIFLES and HEAVY CALIBER MACHINEGUNS (both restricted by the NFA 40 years ago) is outgunned it isn't because some sportsman semi-autos are going across the border.

Of course the fact that millions of real military weapons exist in arms markets around the world have nothing to do with it.

[jeepnstein]

431. Mexico

Mexico is a sovereign state. They can buy whatever kind of firepower they wish. They have signed on to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty so they can't run out to WalMart and pick up a nuke. Pretty much anything else goes for them so all they need to do is call H&K, or Colt, or FN, or Dillon, or whoever tickles their fancy and have something delivered. I find it difficult to believe they are outgunned. If they are that weak, we have a huge problem across the border.

I want to see evidence of these border gun runners. Show me serial numbers on seized weapons and 4473's from the dealers. Has Mexico ever shared this information with our law enforcement apparatus?

Our share of the blame lies in the American appetite for illegal drugs smuggled through Mexico. As a matter of fact, illegal drugs are to blame for most of our violent crime problems here in the States as well.

[michreject]

43. It's fully automatic weapons

coming from central and south America. But hey! It's much easier to blame the U.S.

[wartrace]

140. Are the hand grenades coming from the U.S.?

I've never seen any hand grenades for sale at gun shows or gun stores. I wonder where THEY are coming from?

[Statistical]

178. DUH. The NRA obviously. (sarcasm) N/T

[michreject]

260. Same place as the assault weapons

I would imagine.

[Katya Mullethov]

450. The frag they tossed in Pharr

The frag they tossed in Pharr was a POS South Korean model . I am sure they are cheap enough ,since they work most of the time .

[AtheistCrusader]

469. *facepalm*

Grenades are one of the most controlled classes of Destructive Devices out there. You pretty much have to be law enforcement, military, or in the business of manufacturing them for law enforcement or military, to get all the forms and permits and checks in a row for live grenades.

You cannot buy and sell them openly. There are no live grenades at the gun shows, in the newspaper, or whatever.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. n/t

[guitar man]

4. Dammit

Stupid idea. This is the last thing he needs to burn up political capital on. We need universal haelthcare in the worst way. They best leave this one alone or we could be lookin at a repub congress in 2010. :(

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yes--better to bend to the will of nutjobs who are obsessed with maintaining the

ability to slaughter as many people at once as possible.

[guitar man]

56. It won't accomplish a thing except

for throwing raw meat to the nattering "I told you so" nabobs. If I thought for a minute it would have any kind of real impact on violent crime, I'd be behind it. But it's only a matter of cosmetics for the most part. For example, under the last ban the top weapon would still be legal for sale while the bottom one would not. Guess what, they're the same weapon.

[TwilightGardener]

60. I think it's important to let the gun-nut lobby suffer a few losses every one in a while.

Obama shouldn't let them push him around. Good for him.

[guitar man]

66. It's not just about the "gun nut" lobby

I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm also a proponent of Second Amendment rights and a gun owner. Like I said before, if a logical reason can be shown for such a ban I'd be behind it. If it's just another "scary looking guns" ban it's just pure foolishness. Now can you offer a logical explanation why the firearm pictured below in my post above should be banned while the rifle in the top picture shouldn't when they are essentially the same weapon? The difference between the two is purely cosmetic. You can buy the top weapon and install the parts to convert the cosmetics to the bottom one in no time. And after all that, there's no difference in power, range, accuracy, rate of fire...none at all.

[TwilightGardener]

72. I am not a gun expert, I am not fascinated with them, so I'm not going

to get bogged down in the "cosmetics" discussion. I'm simply for keeping military and police-grade weapons out of the hands of Joe Blow. However that is accomplished (whether through this or any other law), I'm all for it. I think people who want to handle these particular weapons should enlist. Otherwise, be content with your less-lethal alternatives. I have yet to see anyone here offer a valid justification for owning these.

[guitar man]

78. I did enlist

And I served 25 years ago. And I can tell you there is nothing "military or police grade" about a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. It's just a rifle, no matter how it looks. As for a justification for owning one, see the Second Amendment

[TwilightGardener]

83. No, explain why someone would need a semi-automatic weapon.

What does it do for you that a regular pistol or revolver can't? Don't lean on the 2nd amendment for justification--that's not an argument, that's a "because I can"--weak.

[Squatch]

88. What's a "regular pistol"?

[TwilightGardener]

I guess I mean revolver? One that needs to be cocked between rounds.

[Statistical]

107. Have you fired a weapon? Ever?

Revolvers don't need to be cocked between rounds. Some mechinical engineers figured out that "mystery" about 160 years ago.

Revolver:
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.

Pistol (semi-auto)
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.
pull trigger - gun fires one round.

Just in your mind one looks "scarier" than the other one.
No semi-autos in Cowboy movies, huh?

[TwilightGardener]

113. Yeah, they just "look scarier"--they don't have more ability to quickly kill

a group of people without reloading, or whatever. OK. I guess the military and police just like the cosmetics of semi-automatics better.

[Statistical]

147. Militaries never used "assault weapons".

Militaries use Assault RIFLES (more commonly just called rifles). Notice the similar name. It is intentional.

The M4s used in Iraq or owned by LAPD are AUTOMATIC.
They either fire 3 rounds w/ each trigger pull or they fire until the trigger is released.
The AWB won't restrict them because they are already restricted.

[Squatch]

175. As a military man myself, I think that revolvers would be a better choice

for rank-and-file service members than semi-automatic pistols. While semi-autos have been the norm for decades, modern revolvers are simple, rugged, and more reliable. Plus, they typically pack more of a punch than the anemic 9mm.

But, then again, I've always been a fan of wheelguns.

[yay]

428. Problem with that

Is IMO it's harder to train someone with a revolver than it is an auto. Not to mention the usually much higher bore axis, combined with the stronger round makes recoil and follow up shots a bit of a problem. Then there is capacity, 8 rounds is the most I've seen.

I love my S&W Model 15, but I think a revolver is a bad idea for even a highly trained army.

But I'm not in the service so my opinion may be null and void.

[gorfle]

435. Some information for you.

Yeah, they just "look scarier"--they don't have more ability to quickly kill a group of people without reloading, or whatever. OK. I guess the military and police just like the cosmetics of semi-automatics better.

Hi Gardener.

Here is some information for you.

Civilian assault rifles are just like military assault rifles, except they are semi-automatic. This means they cannot fire continuously like a machine gun, nor are they capable of "burst fire". They can only fire one round per pull of the trigger.

They tend to be exceptionally rugged and have removable, high-capacity magazines.

There is no practical difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol. Both fire one shot when the trigger is pulled.

Your concern seems to stem from the number of rounds of ammunition the firearm is able to carry.

Be aware that Cho at Virginia Tech killed over 30 people with a 17-round capable pistol and a 10-round capable pistol. Reloading any modern firearm is a quick and simple thing to do. Limiting firearms to 10 round magazines instead of 20 round magazines will not deter anyone who really wants to go on a shooting spree.

[spin]

197. A revolver will do the job, if you practice a lot...

There are two types of revolvers:

SA (single action)... the hammer has to be cocked before it will fire.



DA (double action)... can be fired by cocking the hammer but can also be fired by pulling the trigger.



How fast can an expert fire a single action revolver? Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9AJzv8gb2A&NR=1

How fast can an expert fire a double action revolver? Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y

[Fire1]

225. I definitely like that 'Double Action!' Good video.

[AtheistCrusader]

398. So, not just a pistol, but SINGLE ACTION pistol?

We are only allowed firearms from 150 years ago? Seriously?

[old mark]

424. I have 2 Single Action Army revolvers, Italian imports based on

the Colt 1873. Both of them use the old .45 Colt cartridge, and I would not want to have either of them shot at me. However, to use one as a defensive weapon in this day is nearly a death wish when criminals can and do steal modern weapons for their own use.

Dose anyone honestly think that criminals who use guns will suddonly take notice of new gun laws and behave like gentlemen?
Does any thinking person believe that eliminating guns is even remotely possible?
The AWB did nothing but raise some gun prices, and fear of the new one will only do the same thing. It was a "feel good/look good" law, and saved or kept safe NOTHING and NO ONE>

mark

[AtheistCrusader]

434. Hell yeah, big iron.

I love old wheelguns. I carry .45 long colt when I'm hiking because it has reasonable capability to stop any large predators from this area, that might bother me.

Now I can keep it concealed, and no one has to fret over it.

[Howzit]

448. You mean like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsLx5ISBXw4

[AtheistCrusader]

470. So a single action revolver?

How about facing down a pit bull or a feral hog that wants to eat your leg.

You can have your single action six-shooter, from 150 years ago. I'm a tool using human, and I've evolved.

[guitar man]

93. Define "regular"

First, define "regular". Lever action, bolt action, revolver, pump action or any other type of action, what is "regular'? They're all just as deadly. Semi automatic is just another type of action, nothing more, nothing less.

[TwilightGardener]

101. No, they're not all "just as deadly". I imagine one could fire more bullets

within a short amount of time with a semi-automatic than with one that isn't. So unless you think there's HORDES of crazed killers coming to your house (not just the standard one or two), what's the point of them?

[Statistical]

109. You would imagine incorrectly.

The only difference between a semi-auto & revovler is how the next round is loaded.

A semi-auto uses escaping gas to push slide back ejecting a round and loading the next.
A revolver uses the trigger squeeze to rotate the cylinder) so that next round is ready to be fired when hammer drops.

One nice thing about semi-auto is that is is "thinner" because of the design (no cylinder) which is nice for CCW (however many people use revolvers for CCW use also).

The other nice thing for the disabled, elderly, people with poor upper body strength, and some women is that the semi auto absorbs some of the recoil.
The slide pushes against a spring which takes some of the 'felt recoil' away from the user.

BAN EM. Women, elderly, disabled they have no right to own a gun they can control and shoot accurately. Yay for progressive ideas.

BTW: One of the most lethal handgun rounds is the .44 magnum which is only used in those "not scary" revolvers you like.

[TwilightGardener]

117. Here's where all the gun-obsessed load me down with all the technical details.

I don't care what causes it to fire. I really, really don't. I don't care about recoil. I don't care about guns, frankly, so explaining to me the difference between this one and that one isn't going to work for you. If semi-automatic weapons didn't make it easier and faster to kill people, you and all the other gun nuts wouldn't want one. That's all I need to know.

[tanngrisnir3]

120. Sounds like you really don't care about intelligent discussion

and just don't want to be bothered with inconvenient facts that are contrary to your as-of-yet undefended positions.

[TwilightGardener]

128. No, I just don't see a rationale for increased killing capacity. I never will.

I don't see why the gun-nut lobby wants the public to be able to match or beat law enforcement's capacity to protect the public. Regular citizens simply don't need that sort of firepower.

[tanngrisnir3]

136. Referring to law-abiding citizens as 'gun nuts' is pejorative and

your argument about capacity is moot, since, w/handguns, at least, one could simply carry two of equal capacity if hi-cap magazines are outlawed.

Rights, as you seem to misunderstand, are not a question of 'need'.

[TwilightGardener]

144. Youre' right--"gun nuts" is perjorative. Which is why I use it.

[tanngrisnir3]

152. So you admit you have no argument and don't know what you're talking about.

Excellent. I'm glad we could have this little chat.

[paulsby]

310. this is tolerance at its finest

you disagree with somebody's pov so you think it's ok and helpful to call them pejorative names.

if a anti-choicer called me an "abortion nut" because i support the CHOICE to have an abortion and the right to have an abortion, i would dismiss them as a non-serious ideological opponent.

what you are doing is no different. you are demonizing and belittling those you disagree with.

it's the EXACT same thing

[iverglas]

321. snork

you disagree with somebody's pov so you think it's ok and helpful to call them pejorative names.

Yeah. It's really just not nice to call, oh, a racist ... oh, a racist.

what you are doing is no different. you are demonizing and belittling those you disagree with.

Yeah. Sure it is. And sure you think it is.

Do you people really think this works?

Constantly saying that advocates of the assault weapons ban want to ban "scary-looking" things, constantly saying that someone despises people with abhorent public policy positions because they "disagree" with them. Do you really think disingenuousness comes with a cloaking device? Gawds, you're so obvious it should hurt.


if a anti-choicer called me an "abortion nut" because i support the CHOICE to have an abortion and the right to have an abortion, i would dismiss them as a non-serious ideological opponent.

Find somebody your own size and go appropriate their voice and victimization, will ya?

You people and your pretense of giving a shit and exploitation of the victimization of women make me gag. If I can stop yawning long enough.

[tanngrisnir3]

338. No, it's actually nothing like that at all.

Tell me, do you ever post anything even remotely rational, or do you just post smokescreens and transparent avoidances of the issues?

Just for my future reference.

Hey, thanks in advance!

[iverglas]

341. and just for my future reference

Do let me know where to send the autographed pic.

I like to keep track of my fan club members. Especially the ones whose existence I've never noticed! Or are you one of those newly baptised people I should know by another name? Beats me.


No, it's actually nothing like that at all.

Now that was a meaningful contribution, I gotta say.

I bow to your superior reasoning and your eloquence.

I mean, I would, if I had a clue what you were talking about.

[tanngrisnir3]

343. Yes, simple comprehension skills do seem like a bit of a challenge for you

Good luck finding that clue!

[paulsby]

366. actually, it's the exact same thing

a person like you referring to a gun rights advocate as a "gun nut" is the EXACT same thing as an anti-choicer referring to a abortion rights advocate as an "abortion nut"

let's compare.

first of all, the gun rights advocate need not even own a gun, let alone an "assault weapon". he is advocating for the RIGHT of people to make that CHOICE.

i don't own an "assault weapon" (by most definitions of "assault weapon". i support the choice of others to do so).

similarly, an abortion rights advocate needs never to have an abortion/make that choice herself. they are advocating for the RIGHT of women to make that choice for themselves.

the gun rights advocate need not "love guns", own a gun, etc. just like i support the right to jury trial, the presumption in court of innocence etc. for a criminal suspect doesn't mean i LOVE criminal suspects, crime, or am a "civil rights nut", etc.

the fact that you cannot see that you are doing the EXACT same thing as the anti-choicer referring to an "abortion nut" is yet another proof positive that close minded ideology is the same no matter what the issue at hand is. it's all about demonizing opponents, imputing motives without evidence, and closing one's mind.

assigning mental illness terminology to those who hold beliefs about civil rights that you disagree with is also demeaning to those with actual mental illnesses, but that's another issue.

it's a pat, thought-free way to demonize one's opponent (sidestepping their ideas and going straight to personality/mental illness issues) without addressing the facts at hand.

[iverglas]

375. I think somebody needs to learn to follow the dotted lines

I wonder whether you thought you were addressing me? Nah. There must be someone around here who said "gun nut". It wasn't me, and it wasn't the person you're replying to, but I'm sure somebody did.

Oh, what the hell.

let's compare.

Okay. And let's be sure to contrast too, 'k?

first of all, the gun rights advocate need not even own a gun, let alone an "assault weapon". he is advocating for the RIGHT of people to make that CHOICE.

Okay.

How's about if I advocate for the RIGHT of people to make the CHOICE to store toxic waste in their garages? Cool with you? It's a choice. It's their property, so obviously it's their right to decide what to do with it.

Works for me. You?

i don't own an "assault weapon" (by most definitions of "assault weapon". i support the choice of others to do so).

Good for you.

I don't own any toxic waste. But I surely do support the choice to do so. (I think I only need to support the right to make the choice and not the choice, right?)

similarly, an abortion rights advocate needs never to have an abortion/make that choice herself. they are advocating for the RIGHT of women to make that choice for themselves.

Exactly! The RIGHT to make the choice to store toxic waste in your garage for your own self! I'm on board with it! When's the rally??

Okay ... blah ... blah ... here we are:

the fact that you cannot see that you are doing the EXACT same thing as the anti-choicer referring to an "abortion nut" is yet another proof positive that close minded ideology is the same no matter what the issue at hand is.

Yes! Imagine someone having the gall to call you a "toxic waste nut" just because you like to collect the stuff and store it in your garage!! How illiberal, how close-minded, how truly obnoxious!

it's all about demonizing opponents, imputing motives without evidence, and closing one's mind.

Indeed! I must remain open to hearing your real motives for wanting toxic waste in your garage -- but it won't matter, your motives will be good enough for me, whatever they are. Not my business! Your choice! Your right!

assigning mental illness terminology to those who hold beliefs about civil rights that you disagree with is also demeaning to those with actual mental illnesses, but that's another issue.

Hmm. Yes, indeed, it is. I think it's an "issue" that comes under the heading of "disingenuousness", and faux outrage, and like that.

it's a pat, thought-free way to demonize one's opponent (sidestepping their ideas and going straight to personality/mental illness issues) without addressing the facts at hand.

You met the dung beetle cartoons yet? Here, let me help you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=202133#202157

That's where your prez gets called a "GC" (gun control) dung beetle. Fits right into this thread, I think. Anyhow, the author seems to be in need of your attentions.

And now here's the thing.

Women's pregnancies are none of anybody else's business. Full stop. Their pregnancies aren't sitting in somebody else's garage waiting to get spilled into the water table, or sitting in somebody's bedside table waiting to get stolen and used to commit robberies, or waiting to get used to kill somebody's wife and children.

Do I need to go on, or do you get the point?

Back to whoever it was you thought you were talking to, now.



fixed those typos

[The Rubicon]

422. Quit comparing apples to oranges,

and quit deluding yourself. Why don't you try educating yourself on this subject you obviously couldn't know less about.

Just for my irrelevant friend from America's hat:

"Without a commitment to our capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. POLICYMAKERS WHO CONTINUE TO PRESS LEGISLATION GROUNDED ON THE SUPPLY-SIDE IDEAL WHILE DISCLAIMING THE GOAL OF PROHIBITION ARE DELUDED OR PANDERING."(Emphasis mine)

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

[iverglas]

437. were you addressing me?

If you'll clarify that, I'll consider your post. You'll really need to clarify whatever point you were seeking to make though, I'm afraid.

At present, I'm failing to see how you could have been addressing the instruction "Quit comparing apples to oranges" to me, when I was addressing the it-couldn't-be-more-specious analogy between pregnancy and firearms attempted by my interlocutor.

Just for my irrelevant friend from America's hat:

If you'll forgive me: eh?

[The Rubicon]

439. Yes, I was

When you equate those who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights to someone who wishes to keep "toxic waste" in their garages, you're deliberately comparing two completely dissimilar things, and you know it.

Finish reading the PDF I linked you to, and if you've still got a bee in your bonnet about reducing the number of firearm related deaths in the USA, show me and every other thinking person how serious you are by taking a public stand demanding an end to the war on some drugs. I know that isn't as fun or as sexy as denigrating law-abiding US gun-owners day after day, week after week, but then you would actually be addressing a root cause rather than wasting your time and effort needlessly bloviating about one of its symptoms. The public benefit(fewer firearm related deaths)you mistakenly believe is somehow achievable with stricter gun regulations, actually is sans GWOD, eh?;)

P.S. In case the PDF wasn't clear enough in its distinction of the US as unique where it concerns firearms(given the shear volume), and before you do it, don't try to compare the US with its hat(or any other country for that matter)in terms of gun regulations/crime statistics. Until whatever country you're using for comparative basis contains the other half of the worlds firearms to the USA's half, you would once again be comparing apples to oranges regardless of whether or not you're intellectually honest enough to admit it.

[Xenotime]

226. A good citizen would simply just call a cop or get an alarm.

[Raskolnik]

255. Now owning a gun makes you a bad citizen!? n/t

[Xenotime]

265. Stop twisting words.

I'm just saying that owning one of these assault weapons one could become a "person of interest". Considering the money that the government spends on it's citizens, taking the law into your own hands may cause you to be thought of as an enemy of the state. I'm just saying.

[Raskolnik]

296. I have no idea what you are trying to say. n/t

[slackmaster]

418. You make an excellent case here

For opposing gun registration.

[yay]

405. Calling 911 takes seconds. Waiting for help to arive may take the rest of your life

^

[Treo]

463. If, as you're reading this

An armed thugs kicks down your door would you rather have:
A) A cop on the phone or
B) A gun in your hand?

[paulsby]

309. the "need" canard

AGAIN!

regular citizens don't NEED the ability to publish their ideas on the internet either.

but it's constitutionally protected.

[Treo]

465. Why

I don't see why the gun-nut lobby wants the public to be able to match or beat law enforcement's capacity to protect the public. Regular citizens simply don't need that sort of firepower.

Unless they have to protect themselves from law enforcement, which is the whole point of the second amendment.

[Raskolnik]

124. Yikes! You admit you don't know what you're talking about, but you still have a firm opinion

about what other people should or should not be allowed to own.

That, ma'am, is ridiculous.


edit typo

[TwilightGardener]

131. What did I say that was incorrect? I'm just not interested in guns.

[Raskolnik]

138. Yes, you made very clear that you didn't know about guns, and didn't want to know

I don't care about guns, frankly, so explaining to me the difference between this one and that one isn't going to work for you.

That is a seriously messed up position to take, given that you are simultaneously arguing for a ban on many, if not most common firearms.

[TwilightGardener]

146. Actually, I'm OK with just the assault weapons ban.

[Raskolnik]

151. Well, I'm glad you're "ok" with it, but you have also been arguing for a ban on semi-automatic

firearms and castigating anyone who tried to point out to you that such a ban would encompass many, if not most "normal" firearms.

[TwilightGardener]

157. No one has provided me a justification for why the average citizen

needs them.

[Raskolnik]

161. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the onus is on *you* to provide a reason to restrict

a Constitutional right, not me to defend it.

Really, you need to educate yourself about two things: what guns actually are, and what a Constitutional right actually means.

[tammywammy]

167. No one has proved WHY the average citizen should be allowed to speak out against the government.

It's the same thing.

Now, show WHY a citizen shouldn't be allowed to have guns. It doesn't go the other way.

[TwilightGardener]

174. I didn't say anyone shouldn't own guns. I just don't understand why

anyone should own guns that can kill lots of people in a short period of time. It goes beyond self defense--and then it becomes a matter of public safety vs. individual rights.

[tammywammy]

179. It's your right to not understand

But the 2nd Amendment doesn't get effect by your ignorance on why people own handguns.

[TwilightGardener]

189. You're conflating the specific killing capacity of certain types of weapons

with the Constitutional right to own a weapon at all. I'm not. I'm asking for someone to outline a scenario in which the ability to kill more than, say, five or ten people is needed. Outside from police/military applications.

[tammywammy]

195. You're conflating gun ownership and people wanting to kill a bunch of people

Can you understand that not everyone that owns a gun wants to rush out and kill a bunch of people. I have friends with whole gun collections. They've never even shot at 1 person. They shoot at targets.


If you want to stop crime push for the ban of knives. :eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

202. No, I'm not. I have a gun in my house. I don't want to kill people.

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would be upset over the government once again placing a limit on the ability to own the more lethal of weapons--the ones that can wipe out scores of people in a very short time frame.

[jmg257]

275. Easy one, too. Because we like them (the weapons, not the govt).

Shooting them is a blast! And owning them is enjoyable. And they can serve several other very practical uses.

[Fire1]

258. wait....What??? "knives?' Go the Bureau of Justice statistics

and see how many assaults have been committed with 'knives' vs. guns.

[TheWraith]

186. Any gun can "kill lots of people in a short period of time." Get that straight.

Second, what you're proposing, banning all semi-automatic weapons, has already been established as being unconstitutional in Heller vs. DC. Third, it's previously been proven that the Assault Weapons Ban did NOTHING to decrease crime, because the weapons banned were not being widely used in crimes. Do you even know what the AWB banned? Among other things, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors, and magazines over 10 rounds in capacity. All cosmetic features having nothing to do with the power or functionality of the rifle. Do you think that bullets number 11 through 20 in a magazine really cause many more deaths than bullets 1 through 10 do?

[TwilightGardener]

191. "Do you think that bullets number 11-20 in a magazine really cause many

more deaths than bullets 1 through 10 do?"--then why do you need them? Unless, of course, you want to kill more than ten people at a time.

[jmg257]

212. 'Cause this ain't Hollywood, so we don't like to rely on "1 shot 1 kill" bull shit you imagine.

In a life and death struggle, the more ammo the better.

Just figure anything worth shooting once may well be worth, MAY WELL NEED, shooting 2 or 3 times - at least.

[AtheistCrusader]

399. 10 shots might not kill one person.

There are some pretty good examples of Police Officers firing more than 10 shots at a suspect, and not killing anyone. In fact, Seattle Police expended 31 rounds at another Police Officer mistakenly, and no one was hit at all.

Having a pistol that can hold 15+1 rounds, does not mean you can just flip out and kill 15+1 people, plus reloads, on a whim.

[Leftist Agitator]

206. Any gun "can kill lots of people in a short period of time", you fucking wilfully ignorant tool.

I can kill many, many more people with a pump-action shotgun loaded with buckshot than I could with the majority of semi-automatic so-called "assault weapons".

And guess what, you know-nothing blowhard? The AWB says NOTHING about shotguns.

Knee-jerk ignorami like yourselves are the problem. You're just like Bush, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about, but are convinced that you are 100% right, and that everyone else is an idiot.

[TwilightGardener]

213. I can see ya coming with a big shotgun. And they have a legitimate use

for something other than killing lots of people. Now go back to fondling your weapons and imagining scenarios in which you can use them.

[Leftist Agitator]

230. Oh, do tell, what legitimate use does a shotgun have?

And which of these is bigger?

[TwilightGardener]

234. Hunting. As in deer. Or birds.

[Leftist Agitator]

240. And what do you think that semi-automatic rifles are used for?

Hunting, as in deer, among other things.

And you didn't answer me as to which weapon in my last message is larger. Please do so.

[jmg257]

272. Don't forget defense! Shotgun is great for that too, like my Benelli M1S90.

A little big for concealed carry though, which of course is what pistols are for.

[Leftist Agitator]

290. Just in case you didn't see it...

What do you think that semi-automatic rifles are used for?

Hunting, as in deer, among other things.

And you didn't answer me as to which weapon in my last message is larger. Please do so.

[TwilightGardener]

292. OK, they're used in hunting. Both are big/difficult to conceal. OK by me.

[Leftist Agitator]

303. Right. Now why should one be banned, but not the other?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Oh, and for the record, the 12 gauge is slightly smaller in that configuration.

[TwilightGardener]

304. If they're used for hunting, I have no problem with them. If they're designed

specifically for the purpose of killing lots of people with barely a pause, then I do have a problem with them.

[Leftist Agitator]

307. And who just who decides...

Whether or not a weapon was "designed specifically for the purpose of killing lots of people with barely a pause"?

Because in case you didn't know, you can kill many, many people with multiple 10 round magazines. It takes less than a second to eject a spent magazine, insert a full magazine, chamber another round and continue shooting.

Would you ban all semi-automiatic weapons?

Any firearm is capable of killing lots of people with barely a pause, especially a 12 gauge with 00 buckshot. Granted, it takes more than a second or two to reload a pump-action shotgun, but it also makes a larger cloud of fast-flying lead than a so-called "assault weapon" does. So why aren't you in favor of banning shotguns?

[TwilightGardener]

314. Would I care if semi-automatics are banned? No, but I recognize it's unrealistic.

I wouldn't bother to fight that battle, even though it seems excessive to me for self-defense. I'm not in favor of banning shotguns or hunting rifles because they are primarily a hunting device--they don't fall under the category of "assault"...unless you're a deer. If someone uses it for something other than hunting or self-defense, then it's no different to me than someone using a chef's knife for a murder, when it was intended to chop vegetables. There are no alternate uses I can think of for human-intended assault weapons, certain types of ammo, etc.--other than to assault humans.

[X_Digger]

333. You do realize..

That all gun technology spawns from military uses? Your grandpap's bolt action .30-06? See springfield 1903. Winchester lever action? First handed out to the military in 45cal. 'Birding' shotguns? See blunderbuss, arquebuss, muskets.

Knowing that, how do you differentiate between the two classifications? Does a gun 10+ years past active military service qualify? 20+?

If not intended design (since all guns were originally meant to kill or wound people), how about usage? If more folks use them for _not_ killing people, would that work? If so, there are more non-hunting yet non-people-killing owners of guns like AR-15s than those who use them in crime. 80% of gun owners don't hunt, so why protect those guns used in a minority of situations?

[paulsby]

312. and home protection

a shotgun is arguably one of the best weapons for home protection. minimal risk of overpenetration, EXTREMELY scary to the suspect as a deterrent (which lowers the risk you actually have to fire it), requires less accuracy, and has better one shot stopping power than almost anything.

[The Microbe]

415. Why should be be able to own cars that can go fast?

The difference is of course, one is a luxury, and one is a right that the founders of this nation decided was so important that they'd list is 2nd in their Bill of Rights.

Do you think the founders were talking about arms to be able to hunt game? Of course not. Hunting was the means to feed family and a given. The founders were talking about military weaponry. The populace of the day had the most advanced military field arms available from cannons to muskets with bayonets (an assault weapon feature it should be noted). The last line of defense against a tyrannical government is that armed citizen.

Assault weapons do not convey some special killing ability. Any gun is capable of killing and well-aimed shots from a hunting rifle will do the job far better than common movie portrayal of hip-fired and non-aimed shots. Guns are tools and it's all how you use them. Research what was actually banned under the last AWB and what was still available. It was a joke.

[Treo]

467. Here's a video clip

Of former Texas State legislator Susanna Gratia Hupp testifying on the FAWB. She was a survivor of the Luby's Massacre of '91. Note how she points out the that shooter very methodically and carefully selected his targets and executed each one W/ a shot to the head ( no spraying large numbers of bullets here). Also note how she specifically addresses magazine capacity and why it really doesn't matter. Also, please remember this isn't speculation, she watched this madman murder both of her parents. Please pay particular attention to here comments on concealed carry


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

[jmg257]

173. Easy - in case I need to put a hole in something. Period.

[paulsby]

311. "need" canard

take THREE!!!!

[Statistical]

130. I doubt you did.

However you very well expressed your ignorance on the subject.

You want to ban things you neither understand nor want to understand.
Wow.

Now that is a very pro-fundie attitude.
Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable somewhere that doesn't believe in science or logic like free republic.
They "know" stuff and don't want facts to get in the way too. See you have something in common.

All joking aside I think you very clearly demonstrate the danger of wanting to ban something for the "common good" without even the most basic understanding of what you wish to ban.
Your willingness to blindly ban something because someone told you they were "dangerous" is how totalitarian states are formed.

I am sure someone just like you believed it was for the "Common good" that Jews be taken out of German cities.
They couldn't quite express why or how it would help.
They also got frustrated when confronted with facts.
A blind faith that is was for the good of the country is all they needed (and all a totalitarian govt expects).
Sleep tight. Big brother will take care of everything.

[guitar man]

137. unless

Unless and until you can be bothered to learn something about firearms, how they work and what their actual capabilities are as opposed to what you "imagine" they can do, you're incapable of having any kind of intelligent discussion on the topic.

[tammywammy]

143. At least you're honest in your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. n/t

[immoderate]

148. Ignorance wins a lot of arguments.

"La la la la -- can't hear you!" is very effective.

"Don't load me down with technical details!" is a sure winner when the whole argument is about technical details.

Thinking that the assault weapons ban is going to save lives is just plain wrong, but you don't care to know why. I'll give it one try though -- the assault weapons ban does not limit semi-automatics.

--imm

[tammywammy]

153. She wants to ban semi-automatics too

No one should have a 9mm Beretta either. :eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

154. I understand it does not limit semi-automatics. It limits "enhanced"

semi auto's with a combination of features (such as being able to carry more than 10 rounds, detachable magazines, etc.). I'm not sure why people are arguing for this.

[tammywammy]

155. Because the ban only limited mostly cosmetic features

And did NOTHING to diminish crime.

It was a stupid law and shouldn't be reenacted b/c some people refuse to understand what it was about in the first place. It's a waste of time and will practically guarantee the House & Senate into GOP control.


Any why should our 2nd Amendment rights be limited b/c of the current activities in Mexico? Why not put more protection on the border to help with the violence that's encroaching into the US border towns. :shrug:

[immoderate]

242. Here's my reason...

I own a 9mm and about a dozen magazines. The magazines hold 13 rounds each. All of my shooting is at a range, or out in the field shooting random targets ("plinking.") I don't want to spend more than half of my range time loading magazines. I'd rather do that sitting down somewhere. Then I can concentrate on shooting. (Think of how much less fun bowling would be if you had to walk down the alley to set up the pins every time you rolled the ball.)

I also own some exotic magazines that load 20 and 30 rounds respectively. I never use them as they hinder gun handling severely. But I keep them as a conversation piece. If I were limited to 10 round magazines, I would just get more of them if I felt it necessary. Note that all handguns are effectively semi-automatic because most revolvers are double action, and a trigger pull advances the cylinder. The only single action revolvers are the western style "cowboy" guns, which are rarely used in crime, but if that's all there were, a skilled shooter would have no problem. Remember the Wild Bunch?

A lot of semi-auto pistols hold fewer than 10 rounds, such as the ubiquitous .45 Colt army type, and James Bond's Walther PPK. So what? Again, the only effect of the AWB will be to toss Democrats out of office.

--imm

[AtheistCrusader]

400. Much more than that.

It limits things like collapsable stocks. You know, the SAFETY FEATURE that lets my wife and I use the same rifle, properly, even though our arms are different lengths? A collapsable stock doesn't really make the weapon any easier to hide, it makes it fit the user. A safety feature.

How about flash suppressors? This allows the user to use the weapon in low light conditions without blinding him or herself. A useful feature when hunting. If you hit a deer but only hurt it, a follow-up shot with that semi-auto is a good thing. Being able to SEE is a safety feature. It doesn't hide the flash from people down-range, it doesn't let you snipe 'unseen', it just protects the user's vision.

How about a bayonet lug? HEAVEN FORBID someone attach a flashlight to their weapon. ANOTHER SAFETY FEATURE. Or a bipod, or any number of attachments. Oh no, them ebil bayonet lugs gonna get you!


The legislation was written by people who do not really know much about firearms at all. And here you are, not knowing much about firearms, defending the legislation. Quell surprise.

[TheWraith]

171. Excuse me, but it's not the fault of others that you're unwilling to deal with the facts.

The "technical details" like how guns actually work is very relevant to a discussion about banning guns based on how they look. And your ad hominem attacks aside, your position is unjustified, in part because you obviously know nothing about what you're talking about. All other issues aside, a basic revolver could be used to kill half a dozen people in a matter of seconds. Is that more okay with you than a gun that could kill eight or nine, like most pistols?

Rifles of any kind, not just assault rifles, are used in about 2% of crimes involving a gun. Yet you continue to act like there's some epidemic of people mowing down crowds with semi-autos. Newsflash: most mass-murders are committed using low-capacity handguns. And the reason people prefer semi-auto rifles is that they're easier to use, have lower recoil, and need less user-intervention.

[TwilightGardener]

182. But after you're done killing 6 people, what happens when you have

to reload all those bullets? Someone might stop you. I thought that was the whole point of semi-automatics with easily-reloaded magazines--the ability to fire off more rounds, and kill more people more quickly. Why would the average citizen need the ability to kill ten or more people at once?

[TheWraith]

196. Why would you think that bullets 7-10 are worse than 1-6?

Despite the hype you seem to have bought from the media, mass murders are actually incredibly rare. Most crimes involving a gun use a handgun, which are almost always under 10 rounds in capacity, and the most common kind of handgun used is a revolver.

[immoderate]

253. The average citizen does not kill people. That's the point.

How many crimes involve killing ten or more people? You are being silly. Yes it could happen, but carrying multiple guns would also accomplish that.

--imm

[TwilightGardener]

267. Then why can't I have a grenade launcher? How many crimes involved those?

[jmg257]

274. Don't know, how many? Anyway, too bad for you as they aren't covered by the 2nd.

[TwilightGardener]

278. OK, then--why can't I have my machine gun, without jumping through all those hoops?

It's a damn shame, is what it is. They're hardly ever used in crime. Damn gun-grabbers.

[jmg257]

283. You ain't kidding. And if Miller had been carrying a BAR instead of a sawed-off

shotgun, and hadn't croaked, we probably would be able to, at least according to the USSC back then.

Now we have Heller, so pretty clear an AWB would also be unconstitutional, as it imposes restrictions on 'an entire class of weapons in common use' - very popular guns owned by millions of Americans for legitimate purposes.


Of course you can have a full-auto if you want - go for it - a simple tax stamp is all.

Too much $$ for me though.

[jmg257]

284. D/P

[yay]

433. Damn right

There are only a few (under 5) instances where a legally owned and registered full auto weapons has been used in a crime. The hughes amendment to the 1986 FOPA has done jack shit.

[immoderate]

289. Where would you use your grenade launcher?

It's not very good for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. If you're so set on begging the question, why not a nuclear bomb?

--imm

[TwilightGardener]

297. I don't know, but I do know that I don't have to justify why I need to own one--

YOU have the burden of justifying why I can't! That's the argument here, right?

[immoderate]

305. OK, you win.

AFAIAC, you can have a grenade launcher. Uhm, where do you live?

--imm

[ManiacJoe]

390. You cannot have the grenade launcher because

it is capable of only launching grenades. Grenades are bombs. Bombs are indiscriminate weapons. Indiscriminate weapons have no theoretical or practical use in the hands of civilians.

Firearms (both auto and non-auto) are discriminant weapons and serve many purposes in the hands of civilians.

[AtheistCrusader]

401. In many states you can have a grenade launcher.

You just can't have grenades, unless you clear all the licensing and such for a Destructive Device. You see, grenades are not firearms.

[Iktomiwicasa]

325. If you aren't well informed...

...you will only make yourself look like a fool trying to argue a topic.

[guitar man]

115. Your partly correct

Yes, the rate of fire can be higher with a semi auto than other types of actions(except revolvers which can fire just as fast), but you certainly aren't going to "spray" bullets with one. That would be a full automatic and it would be a federal offense to own one of those without a class 3 license.

My personal preference for home defense is a 12 ga. pump action with 00 buckshot. No it's not a semi auto, but I guarantee I can have more deadly lead flying through the air in a shorter period of time with it than many of the scary looking semi-autos on the market.And btw, it's promarily a hunting weapon.

[yay]

432. Competition, plinking, fun stuff

It's fun to rip off 18 rounds out of a beretta M9 at a paper silhouette. You might think it's "stupid" but until you've actually gone out and done it your opinion is null. It's also a lot of fun to compete. ISPC and USPSA offer both pistol, and 3 gun competition shooting which is also fun as hell.

There'ss also "cowboy" style pistol and 3 gun competition shooting, not my cup of tea though(not a fan of lever actions)

The recreational and practical purposes of these weapons is reason enough to stop further regulation.

[chrisa]

108. This is not a flame, but.

This is a common argument by anti-gunners make that have no idea what they're talking about. You're aware that most guns are semi-automatic, right, not to be confused with fully automatic guns.

The people who want to ban "semi-automatic" guns have no idea what it is.

[TwilightGardener]

122. I understand that fully-automatic means that one simply has to hold the trigger

until you run out of ammo. I understand that semi-automatic means one pull, one bullet--what am I missing?

[Statistical]

125. So what makes a 9mm semi-auto pistol more dangerous than say a .38 revolver?

You believe one should be banned and the other not.

Why?

[TwilightGardener]

141. Which one has more capacity to kill lots of people in a short period of time?

That goes beyond self defense, IMO.

[tridim]

181. More rounds per reload, and much quicker reload time.

[Statistical]

209. What % of crimes involve more than 10 shots?

Of those how many resulted in additional homicides due to the fast reload.

The eye witness accounts of Va Tech massacare is that Cho was in no hurry. He reloaded slowly and methodically.
He reloaded a total of 9 times. If he were limited to 6 rounds per reload he would have had to reload an additional 1 time.

He did not use his second weapon to engage his victims. Instead he used it to "cover" himself when he reloaded the primary weapon.
There is nothing to indicate he wouldn't have been able to do the same thing with a pair of revolvers.

When he killed himself he still had 100+ rounds of ammunition. The tragedy ended because he wanted to end it their.
Changing which weapons he had would not have had a material effect on the number of fatalities.

If limited to revolvers I am going to take a guess and assume he would have chosen a larger more lethal cartridge like .357 Mag or .44Mag instead of 9mm and .22LR.

Of course mass shooting like this are the exception rather than the rule.
They make up <0.1% of all homicides in the United States. Most homicides involve one or two rounds.

At least Obama has enough sense that he isn't considering banning ALL semi-autos.

[tridim]

219. Remember Columbine?

[Statistical]

232. The shooters has an assault weapon at columbine....

however they didn't use it and instead used common pistols for the majority of their killing.

With 2 shooters one can cover the other one. Given that it was a "gun free zone" they didn't need to worry about anyone shooting back.
One person shoots and the other ensure nobody "rushes" them when he reloads.

No reason to think capacity limits would have reduced the number of deaths there.

Even if it did ALL MASS SHOOTINGS (3+ law abiding victims killed in single instance) represent <0.1% of all homicides.

The money spent on this folly would be better spent on:
* Respectable and open access mental health system
* Ending war on drugs and releasing non-violent offenders
* Rise in working wages to lift people out of poverty and give them options

Those three things would have a major impact on violence rate in the US.

Banning a class of weapons will do virtually nothing.
The Clinton DOJ published a report that there was no meaningful change in violent crime attributable to the AWB.

[tammywammy]

237. That's one event and didn't answer the question

"What % of crimes involve more than 10 shots?"

[AtheistCrusader]

402. Yes, Columbine. Good example.

Propane tank bombs. Pipe Bombs, and actual, illegal weapons. Yes, great justification for an AWB. Because all those other laws they broke really had some effect right?

You are suggesting banning stuff WE USE ALL THE TIME, safely, legally, without going on killing sprees, to protect society from some largely made up boogie man. You're as bad as the gun owners that ramble on and on about the coming zombie invasion.

[one-eyed fat man]

466. yes, but do you remember the rest?

What you forget is the killers had enough time to have killed everyone they killed with a bow and arrow. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went back and forth through the building unchallenged for an almost an hour after the bomb they put in the cafeteria failed to detonate. The cops established a perimeter outside waiting for the SWAT team. People bled to death waiting for help and it may not be far-fetched to surmise that the killers got so tired of waiting for the cops to they just killed themselves.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0514time2.shtml

At Virgina Tech, Cho started shooting in Norris Hall at 930 and had 20 minutes before the police entered the building. One of the outcomes of Columbine was supposed to be improved police response in the event of another shooting. Obviously it's a lot safer to wait until the shooter offs himself before going in. It only took half as long.

Buford Furrow Jr., the wacko who shot up the day-care only did so after he spotted ARMED security at the Jewish center and synagogue he had originally targeted. Why are folks constantly amazed that wackos seek out those places where guns are banned to find people to shoot?

So what you have there is a perfect opportunity for a wacko. A publicly declared defenseless victim zone, one where the nutjob can be reasonably assured no one will have a weapon but him and a police response that will allow him a half hour on average to do his dastardly deeds. A gallon can of gas and a match could do some hellacious damage in that amount of time. (Oh yeah, a shit-bag in New York did that 'cause he saw 'his girl' dancing with someone else and 87 people were burned alive.)

[paulsby]

308. ah, the need canard

"explain to me why someone would NEED to publish his ideas on the internet"

we don't justify constitutional rights by having to show a "need".

the govt. otoh, is and should be under "strict scrutiny" when they want to limit OUR rights.

it's them that must demonstrate a compelling need. not citizens.

[tridim]

180. Who are you trying to scare with your scary looking rifle?

Squirrels?

This tells me a lot about the gun nut community. Apparently guns that look scary are better because they look cool? That makes no sense at all. Just buy a regular rifle and get the fuck over it. :eyes:

[guitar man]

190. I do own "regular looking " rifles

I'm not really into the whole "assault" style thing myself. However, I wouldn't take it upon myself to tell others how to "bling" out their piece or thell them they cant. In all honesty, the guys I know that have the "scary" looking weapons keep them locked up in a gun safe more than they ever take them out and shoot them. I bet I've put more rounds through my 30-30 winchester lever action in the last year than one of my "gun nut" friends has put through his entire semi-auto collection since he's owned them.

[TheWraith]

204. Actually most people who buy the "scary looking" rifle do so because that's the most common kind.

These rifles were originally designed because the traditional wooden stocks and parts were subject to environmental conditions--rotting from exposure to moisture and high humidity, or cracking in dry environments. Fiberglass is lighter and more resilient. Lacking the woodgrain, flat black became the most common color for parts by default, followed by woodland camo. You can get or make custom colors, though--I once saw a M1A precision rifle done out in bright neon red.

[Raskolnik]

217. Well, sometimes, yeah. Guns that look "scary" are cool.

Just like cars that look fast, dogs that look mean, and watches that look expensive. Some people may like things that are different than you or I like. A shocking thought, no?

Your advice to "get the fuck over it" applies, just not in the way you intended.

[tanngrisnir3]

231. Actually, you're the one who seems subject to fear

Scary looking rifles with cosmetic changes cannot come close to the killing power of any large/magnum power hunting rifle, yet you are exhorting people to give up those scary assault rifles in favor of 'regular' rifles, which are far, far more deadly.

[tridim]

246. I'm only asking why they look scary (and look automatic)..

when obviously they don't need to look that way.

Standard rifles are for hunting, cosmetically enhanced standard rifles are for scaring people and giving gun nuts a bigger hardon. Simply stated, they're pointless.

[tanngrisnir3]

281. Ah, I see. Well, if they're not as deadly and they're pointless....

they why be against them, but in favor of 'regular' rifles?

[ManiacJoe]

391. cosmetically enhanced = ergonomic.

Traditional stocks are pretty, but they are not designed well for the shooter. Eronomics came along at the same time as space-age polymers, so now we get ugly/scary/ergonomic black rifles.

[yay]

441. why does it matter?

What they buy them for? If all they do is "look scary" then why bother banning them? Why the fuck do you care if they buy one since all they do is look scary eh?

no no no sir YOU get the fuck over it.

[Statistical]

102. The point is this law doesn't accomplish what you said.

Assault Rifles
Machinegun
Grenade Launchers

have all been restricted for 40 FRIGGIN years (read about the NFA).

No military or swat team uses these "assault weapons". None. Anywhere. From the dirtpoor militias on tribal pakistan to LA SWAT team, to US special forces....
militaries and police use...... ASSAULT RIFLES which are already restricted.

This bans scary looking guns. Period.

These is no need for "justification" that isn't how it works in a progressive democracy. Certainly not one protected by the Bill of Rights.

You don't need to justify your need.

The government needs to justify their need to restrict or ban.

Assault weapons are used in tiny minority of crimes.
Assault weapons are not preferred by criminals.
Assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle.
Actually given that most assault rifles fire small or medium caliber cartrdiges they are actually LESS lethal than most high powered hunting rifles or shotgun slugs.

[TwilightGardener]

110. Still not hearing an argument FOR these particular weapons, aside from "because we can"--

do you need to kill more than ten people at once, for example?

[Statistical]

116. Cho killed 34 people and neither of his weapons were "assault weapons".

One was a .22 pistol.
The weakest caliber invented. Most people use a .22 for little more than shooting paper targets.

What is your justification FOR BANNING them other than "because we can".

[TwilightGardener]

149. I guess it's a good thing he didn't have assault weapons, then--the total would

have been more than 34, I'll bet.

[Statistical]

168. So you say. Any facts to back that up?

Or is it just more of your blind faith?

A lot of "assault weapons" are chambered in the relatively small 5.56mm NATO cartridge.
A high powered hunting rifle is far more lethal, which is why hunters don't normally use 5.56mm for hunting deer.

Want to know why US chose 5.56? It isn't a very good round for killing.
Two reasons:
1) weight. Ammo is heavy. A lot of ammo is very heavy. And walking around all day everyday with 200+ rounds you apreciate not having to cary 40% more weight of a heavier cartridge.
2) Wounding. A wounded enemy soldier "costs" the enemy more than a dead one. A wounded soldier is bad for morale, he/she requires healthy soldiers to transport. He/she requires medical attention, and security. He/she uses resources without helping the war effort. One wounded soldier worth about 4 dead soldiers.

Strange that "super massive ultra killing ability" wasn't on the list.
Stranger that your beief that "assault weapons" are ultra lethal isn't backed up by any facts.

Even in instances of mass shootings where the killers had "assault weapons" such as Columbine the majority of deaths were caused by non-assaulting pistols.
Why? Likely speed, greater movement, and lack of training.

If "assault weapons" are the ultimate "instant kill everything in the room" like your blind faith tells you they are why would mass shooters use the obviously inferior pistols?

Why are "assault weapons" used in less than 1% of homicides?
Why are all rifles (which always are more powerful than a handgun cartridge) used in less than 7% of homicides?

[tanngrisnir3]

176. Well, technically, for smaller whitetails....

there are innumerable people who use the equivalent .223 Rem or the slightly heavier .243 Win.

[Statistical]

187. .223 for whitetails? I guess I must be "old school".

While .243 is only slightly heavier it packs more a punch.

A .243 load will have muzzle velocity in the 2000-2200 range.
A .223 Rem (or 5.56mm NATO) will be in the 1100-1300 range.

Substantially more power despite the round only being a little heavier.

Then again to each his (her) own.

I likely would never use it BUT unlike some so called progressives I wouldn't ban someone else right to use it.

[Squatch]

199. I use my AR to hunt deer

I have 2 uppers, one in 5.56 and the other in 6.8mm Rem SPC. The 6.8mm is basically a .270 Win, which is more than capable for southern tier deer. For the bruisers up in ME and NE, I use either my bolt action 30-06 or 300 win.

The only thing I use the 5.56 for is competition. It's not an appropriate deer caliber, but the AR family of rifles comes in other calibers: 5.56, 6.8mm, 6.5 Grendel, .308 Win, etc. In my opinion, the AR makes a wonderful sporting rifle despite its scary looks. I love it's balance, the managed recoil, the ergonomics, durability, etc. I'd much rather take the AR out to the woods than my priceless Husqvarna (yeah...it's an "ok" rifle, but it was bequeathed to me by my Dad who passed away, hence priceless)

[Statistical]

211. I have been seeing that become more common.

Lots of higher caliber uppers being sold.

My point was more about 5.56 caliber than the AR platform as a whole. If anything the AR platform has shown itself to be very versatile.

Using a "scary black rifle" for hunting is gaining acceptance.
Has a long of advantages:
* recoil control
* lack of wood stocks means less susceptible to either to high humidity, too low humidity, rotting, etc.
* common platform makes parts, sights, accessories, rails very easy to come by.

[tanngrisnir3]

218. Um.... where on earth did you get those ballistics?

Here, for a .223, directly from the Hornady webpage:
223 REM 55 GR V-MAX 8327
Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
3240/1282 2854/995 2500/763 2172/576 1871/427 1598/312

Most of those who chose a .243 is because the bullet grain is comparatively much heavier than those available for the .223 (up to 100gr or so)

.243 Win., 58 gr. V-MAX MOLY 83423
Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
Muzzle 100 yd 200 yd 300 yd 400 yd 500 yd
3750/1811 3308/1409 2909/1090 2544/833 2206/627 1896/463

[jmg257]

184. Hope not, but you likely will need more then 1 shot. In life & death, "the more the better".

While taking into consideration size, caliber, ergonomics, along with capacity.

[michreject]

306. Because we can

is good enough. Nothing else matters.

[TheWraith]

162. All weapons could be described as "military and police grade weapons."

That's what people don't seem to get in this debate is that there's little real difference in terms of range or power between between a scary-looking gun firing a standard round and a regular old wood-stock hunting rifle firing the same round. It's not like there's some super-secret-gun-power that's only found in rifles that look military. Hell, the US Army's M-16 rifle was originally adapted from a civilian rifle design, and two of the three most popular rifles in the US is adapted from Russian military models. Why? Because it's simple and reliable.

By the way, nothing covered under the Assault Weapons Ban is used by the military. They only use actual automatic weapons. And in a free country, you don't need to justify something being legal, you need to find a damn good reason why it should be illegal, which nobody has presented.

[TwilightGardener]

166. Why shouldn't ordinary citizens be able to upgrade to M16's then?

I can't see a justification for it being illegal, can you?

[tanngrisnir3]

177. What does that even mean? "Upgrade to an M-16"? Huh?

[TwilightGardener]

208. Are they not fully automatic? Why shouldn't people be able to own those, then?

After all, we need to justify why people CAN'T own things before we ban them, right? And they have very low stats RE crime...just going with the gun-nut argument.

[tanngrisnir3]

220. No, they're not all automatic. You gun-tard reasoning doesn't hold up...

to reality, yet again.

[TwilightGardener]

227. They have a semi-automatic and a fully automatic mode, correct?

[tanngrisnir3]

238. Newp, not all of them. Some are semi/three shot burst which...

are preferable to full auto since it's inaccurate and wasteful of ammo.

[TwilightGardener]

280. And...why shouldn't I own one that's automatic, without the burdensome restrictions?

[tanngrisnir3]

285. I wouldn't have a problem with you owning one, unless you're a felon.

[TwilightGardener]

293. You're out on a limb.

[tanngrisnir3]

300. You're a wombat with the a grapefruit.

[hootinholler]

331. Because you're dumber than a box of rocks, that's why.

Willfully ignorant by your own admission, argumentative and illogical.

-Hoot

[slackmaster]

420. You are not well informed. In most states, you can own an automatic firearm without much hassle

It's just a little more paperwork than buying a non-automatic firearm, a federal background check, plus $200 for a federal tax stamp.

The most onerous restriction is the price you have to pay because the NFA registry was closed in 1986 under the Reagan administration.

[Statistical]

221. You can own one.

They aren't banned they are restricted. Very heavily restricted.

The NFA restricts them as Title II weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

There is very little crime because they are restricted.
Most criminals are unlikely to go through the time, paperwork, background checks, talks w/ local law enforcement, fingerprints, and cost to obtain authorization.

I know it must be shock to you but automatic weapons aren't banned.
Ironic you are trying to ban "scary looking" semi-autos when fully automatic military weapons (all the way up to M2 Heavy Machineguns) are legal.
It would be like banning a Ford Escort w/ spoilers because they look fast while Indy Cars with top speeds over 200mpg are legal.

Now some may say make semi-auto subject to NFA.
1) that wouldn't be a ban it would be a restriction.
2) The reason why automatic weapons were restricted is they were used in crime.

See the govt didn't ban something on blind faith. There was a problem so they solved the problem.
Right now "assault weapons" are used in virtually no crime to begin with.
You can't reduce crime that doesn't exist. There is no logical reason to ban weapons that are used mostly by law abiding citizens.

[TheWraith]

243. Yes, because strawman arguments are always helpful.

You've made it quite clear that the technical facts, reasoned debate, the constitution, and the basic legal framework of a free country don't mean anything to you, so I'll simply make my point.

Automatic weapons have been illegal without a strict federal license since 1934. However, like any machine they can be built, and anybody who's had machine shop experience could put together a fully automatic submachine gun from freely available plans and stuff bought at a hardware store.

Do you know why they're not used in more crimes? Because contrary to your assumptions, faster firing is not necessarily more lethal. All major mass murders have one thing in common: slow, deliberate targeting, usually from point blank range with handguns. Speed has nothing to do with it. The Virginia Tech shooter had two low-capacity pistols, and he reloaded from boxed ammunition, not from spare clips. Nobody stopped him while he was doing that.

Your argument for banning semi-automatic rifles sounds pretty ridiculous when you obviously don't know anything about the facts. Or even the first thing about guns, like whether a revolver has to be cocked before firing. You also don't acknowledge the simple fact that what you recommend is proven to be unconstitutional. Heller vs. DC. Provide evidence: how many additional gun deaths per year are caused by assault weapons? How many gun deaths result from bullets 7 through 10 in a gun's magazine? What percentage of gun crimes involve an assault rifle being used to kill more than 6 people?

I expect to hear either crickets or a red herring.

[TwilightGardener]

262. Well, the Omaha Von Maur shooter had an AK-47. So there's always

an anecdote to counter an anecdote.

[benEzra]

347. Not a real AK-47; a civilian AK lookalike functionally identical to a Ruger deer rifle

with exactly the same rate of fire.

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5806&return=Y

The worst mass shootings in the United States have involved ordinary pistols, not carbines with modern styling. And the shape of a rifle's handgrip does NOT affect a rifle's lethality or rate of fire.

[Treo]

468. Ummm, no

The Von Maur shooter had a Chineses SKS W/ an internal ten round magazine.

[Xenotime]

215. Well said.

[AtheistCrusader]

397. 'these weapons' are not used by our Military.

Please explain what it is about 'these weapons' that makes them 'military grade' in your opinion, when not only our military, but NO self-respecting military in the world uses these firearms?

By all means, point out any army that uses AR-15's.

[slackmaster]

421. Saying you are not a gun expert is an understatement

You are completely ignorant on the subject.

[CarinKaryn]

317. Well the last bill SUCKED

We can write one this time that doesn't allow loopholes for cosmetic workarounds. Your problem is solved!

[X_Digger]

334. Care to elaborate?

What characteristics would you use to draw the line?

Power? Many of the guns restricted in the 94 AWB were of medium power. Grandpap's hunting rifle is more powerful than most of them.

[Renew Deal]

132. Most legal gun owners don't want "to slaughter as many people at once as possible."

What this will do is drive a ton of campaign cash to republicans, the NRA, etc. And for what purpose?

[TheWraith]

133. You do know that the Assault Weapons Ban had zero effect on crime, right?

It's a "feel good" measure to make it look like something's being done about crime, like mandatory minimum sentences for drug users.

[benEzra]

344. Well, obviously YOU'VE fallen for the MSM's bait-and-switch....

given that "assault weapon" is merely a scare term for the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. More Americans own them than hunt.

All automatic weapons are as tightly controlled in the USA as tank cannons, bombs, howitzers, and rocket launchers. The "assault weapon" meme covers NON-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles, rifles which dominate competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in this country.

[ROABUSE]

313. We need Hillary!

The gun issue is a waste of energy. There are other more pressing issues..like jobs, and the economy..............The economy issue is so big even I'm not sure it's fixable...........Besides guns may be the few commodoties that may be worth having in the near future!:think:

[theoldman]

5. I wonder why our local police support the assault weapons ban?

Maybe they don't want to be outgunned. Maybe we need to buy the police more powerful assault weapons. I am open to suggestions.

[NeedleCast]

7. I think for many of us opposed to this, the problem is the definition

of assault weapon.

[madokie]

9. In a perfect world I see not problem with assault weapons but

we don't live in a perfect world though.

[Squatch]

14. They've already got 'em...

"Maybe we need to buy the police more powerful assault weapons."



Pictured here are a bunch of cops with M-16's an armored personnel carrier and a 50-caliber machine gun.

(This is the Sheriff who wanted to bust Michael Phelps for marijuana)

[jpgray]

18. A bong is simply a molotov cocktail in transitional form

:rofl:

[jmg257]

200. They have full auto weapons already, they don't need to down-grade to semis.

[onehandle]

6. Darn! I don't feel like a Real Man unless I have a rocket launcher on my semi-automatic pistol. nt

[TwilightGardener]

8. I have no problems with it. If you feel you need a souped-up semi-automatic

or automatic weapon, please stay the fuck away from me.

[slackmaster]

23. The AW ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons

And what do you mean "souped-up semi-automatic"? A semiautomatic firearm fires one round per trigger pull, just as a revolver does.

[TwilightGardener]

26. Why do ordinary citizens need the same weapon that my husband uses in a combat zone?

[slackmaster]

28. Your husband DOES NOT carry a semiautomatic firearm in a combat zone

If he works for any US military force.

[TwilightGardener]

34. 9 mm is not semi-automatic?

[slackmaster]

35. The 9 mm Beretta pistol that the US military uses was not affected by the original AW ban

It was and has always been available to civilians.

[TwilightGardener]

39. It shouldn't be.

[slackmaster]

41. Oh, so you want to ban much MORE than the original AW ban

Do you really want to hand Congress back to the GOP in 2010?

[TwilightGardener]

48. Yep. I've said before, I'm tired of appeasing whack-jobs.

[slackmaster]

50. A cessation of the appeasement of people you don't like is not a sound basis for public policy

And it's politically stupid IMO.

[TwilightGardener]

57. Yes. I don't like people who have a sick and bizarre fascination

with stockpiling weapons that go over and above what anyone would realistically need to defend themselves or take down a deer or turkey. Tired of having to bow to them. I view people that are inordinately fascinated with guns the same as I would view a guy with an extensive machete collection--I would stay far, far away from someone like that.

[Lost in CT]

65. What about a woman in a high crime area who doesn't want to be raped again.

Or the bouncer at a gay club that has received threats fr9om the local Neanderthals.

Should they not be able to protect themselves?

[TwilightGardener]

67. ??--was I suggesting that we repeal the 2nd amendment in ANY WAY?

[Lost in CT]

81. You said we should ban 9mm handguns... what else would you conceal carry?

[TwilightGardener]

84. Oh gosh, I would hate for people not to be able to conceal and carry.

:eyes:

[Lost in CT]

98. Bye you eyes I take it you side with the rapists the home invaders and the

gay bashers who are injured and killed on the job by Americans who conceal carry handguns.

[TwilightGardener]

104. LOL! OK. Live in fear.

[davepc]

111. Thats what I tell people who worry about replacing smoke detector batteries

or wearing their seat belt when driving.

I haven't checked my smoke detector in years. I don't live in fear that i'm going to have some statistically insignificant event happen to me.

Why worry about it.

[truebrit71]

351. With an assault rifle? Why stop there?...let the bouncer use a flame-thrower...

...

[slackmaster]

354. Flame throwers aren't regulated in the USA

They're considered agricultural equipment.

I want a Remington 8-gauge kiln gun for my next purchase. I think it would be perfect for a fixed zone defense weapon.

http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/industrial/kiln_guns.asp

[truebrit71]

360. They aren't? Perfect! Plus chicks dig them...

..

[Raskolnik]

364. Obviously this bothers you. Why?

[truebrit71]

408. Oh I dunno, maybe being the victim of gun crime twice in my life maybe?

..and BOTH times if the prickless little bastards hadn't had guns they wouldn't have even bothered...So yeah, I'm a little bothered by it...

[Raskolnik]

75. "I would stay far, far away from someone like that."

It's a good thing you have the right to associate with whomever you choose, and no one is forcing you to associate with someone who has a large gun collection, a cabinet full of machetes, or shelf full of precious moments figurines.

[TwilightGardener]

76. I think those collections would say something about the mentality of the person

who collects them. Precious Moments figurine collectors are tacky and sentimental. People who hoard deadly weapons very often are involved in violent crime.

[Raskolnik]

85. Now you are just making things up.

People who hoard deadly weapons very often are involved in violent crime.

I don't mean to be rude, but you pulled that right out of your behind. I challenge you to point to any statistical evidence suggesting that someone who "hoards" firearms (which I assume to mean owning more than two or three) is "very often" involved in violent crime.

[TwilightGardener]

91. Look at some of the worst killing sprees in this country. How many were committed

by people who owned just one pistol at home for self-defense?

[Raskolnik]

96. I don't know. How many?

You're the one claiming a correlation, so you tell me. How many people are legal owners of one or two firearms, and how many of them commit violent acts?

[TwilightGardener]

169. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, not many in recent times.

[Raskolnik]

172. You have no idea, do you? Don't let that stop you from having a strong opinion on it, though. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

223. Well, for a close-to-home example, the Omaha mall shooting. Assault rifle,

two thirty-round magazines.

[Raskolnik]

247. First, you are mixing up correlation with causation. Second, you are relying upon

events that are statistically exceedingly rare (despite the scare tactics of the media) and applying them to literally millions of people that legally own multiple semi-automatic weapons and have never, nor will ever, use them commit a violent crime.

Third, you can't even keep your own argument straight: you stated that "People who hoard deadly weapons very often are involved in violent crime." The fact that Omaha mall shooter used an "assault weapon" does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that point.

[TwilightGardener]

271. He came from a home where the father had an assault rifle. He had access, AND ammo.

How does that refute my point?

[Raskolnik]

294. Your statement: "People who hoard deadly weapons very often are involved in violent crime."

This is neither refuted nor confirmed by the fact that the Omaha shooter's father owned an assaut rifle.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy by arguing that because condition A is present in an instance of violent crime, people satisfying condition A are therfore "very often" involved in violent crime.

[DrCory]

380. "an assault rifle"?

Meaning one, which hardly constitutes a hoard.

[tanngrisnir3]

105. Speaking from professional experience, that's utter bullshit.

I have arrested a weapons collector for anything even remotely involving weapons.

Please cite the data that you used to come to your conclusion.

[tammywammy]

159. I'm sure you have a link to stats to back up that claim. Please post it. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

332. Hey Bill Frist, we're glad you can accurately glean the mentality of people by what they collect.

Are you Bill Frist? You sound like Bill Frist. Do you know Bill Frist? Hey Bill Frist, is that you?

Would you believe it if I told you that I keep my guns right NEXT to my Precious Moments figurines? What would that say to you about MY mentality? Bill? Bill? BILL?

[yay]

444. LOL..... No really

I laughed my ass off. Congratulations you've just proven that your opinions are unfounded and... to be blunt out right lies.

I own 6 weapons. Not once has any one of them been used in a crime. Nor am I involved in any sort of crime myself.

Tell me, do you actually believe this crap?

[Howzit]

449. "I would stay far, far away from someone like that."

And yet you are married to someone who kills for a living?

[Raskolnik]

73. And you consider people who own semi-automatic firearms to be "whack-jobs."

That is silly.

[TwilightGardener]

74. What do you need them for?

[Raskolnik]

79. That's not how my rights are defined. I don't "need" a wall full of books,

I don't "need" to post on DU, and I don't "need" to remain free from warrentless wiretaps.

If you think the government should restrict any of those rights, the onus is squarely upon *you* to explain why you think I should not have the ability to own what books I choose or to own a semi-automatic weapon.*


*and, as my may or may not be aware, many (if not most) deer rifles are semi-automatic weapons, many shotguns are semi-automatic weapons, and almost all pistols are semi-automatic weapons.

[TwilightGardener]

86. See, there's no argument, just a pathetic clinging to the 2nd amendment

to justify whatever strikes the fancy of gun nuts.

[Raskolnik]

94. Wow. You have a warped view of the Constitution.

If you want to restrict any of my rights protected by the Constitution, you have to justify it. Sometimes those restrictions can be legitimate, most often they are not.

You haven't even attempted to justify why a restriction like this is necessary, instead choosing to make personal attacks. That's not very cool.

[tanngrisnir3]

106. You're not making any coherent argument; you're just bandying about...

ad-hominems to no readily apparent purpose other than to not have to defend your position.

Why is that?

[yay]

430. Whack job?

You're calling me a whack job because I'm a gun enthusiest? Why because you don't see the "point" in shooting at paper/cardboard/metal targets?

Well I don't see the point in driving in a giant circle at 200 MPH maybe we should make that illegal as well. Fuck I don't see a point in a lot of things, that doesn't mean we should ban them.

Also: Every law can be overturned, even a "permanent" AWB. You give control of the government to pro-gun officials and you can bet it will be overturned. Problem with that is you will also be sacrificing a lot of other, more important social issues.

I don't "NEED" a beretta. But I do WANT it, which if you haven't noticed is a driving factor for a LOT of things in this country.

Tell me what kind of car do you drive? How big is your property/house? What do you do with your spare time eh?

[jpgray]

38. M9 holds more than ten rounds, no?

Wasn't that the limit on the AWB, or was that just for rifles? The clip doesn't attach outside the grip, obviously.

[slackmaster]

42. I believe the standard magazine holds 10 rounds

Larger magazines could not be manufactured or imported during the AWB, but because there are already tens of millions of them in circulation they never became scarce.

Mr. Holder's remarks are going to result in millions more firearms and magazines being sold. Heckuva job, Eric.

[Statistical]

114. M9 standard magazine is 15 rounds.

BTW it is magazine.

[jmg257]

203. Because they work well. Carried a Beretta for years, GREAT pistol.

A little big for CCW, so there are a lot others that make good choices too.

[fascisthunter]

45. I'm with you there

[Raskolnik]

89. So you agree that "souped-up semi-automatic weapons" should be illegal? n/t

[jpgray]

11. Good news. Why quibble about regulations that mostly cover cosmetic features anyway?

There's zero compelling reason to have a high capacity magazine, bayonet lugs, a collapsible stock, etc., etc. Unless you're obsessed with your gun looking cool and/or military, what's the difference? If such -does- pass, it's not like gun owners can never have an AR again--we'll just see manufacturers turn out slightly-different versions of the same guns anyway, as with the previous AWB. It's not likely to pass, but I fail to see the big deal if it does.

I guess I don't see the big deal with the AWB in general--at worst it's an inconvenience, unless you're -really- hung up on cosmetics. And if you really are absolute about the 2nd amendment, why are you (and the NRA) not advocating for the repeal of the National Firearms Act? Or is that just an indication that we all must draw the line somewhere?

[TheWraith]

276. Because it loses us the House of Representatives and has no effect on crime. nt

[ComtesseDeSpair]

12. What's wrong with this?

Who on earth needs to own assault weapons? This is just common sense. Only gun wackos will bemoan this.

[slackmaster]

21. The problem is that there is no real justification for such a ban

Only gun wackos will bemoan this.

Why would that be a sound basis for public policy?

[jpgray]

22. Because it will do some infinitesimal good, whilst doing no harm whatsoever?

Lots of sound policy decisions fit in with that description.

[slackmaster]

25. Taking choices away from people in exchange for ZERO good is inherently harmful

There was nothing "sound" about the old AWB. It did no good whatsoever, and the political fallout was devastating for our country.

[jpgray]

30. What legit value does owning a military-looking gun with extra ammo have?

Zero. What value does limiting the admittedly low proliferation and criminal use of these weapons have? A little. Want to try again?

[slackmaster]

32. You've got it backwards

In order to justify a BAN on something you have to show that there is some harm in allowing people to own them.

Supporters of the original AW ban had TEN FULL YEARS to make a case for renewing it, and they came up empty-handed.

[jpgray]

44. So you believe the NFA meets that standard, while the AWB does not?

In all its provisions, not just the most sensible ones? If you do, wouldn't that be an indication that there is no strict constructionist position on the 2nd amendment in existence, and essentially this is all just a quibble about where precisely to draw the line?

[slackmaster]

I believe the NFA drew the line correctly

If you do, wouldn't that be an indication that there is no strict constructionist position on the 2nd amendment in existence, and essentially this is all just a quibble about where precisely to draw the line?

I call it a balanced position that recognizes a legitimate need to keep military weapons out of the hands of criminals, while respecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

If you think the line needs to be shifted, the burden is on you to show where it should be placed and why.

[jpgray]

52. True enough. I wish more people would recognize there is no "give me SAMs" lobby

In any serious sense, that is. Just as on the flip-side, there is no "grab all guns" side in any serious sense. My argument is that enacting the ban would do no serious harm, while accomplishing some mild good. Is that a good cause to throw tons of political capital at? Probably not. But it is sound in terms of cost-benefit? I think it is. The tension is between deadliness and proliferation--the deadlier the weapon, the higher the potential human cost of proliferation. While most of the AWB features are cosmetic, a few have genuine tactical purposes (collapsible stock for more flexible portability, higher magazine capacity for obvious reasons, etc.) So that's where the small good comes in.

It's true few if any criminals use high powered rifles, but a high-capacity shotgun with a collapsible stock could be extremely deadly. Let's not forget the "coolness" factor of the weapons--AKs (or "choppers" in parlance) have a lot of cache with criminals despite their relative lack of usefulness in the practical sense. (Yes, I know actual AKs are already covered by previous legislation.)

[immoderate]

164. Democrats will lose elections. Crime will not be affected. Is that what you want?

--imm

[ipfilter]

33. These bans expend way too much political capital

with very diminished returns.

[slackmaster]

51. Exactly right

And the more types of firearms that get included in any kind of ban, the more people will be affected and therefore pissed off about it.

[TwilightGardener]

61. Yes, mustn't piss off the wackos.

[slackmaster]

452. I'm not a wacko, and it pisses me off

So there.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

59. So keeping semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of gangbangers

is "no good" to you?

[Statistical]

64. so called "assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of crimes and 1% of homicides.

That is per the FBI not the NRA.

Also ALL RIFLES are used in <7% of crimes which is substantially lower than blunt weapons, edged weapons and barehands & feet.

Stop using Hollywood as justification for creating stupid laws.

Most "gangbangers" prefer small easily concealed and CHEAP weapons.

Why cheap? Weapon is a good way to get caught and have it traced back to the crime.
Weapon can be destroyed, thrown away, or simply buried.

If you are going to rob a 7-11 (and likely get <$100) and need to dispose of your crime weapon which would you prefer.

Cheap 9mm pistol ($100-$200)
------------------
* small
* easily concealed
* not obvious a roberry is in progress until you are at point blank
* from behind and at a distance looks like a "conversation" = less likely to be reported as a robbery in progress
* weapon only costs $100-$200 legally and is much cheaper on the street

OR

AR-15 ($700-$3000)
-------------------
* long
* heavy
* not easily concealed
* very obvious a robbery is in progress before you even get in the store.
* having to destroy/bury weapon will cost more than the gain of 10-30 robberies.

[slackmaster]

129. If by "gangbangers" you mean people with violent criminal records

They are already banned from owning any kind of firearm at all.

Or are you just referring to young men who belong to minority groups?

[Radical Activist]

139. Ask a cop about your "zero good" idea.

[tammywammy]

160. All the cops I know thought the ban was stupid. n/t

[Radical Activist]

165. all the ones you know, huh?

I won't ask how many cops you surveyed in your scientific study. There's a reason why most law enforcement agencies and police unions support the ban.

[tammywammy]

170. You just said "ask a cop." I've asked many.

And just b/c some unions support the ban doesn't make it right either.

[Radical Activist]

205. that's great

whatever group of cops you asked in your town don't reflect what most police and chiefs think, even in Texas.


As slayings of cops rise, a new brutality surfaces
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-14-copshoot_N.htm

The IACP sees it differently. "For the first time in decades, more officers are being … killed with firearms than are being killed in car crashes," it said in an April report. "The startling statistics make plain the need for more protections for our officers and more action from policymakers to keep them safe."

Scott Knight, chairman of the IACP's firearms committee, says an informal survey of about 20 police agencies earlier this year showed that since the assault weapons ban expired, departments either have increased the number of weapons in officers' patrol units or upgraded to military-style arms.

"There is a bit of an arms race out there to outgun the criminals," says Knight, the police chief in Chaska, Minn. "There is a view that (suspects) are more prone to shoot first."

[slackmaster]

228. Most police chiefs are elected officials, they are politicians

Rank and file officers don't always agree wtih them.

[Radical Activist]

249. man that's such bullshit

post a poll if you're going to claim that. source it.

[slackmaster]

298. How about you explaining why the opinions of a bunch of police chiefs means anything?

:hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

409. So your argument is that all the rank and file cops agree with the chiefs of their departments?

Mmmmkay.

David

[tanngrisnir3]

256. Well, no, usually they're found by a search committee and hired....

by the city council, but there is absolutely no doubt, period, that they are politicians of the highest order.

[jeepnstein]

337. What Law Enforcement Agencies support this foolishness?

I find it hard to believe your assertion the most support bans. Back it up. Who supports this?

Oh, and by the way I'm a cop. I think forcing honest citizens to give up their rights because of the activities of an extremely small minority of folks committing violent crimes in this country is the height of stupidity. I will say in my unscientific estimation that by far and away most citizens are quite law-abiding and trustworthy.

The problem is gang activity fueled by drug profits.

[tanngrisnir3]

193. It makes good politics and face time, that's all.

I have been confronted by and confiscated innumerable handguns and a shotgun or two.

I have never even seen an 'assualt weapon' on the street.

[Radical Activist]

210. you're lucky

and there are a lot of officers who wish they were that lucky.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/apr/27/news/chi-chicago-police-guns_both_27apr27

[tanngrisnir3]

251. Outgunned? A .45, a backup .357, a .12 gauge and a AR-15

I have never, ever felt outgunned.

[Radical Activist]

259. Are you in Chicago?

Maybe you'd like to go there and tell them if they're outgunned or not? I think they'd tell you to go fuck yourself but that's just a guess.

[tanngrisnir3]

288. Are you capable of posting anything relevant to the topic?

And I suspect that LEO's in Chicago carry pretty much what LEO's in other major metro areas do.

[jeepnstein]

406. Chicago doesn't have a gun problem.

They have a gang problem. Take a look at who's doing the killing and getting killed. For the most part they aren't innocent bystanders. It's the organized criminal gangs that are the heart of the problem. Based on my professional experience with more than of a few of these types, passing a law against owning a gun isn't going to really alter their business model.

[slackmaster]

222. All of my acquaintences who are San Diego PD officers collect firearms like I do

I go shooting with them sometimes. They are strongly opposed to gun bans.

[Radical Activist]

257. apples and oranges.

Off duty police officers with guns is not the same as a random jackass that's not required to register the weapon or go through any background check, which is what the NRA advocates. I can write about the officers I know who support the ban but that's all anecdotal evidence on a message board that could be made up, isn't it?

[tanngrisnir3]

261. So what do you think Che Guevara thought of gun control?

[Radical Activist]

264. oh that lame old red herring

I just knew someone would bring it up in this thread. That's what everyone goes to when they run out of arguments against me.

[tanngrisnir3]

287. Oh, please. It's not a red herring in the least.

And you haven't made any real arguements to be addressed on this thread to rebut.

Do you find logic as 'scary' as you apparently do some guns?

[iverglas]

372. I got a novel variation

Way down thread.

An assault weapons ban should be opposed by anyone who is concerned about the interests of the first nations, y'know.

'Cause they know what happens to a "disarmed population" against an "adversarial government".

I think I saw the reproductive rights "analogy" in this thread too.

There just ain't nobody's problems/history that the racist misogynist right-wing gun militant brigade won't exploit.

Wait for it. It's coming ... I hear it now ...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

THE RACIST ROOTS OF GUN CONTROL!!

:rofl:

I'm beginning to like that particular little idiotfacethingy.

[slackmaster]

299. Please provide a cite to support your claim

The NRA helped write the Brady background check law. Without NRA support, it might never have passed.

[yay]

427. What good?

What good would registration do? Thus far I have yet to see how it effects criminal prosecution rates at all and it sure as hell doesn't reduce crime rates.

Also last time I checked the NRA doesn't advocate getting rid of the background checks.

[benEzra]

348. Handing Congress to the repubs on a platter was "no harm whatsoever"?

BTW, I'll keep my little carbine, thanks. I shoot recreationally and competitively with it and intend to keep doing so.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Really? If a weapon is extra-lethal in terms of the number of rounds

it can fire, the types of ammo it can fire, etc.--that's meaningless? So we should all have the ability to walk into a store and take out as many people as possible? Why not legalize bazookas, SAM's, tanks...no one is ever going to use them against society, right?

[slackmaster]

27. I need to get ready for work now

No time to play Bazooka Straw Man with you.

[TwilightGardener]

29. There's no rational argument for allowing people to have the ability

to carry out mass executions--none.

[slackmaster]

37. The original AW ban did nothing to stop criminals from killing people

It did no good whatsoever.

[TwilightGardener]

47. And you know this...how? Perhaps criminals not being able to obtain something

more lethal at the time of their crimes did save some lives. I'm willing to take the chance of infringing on the "rights" of non-criminals being able to own the equivalent of military/police weapons if any lives are saved. Unless, of course, you can prove you really need them for hunting and self-defense...and not just some sick fetish.

[slackmaster]

49. There was no measurable reduction in crime that can be attributed to the AWB

Consider that a null hypothesis. If you say it had an effect, the burden is on you to show it.

[TwilightGardener]

53. Again, even if it makes our communities safer ONLY ON PAPER, only hypothetically,

then I'm fine with that. No ordinary citizen NEEDS these types of weapons--it's just a way to push the 2nd amendment to its limits, which is what the gun nuts are always, always trying to do, becasue they're all slippery-slope-obsessed ("if I can't have assault weapons, next they won't let me have my deer-huntin' shotgun, WAHHH!").

[slackmaster]

55. You are far more of an extremist than any of the pro-RKBA people on DU

I support your right to ban firearms from your own home, but I expect you to respect my right to do otherwise.

[TwilightGardener]

62. I don't ban firearms in my home. We own a shotgun. I'm not an extremist

in any sense. I just don't see the need for ordinary citizens to have a weapon that can take out several people at a time--unless you are planning a killing spree.

[Raskolnik]

112. I honestly don't think you have a basic understanding of how guns work.

Semi-automatic weapons don't "take out several people at a time."

[bossy22]

335. so you

only support the right of ordinary civilians to own muskets and single shot rifles????

last time i checked the supreme court did not take that view

[jmg257]

239. "Push the 2nd to its limits"?? Your ignorance is showing. If we just wanted to keep with the intent

of the 2nd, MOST OF US would keep and bear EXACTLY what your husband carried, including the M4/M16. It would be mandatory.

So having the choice to own semis falls well under the primary scope & intent of the 2nd, and matches VERY well with the other intents in securing the right to arms (self-defense, sporting, and all lawful uses).

Trying to justify removal of that right is what stretches the 2nd, not allowing we, the people to enjoy it.

[NeedleCast]

58. So you think a ban on scary things will stop criminals from getting their hands on them?

Interesting theory...

When trying to introduce a ban, the burden of proof should fall on those trying to do the banning. I don't have to prove a need for something in order to own it. The people introducing this ban need to provide proof that it will be effective. The previous AWB failed to do that.

[TwilightGardener]

63. It's pretty hard to know the effects of a preventive measure. Because you

can't tell how much criminal activity was prevented. It's common sense to not give people the ability to wipe out a crowd.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

87. We should ban cars then... right?

"It's common sense to not give people the ability to wipe out a crowd."
I could kill WAY more people quickly with a car than with most of the firearms the AWB prohibited.

The old AWB, statistically, did nothing. It's been analyzed ad-nauseum.
The AWB-crouwd had it's chance and failed... miserably.

[TwilightGardener]

286. Were cars designed for no other purpose than for killing people?

You're silly.

[DrCory]

381. "Design" or "Intent"...

Are irrelevant from a "public safety" perspective. An object/machine/device either constitutes a threat, or it doesn't. To argue otherwise indicates another motive altogether.

[slackmaster]

126. You prohibitionists had TEN YEARS of AW ban during which you could have been gathering information

To justify its continuation.

You came up empty-handed in 2004

[TwilightGardener]

291. Oh, the OPPRESSION of not being able to carry enough firepower to take

down literally scores of people!!! How did you ever survive those years? And then the government took over, and grabbed all the guns, even the hunting guns, and citizens couldn't create their own militias and defend themselves from the government, and...oh wait, I must be having a Freeper hallucination.

[slackmaster]

301. That's a pretty weak dodge

I can see that you aren't very well informed on this topic.

[tanngrisnir3]

302. Strawman, and a particularly stupid one. No one here is...

arguing for the right to carry 'assault weapons' in public.

You are purposefully mischaraterizing the arguments that are ripping your points apart.

[jmg257]

248. Nothing common sense about infringing the rights of 99% of us based on the actions of the other 1%.

Actually with regards to misuse of semi autos/"assault weapons", well under 1%.

Their dispicable actions CERTAINLY should NOT dictate or be used to justify restricting constitutionally secured rights. It is UNREASONABLE.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. It is a big, huge distraction from the important problems.

This will cost 10% of public support for universal health care, that's what's wrong.

[NightWatcher]

13. lets hand the "he's out for our gun-nuts" some serious ammo

great time to stock up, again before the price go through the roof

[ipfilter]

15. Nothing makes a Red state Redder than gun laws.

I don't own guns, nor do I want to. I do know people who do and as long as these laws are proposed, they will vote Republican no matter who's on the ticket.

[wartrace]

17. How about tightening up the border?

Rather than tighten up the border or decriminalize drugs we are going to violate the second amendment? Good idea:sarcasm:

[TwilightGardener]

20. Yes--no one will be able to hunt or defend themselves without assault weapons.

So tired of appeasing the nutcases who have a fascination with killing.

[wartrace]

80. I'm tired of appeasing idiots who vilify something based on appearance.

Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of gun homicides. Handguns are used in over 85% of gun homicides. Believing this gun ban will reduce gun homicides at all is ludicrous. I guess it will make you "feel" better though.......

I don't have the time nor the desire to debate it. We will see what the supreme court has to say about this.

[Tesha]

19. Good. (NT)

[Raskolnik]

134. An honest question: why do you think this is good?

Do you think it will reduce violent crime? Increase Obama's political capital? Make it easier to get other legislation passed? What do you find beneficial about this legislation?

[PVnRT]

31. Why now?

If the administration thinks this will kind of sneak through, they're underestimating the amount of political capital they have.

[EnviroBat]

40. Does that include Blackwater?

Just saying... If they're going to take away that type of weapon from the citizenry, that should include those private contractor assholes as well.

[Lost in CT]

71. And local police departments. Honestly a bunch of twenty somethings yokels playing soldier.

If we institute the ban it should be for everyone including the police.

[Occam Bandage]

46. This is a dumb idea. nt

[BigBluenoser]

68. I don't know what all the fuss is about...

Holder just decided the NRA just needed some help with their fund raising efforts for 2009/2010.

Really rather considerate of him.

Here is to hoping the admin puts a muzzle and break on Holder. I want an SKS - but I need the price to come back down. Also, it sure would be nice to walk into a store and be able to expect to find ammo.

[Raskolnik]

69. This is a bad idea.

It will not have any appreciable effect on crime, and it only serves to confirm the gun-grabbing rumors that Obama worked hard to combat.

[truebrit71]

70. Look, I hate the penis-extensions too...but maybe by getting the small-dicked right-wingers all...

...fired up about their guns, he will be able to get healthcare passed in exchange for dropping this ban...that way the NRA gets to hoot and holler about their success without realizing that WE got what we wanted anyway, which is the first major step to Universal Health care...

[BigBluenoser]

77. So my wife...

Who teaches feminist theology, votes straight democrat and has been involved in (and managed) many campaigns to get dems elected at the state and local level is a "small dicked right winger". I mean sure, she happens to own a 9mm & a *cough* "assault rifle" but clearly she is suffering from false consciousness or some shit. I'll let her know she is a crappy progressive and she should get in touch with you so you can educate her proper like.

Me on the other hand... I just like guns and happen to support most democratic candidates and ideals. I better get my ruler....

[truebrit71]

82. Way to miss the point...

...:eyes:

[BigBluenoser]

97. I didn't miss the point...

You were using language in such a way as it demonizes gun ownership by making it based solely on phallic issues. The dick augmentation meme does not help your cause nor reflect the reality for most gun owners It is a silly little trick. It ain't a cock, its a gun.

EDIT: I have to run out of the house now, so I won't see any response for a few hours, but I'll check back in then (so not ignoring you, just not online)

[truebrit71]

150. Yeah okay I know that most deer are armour-plated these days.... But you DID miss the point...

...the small-dicked penis-extension defenders will rise to the bait, like they do every time it comes up, and vehemently defend their right to bear penis-extensions, and if WE then say 'tell you what, you can keep your penis extensions and we'll keep Universal Health Care' guess who wins? The American people win...

THAT is the point...not whether an assault rifle is a penis-extension or just someone getting over being bullied as a child and needs to feel big and strong...

(I'll let you figure out which parts were tongue-in-cheek and which were centred on my main point ;-))

[Raskolnik]

156. And you are quite wrong about the affect of picking a losing fight.

Picking fight over a wedge issue that you know you aren't likely to win does not increase one's political captital--it squanders it.

And: Wow, you *really* are obsessed with male genitalia.

[truebrit71]

158. Wrong. But thanks for playing.

Re-read my posts. It has nothing to do with political capital and EVERYTHING to do with getting what we ACTUALLY want...

..and you seem obsessed about my penis quotes...

[Raskolnik]

163. Could you provide an example of picking a losing fight on a wedge-issue

resulting in the losing party gaining the ability to pass other contentious legistlation?

As far as your insistence on talking about cocks, that's your business. It just seems odd to continue to bring something like that up in a discussion in which no one else was talking about male junk. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[truebrit71]

183. Again with your schlong obsession...it's beginning to get creepy...

...You trade one for the other...happens all the time...

[Raskolnik]

198. You didn't answer my question, and you are the one continuing to reference junk.

But let's let your concern with penises rest, shall we? Please provide an example of a party picking a losing fight on a wedge issue, and having that result in the losing party gaining the ability to pass other contentious legislation.

[truebrit71]

266. I'll speak slowly....it happens all the time. It's called "negotiation"...

..you've NEVER seen that happen in Congress before...

OKee-dokee...

..and thank goodness you've finally stopped talking about my johnson...it was beginning to get disturbing...

[Raskolnik]

295. I asked you provide an example, and you were unable to do so. I accept your concession.

Thanks.

[truebrit71]

349. I accept the fact that you have never, EVER seen politics in the US in action...

...and therefore have nothing further to add on the subject.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

[Raskolnik]

362. I live in the real word, not your fantasy where polarizing political defeats *increase*

an administration's ability to pass other contentious legislation.

Your logic is simply absurd, and has no basis in reality.

[truebrit71]

365. You offer to withdraw one in order to pass the other...good GRIEF is it that hard for you to twig?

...I'm done...

[Raskolnik]

369. You think Republicans want Democrats to *withdraw* a renewed AWB!?

A renewed AWB is the greatest *gift* the Obama administration could ever give to the RNC. If the Democrats pass this thing, Republicans will be fundraising on it for years to come, and their local candidates will be able to shackle Democrats with it for several cycles. The Repubicans in Congress will kick and scream fighting legislation like this, but they know that it will help immeasurably in getting them reelected.

Seriously, do you follow politics in the U.S.?

[truebrit71]

407. I apparently follow it closer than you...see if you can keep up...

...You say "We're coming for your guns AND we're going to install socialized medicine at the same time"....the rethugs get all up in arms and then someone says..."tell you what...You keep your guns, we get our medical plan because we have the super majority and we'll do what we want with or without you, and everyone is happy...how about that?"

The retugs say fine, and congratulate themselves about "defeating" the commie gun-snatchers....

EXCEPT....we never REALLY meant to take their guns in the first place, we just wanted to say it out loud so we could get what we REALLY wanted...the medical plan through...

Too complex for you?

[Raskolnik]

412. Not too complex.

Just too stupid.

[Raskolnik]

100. You seem to be obsessed with male genitalia. n/t

[dairydog91]

392. There may be a reason...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection">Projection

Hmmm...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

410. When did your infatuation with penises begin?

[Yukari Yakumo]

90. It'd never make it past congress.

Any measure like this will never get cloture.

Nevermind that. It never get passed, period. I doubt either of my Senators would vote for it, and I doubt many of the red state Dems would either. Such a thing would have extreme difficulty even getting a majority.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

99. It passed with clinton in office...

And our control of congress was pretty well demostrated with the recent Stimulus Package.
If Barrack and Holder genuinely WANT this passed... it will be tough to deny.

[RedstDem]

121. That was then

This is now, I hope it goes nowhere and is quickly forgotten.
we need to use our votes to rid ourselves of the gun grabbers within our party...

[Statistical]

123. I don't think so.

1994 was long time ago. Information moved much slower. Not as many blogs, 24/7 news channels, etc.
Most people didn't even know the terms of 1994 AWB until it had passed.

So called "assault weapons" were virtually unknown in 1994. Less than <200K had been sold.
The 1994 AWB ban made the class very popular.

Today about 6-8 million are in ciruclation.
Getting an exact number is difficult because there is no clear definition of an "assault weapon".
If we are talking about banning ALL semi-autos (like some on this thread) that would be more like 150-200 million.

In 1994 many in Congress believed the AWB would be shining moment for Democratic party not the millstone it became.
Today many Democrats are much more cautious.

In 1994 many believed the 2nd applied only to militias.
Heller vs DC changed that incorrect belief.

Today many Democrats in Congress sit in what are traditionally considered blue seats. They will face difficult re-election anyways. Something divisive like this is not what they are looking for.

[anonymous171]

95. WTF!? Does he want to lose in 2012? This is infuriating.

Gun control is a no-win issue for dems. I wish we would just drop it.

[MadBadger]

229. The Assault Weapon Ban is actually popular. He isnt making all guns illegal

I dont understand the outrage that it hurts in any way.

It may be ineffective. That is a fair argument, but the ban from the polls I saw when it was an issue, says its popular.

[bossy22]

336. he is making a sizable amount of

modern firearms illegal....basically any semi-auto long gun that can take a detachable mag.....

so what you have left is bolt action and pump actions guns with very few models of semi-auto's available.

[Tesha]

367. Don't bother arguing with the DU Gun Fondlers, especially on their "home turf". (NT)

[X_Digger]

368. Also don't..

Never argue with a gun grabber idiot. They bring you down to their level of absurdity and beat you with experience.

[tom_paine]

103. I fully agree, squatch. This is dumb politically, and it won't do a thing

except cost us votes.

At the risk of getting sent to the Gungeon without my supper, this country was founded on the Liberal Idea that it's a good idea for regular people to be armed, NOT just the "nobility".

Ever hear of the Hellfire Club? Among other things they used to do, in 17th and 18th Century Britain, was roister about at night, mutilating any poor peasant they caught, sometimes by lopping off their ears or noses.

Why could they do that? THEY had guns and swords. Any peasant walking around with a gun or sword would be arrested and have them taken away, at the very least.

A well-armed citizenry made our revolution possible, and the Battle of Bennington (VT) is but one instance that shows quite clearly why.

I am not arguing for ZERO gun crontrol or anything like that, but doesn't Obama have better things to do than this. He's letting the Bushies get away with serial felonies and high treason, "because we have to move forward", but he's going backwards on this one and squandering the goodwill of the still-rational non-Hannidiot Repubicans (not many left, but they'r still numbered in the millions overall).

And I swore to people the Democratic Leadership wouldn't do this shit because they'd gotten smarter about this issue. Boy, do I look like a dope!

Gawd! Obama just cancelled out his bounce from that terrific speech.

Say it ain't so!

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[slackmaster]

119. I see one other predictable unintended consequence, Tom

A big increase in people buying guns, including a lot of people who haven't been properly trained in firearm safety.

[ipfilter]

127. Here's an example of some unintended consequences.

From my hometown newspaper.

http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/local_story_057000328.html

[slackmaster]

135. Good example

Thanks, and welcome to DU.

[ipfilter]

145. Thanks, DU is a great place.

It's how I keep my sanity in red state hell.

[guitar man]

142. exactly

Every time this comes around, there are people who will flock to the gun stores and gun shows in a buying panic. There was a large gun dealer her who started running ads as soon as Obama was elected telling people to hurry in and buy before the gun bans take effect. I bet this will crank them up into hyper mode.

[Squatch]

188. That's already happening

Prices and wait times for complete rifles and components have gone through the roof. I'm currently deployed to Afghanistan, but ordered a match 6.8mm barrel a few months ago anticipating its delivery in July or August. Yikes

[MadBadger]

233. In 2004, 71% of Americans supported the ban....how could it be wrong politically?

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=498

[davepc]

269. Do you have zero memory of 1994?

And the devastating fallout that snowballed into the midterm elections that year?

I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it. -- President Clintons 1995 State of the Union.

By "several" the President was talking about the Democratic majority in both Houses.


He'res some fun data.

A quick recap of the 2004 election:

21 Electoral Votes in 2004.

North Carolina:

Mike Easley (D) 55.6% -- NRA "A" Rating
Patrick Ballantine (R) 42.9%

Bush 56%
Kerry 44%

West Virgina:

Joe Manchin (D) 63.5% -- NRA "A+" Rating
Monty Warner (R) 34%

Bush 56%
Kerry 43%

Montana:

Brian Schweitzer (D) 50.4% -- NRA "A" Rating
Bob Brown (R) 46%

Bush 59%
Kerry 39%

Pro-gun Democrats beat Republicans handily on the same day Bush beat Kerry in those same states by double digit margins.

Kerry's most publicized senate vote, one he came off the campaign trail specifically to cast, was for the (failed) reauthorization of the 1994 assault weapons ban.

[slackmaster]

355. That's a poorly designed poll, like most of them

It lacks controls to ensure that respondents actually understand the issue. As someone who has been following it closely for over 15 years, I feel comfortable saying that most do not.

I'd guess that at least half of the people incorrectly believe the question is about fully automatic firearms.

[Jackeen]

413. Just commission another poll saying that 71% of people are against one.

<url>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo</url>

More truth than fiction in that show.

[tammywammy]

118. It's stupid to do this

And it seriously won't help come 2010.

[Leftist Agitator]

185. Kiss the House and Senate goodbye in 2010 if this goes through.

And Obama will join Poppy Bush and Jimmy Carter as one-term wonders.

Jesus Christ, talk about not learning from past mistakes... This is pure, unparalleled stupidity, plain and simple.

[MadBadger]

194. People dont care that much for their assault weapons

Jeez.

[Leftist Agitator]

236. Tell that to voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan...

And anywhere else in the Midwest. No, strike that, anywhere else in so-called "flyover country". Y'know, the majority of the United States?

[MadBadger]

244. Poll in 2004: 71% of Americans Support ban on Assault Weapons

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=498

You think in 4 years that much has changed?

Puuuleeeze

[jmg257]

279. "Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s,..."

Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.

[AtheistCrusader]

404. Until they realize most of the stuff they own

falls under the umbrage of 'assault weapon'.

Whoops.

[MadBadger]

250. 2004 Poll in Ohio: 71% support continuing ban on Assault Weapons

http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Ohio%20poll%20fact%20sheet.pdf

[benEzra]

350. Yeah, that's what the Third Way ban zealots said in 1994, too.

And 2000. And 20004.

Replace the term "assault weapon" with "the most popular civilian rifles in the United States" and you may understand the backlash a bit more.

[The Microbe]

429. We do. We care about civil liberties.

I could never bring myself to vote for the majority of simple-minded, bible thumping Republican politicans but I certainly could abstain or vote for an Independent canidate, especially at the state level.

If Congress pushes another stupid, inept law aimed at restricting our rights as granted by the Constitution I'll punish those responsible in the voting booth.

Obama is awesome. He's smart, articulate, open to new ideas, and doesn't seem to fear the incredibly difficult economic crisis this country is in. If he or Congress waste time on a new AWB, they will have demonstrated a true lack of understanding what this country needs in terms of leadership and legislation while undermining freedom at the same time.

[Junkdrawer]

192. Wow. All the Republican Gunners who pretend to be Democrats...

will have to pretend to be Disgruntled Democrats now.

The Horror.

[Raskolnik]

201. To whom are you referring? n/t

[CarinKaryn]

322. Exactly!

:banghead:

[Xenotime]

207. Why the FUCK are you all pissed off?!?! * allowed the violence to increase by letting it expire.

This measure protects innocent lives and prevents suffering. Good for Obama! This is what the country needs if it is to be great once more.

[slackmaster]

224. Please show data to support your claim

BTW it was Congress that allowed it to expire.

[Raskolnik]

235. And you are using exactly Bush's logic in restricting a right.

There is no data that supports that this law will make us any "safer," but if you can justify it with the theoretical protection of innocent lives, it should be passed.

I'm sick of that approach, and you should be too.

[jmg257]

263. Uhh - "violence" has continued to decrease since '04. A small rise in '06,

due mostly to an increase in robberies (armed or not), but still way under 10 years ago (during the AWB), followed by decline once again.

per FBI UCR.

YEAR VC Rate
2005/2004 -0.5
2006/2005 +3.7
2007/2006 -1.8
2008/2007 -3.5

"2006 Robbery...The estimated number of robbery offenses increased 7.2 percent from the 2005 estimate. However, the estimated number of offenses declined 10.3 percent in a comparison with the data from 10 years earlier (1997 and 2006)."


MUCH more relevant things affect crime rates and violent crime rates then "guns"., and especially the useless "AWB".

[flvegan]

216. I don't have a problem with SOME of the Fed Assault Weapons Ban.

I have no problem with banning some semi-automatic, clip fed and assault-type rifles. The AR-15, AK-47, etc really have no place in society. If a collector or avid shooter wants to own one, there should be some additional form of permit to allow it. There's nothing wrong with a true gun person having them, because I think they're more likely to secure them. An 18 year old shouldn't be able to go to the local pawn shop and buy one after waiting 3 days.

That said, this thread is as awesome as expected.

On edit: upon correction by Squatch. I misspoke in stating I don't see a problem with banning "semi-automatic rifles" which isn't what I meant. What I meant is what is specified in the FAWB in regards to clip fed, pistol grip assault weapons, not semi-auto rifles.

[Squatch]

252. That's fairly "broad-brush", which I know you don't do.

"I have no problem with banning semi-automatic rifles"

How do you feel about the Browning BAR, Ruger Model 44, Remington 7400, Benelli R1?

[flvegan]

273. You are correct, I edited my poor choice in words.

Especially stupid, since I own a semi-auto .22 Remington rifle with a sweet scope. Rifles like that, and the ones you mentioned aren't what I meant and they have no place on any ban list.

[jmg257]

277. Me neither, especially the part where it expired in 10 years! :)

[Statistical]

318. Almost all semi-auto are magazine fed.

So the defining line becomes pistol grip.

A low caliber semi-auto rifle w/ stock grip = ok
A low caliber semi-auto rifle w/ pistol grip = banned

Any evidence that pistol grips cause more crime?

[bossy22]

340. and whats the difference

a semi-automatic assault weapon is almost always a semi-auto rifle....why does it matter if it has a pistol grip? Almost all semi-auto rifles are clip fed in some way...its just easier for use that way, less maintenance (the internal mag has sort of gone the way of the dinos when it comes to semi-autos)

my problem with the AWB is that it bans legitimately used weapons by trying to make them seem "illegitimate"

the law is like this- lets say you are trying to ban automobiles so you write a law that says "no one can possess an automobile that has a steering wheel, more than 2 wheels, transmission system, doors, and/or a breaking system. Now according to this law, automobiles are still legal by name, just as long as they dont have those mentioned features- but try finding a car that doesn't have any of those features

the AWB is a defacto ban on all semi-auto weapons by banning the features that 99% of all semi-auto rifles have.

[originalpckelly]

241. Or we could address the actual causes of crime.

But that would make sense, so we won't go help the poor inner-city kids with no hope for the future, who become involved in violence and organized crime.

[davepc]

245. Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

THANK YOU MADAM SPEAKER!

[jmg257]

254. WOOHOO!!! LOVE that! (about frigging time, too!)

[truebrit71]

268. YEAH!!! Gun-control is off the table...just like impeachment..and prosecutions...

...Way to represent the DEMOCRATIC PARTY Nancy!!!...You ROCK!!!!

:eyes:

[CarinKaryn]

323. Someone should throw cold water on her

This is our time! If not now, WHEN?

[alarimer]

270. Good for him.

Fuck the gun nuts.

I am not sure why anyone is opposed to sensible gun regulation.

I guess with gun nuts it's all or nothing. They want as many guns as they can to shoot Bambi or for their paranoid fantasies of self-defense.

[tammywammy]

282. What's sensible about a purely cosmetic ban that doesn't effect crime? n/t

[iverglas]

315. always reminds me of the Mariel cartoons I saw at an exhibition in Havana

The general theme was:

toilet in Havana
sewage bubbling up in Miami


forum somewhere on DU
sewage bubbling up in the Guns forum



Making policy decisions that adversely affect US citizens for the sake of a foreign country's internal security problems is not particularly "good" governance, in my opinion.

Actually, making policy decisions that adversely affect the rest of the world (particularly, fuck, when the problems you are exacerbating are in considerable part of your making anyway) for the sake of appeasing a load of screaming right-wing assholes in your own country is neither intelligent nor decent, in the opinion of anybody with a clue and any manners at all.

[CarinKaryn]

316. FINALY!

We have the House, the Senate and a President who is willing to make good on his campaign promises.
This is the time. If not NOW, then WHEN?

This is FANTASTIC news!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Raskolnik]

324. What do you think a new AWB would accomplish? n/t

[Xenotime]

455. It would get assault weapons off our streets = safer america

Aren't you for a safe america? Or do you stand with the RW gun fundie nut jobs?

[X_Digger]

461. "Safe" from weapons used in less than 1% of crime?

Yah, that's worth wasting political capital on, and giving the RW a big stick to beat the shit out of us over.

*headdesk*

[Treo]

464. Given

"Assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of crimes how does this make America safer?

ETA To answer yoyr question, I'm all for a safer America that's why I carry a gun

[Furyataurus]

327. Wow

"No, I just don't see a rationale for increased killing capacity. I never will.
I don't see why the gun-nut lobby wants the public to be able to match or beat law enforcement's capacity to protect the public. Regular citizens simply don't need that sort of firepower."


Tell that to the colonists who used "military" style weapons to defeat the british. Civilian's should have access to the same type of firearms the military and police have as well. Who do you think is going to win this fight:

Marine with M4 machine gun, grenades, 500 rounds of ammo, knife, and untold amounts of training on how to kill

vs.

Civilian with bolt action rifle with 4 rounds of ammo, plus ammo he/she has to reload manually.


Pretty unfair isn't it?

[iverglas]

359. wowie wowie wowie!!

Who do you think is going to win this fight:

Marine with M4 machine gun, grenades, 500 rounds of ammo, knife, and untold amounts of training on how to kill

vs.

Civilian with bolt action rifle with 4 rounds of ammo, plus ammo he/she has to reload manually.

Pretty unfair isn't it?


I'm not quite sure that "unfair" is quite the word I would choose to apply to that.

"Unbalanced", maybe.


Hahahahahaha.

[Xenotime]

454. I'm with you! Change we can believe in. This is the NEW America!!

[Iktomiwicasa]

320. Any elected official...

...who votes in favor of a new AWB will lose my vote, including the President if he signs it into law. It's as simple as that.

[iverglas]

326. so then

Any elected official...
...who votes in favor of a new AWB will lose my vote, including the President if he signs it into law. It's as simple as that.

Would you call yourself a democrat, a Democrat, a liberal or a progressive?

Be sure to show your work.

[Iktomiwicasa]

328. I am a registered Democrat.

But I don't expect I'd fit into one of your neat little boxes that you'd like me to fit in. I'm a committed tribal traditionalist and my first loyalty is to my Nation (Hint: that ain't the U.S.)

[Raskolnik]

339. Uh-oh...I'm not sure iverglas can give you an acceptable label

that's going to be upsetting...

[iverglas]

345. whoa, lucky you gave me that hint

I might be too thick to have figured that out for myself, you know.

Your first loyalty is to your nation ... one of those ones that came close to suffering successful genocide at the hands of people with guns ...

I guess you need those guns in case they come gunning for you again? I mean, there's gotta be something "tribal traditionalist" about semi-automatic firearms, I guess. Otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up.

You might be interested to know that the right to hunt with firearms is a recognized aboriginal right in Canada. Interesting concept: aboriginal rights are entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the 1982 Constitution.

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

And then in the 1995 Firearms Act:

2. ... (3) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

And then there are various adaptations to and exemptions from firearms legislation that apply to members of the First Nations.

Interesting, eh?

Now if only I could figure out how a registered Democrat's first loyalty being to his/her first nation hooks up with a vow not to vote for (to vote against?) a Democratic Party candidate who supported the legislation in question here ...

[Iktomiwicasa]

353. you really ARE...

..dense.

"Now if only I could figure out how a registered Democrat's first loyalty being to his/her first nation hooks up with a vow not to vote for (to vote against?) a Democratic Party candidate who supported the legislation in question here ..."

If you can't understand that loyalty to one's own First Nation does not equate with Party loyalty then there is nothing we can do to help you. I'll vote in the best interests of my people always.

[iverglas]

356. I'm quite sure there's nothing you can do to help me

If you can't understand that loyalty to one's own First Nation does not equate with Party loyalty then there is nothing we can do to help you. I'll vote in the best interests of my people always.

We're not even standing on the same planet, as far as I can tell.

I asked you what was "in the best interests of your people" about voting against a Democrat if said Democrat supported this legislation.

If that was supposed to be an answer ... well, I'll stay on my planet, ta.

It's called evasion, on my planet.

[Iktomiwicasa]

361. Politicians of both major parties...

..here in the U.S. have repeatedly screwed native people over for decades. Sad to say, but the Democratic record isn't any better than the Republicans. Again, if you think native identity and tribal loyalty equal support for a particular political party, then I'd have to agree, you are on another planet.

[iverglas]

363. okay; I'll try one more time

This is what you said in the post to which I initially responded:

Any elected official...
...who votes in favor of a new AWB will lose my vote, including the President if he signs it into law. It's as simple as that.

Nothing about aboriginal rights. Nothing about loyalty to a first nation. Nothing about tribal traditionalism.

In response to my question -- just too obviously prompted by WHAT YOU SAID in that post, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of first nations -- you tried to play some kind of aboriginal card.

What do an assault weapons ban, and your stated opposition to said assault weapons ban, have to do with the interests of first nations or tribal traditionalism?

Why would you raise those matters in reply to a post inquiring about your avowed intention to vote against any Democrat who votes for an assault weapons ban?

If you had stated your intention to vote against any Democrat who voted to violate treaty rights somehow, or cut funding for first nations' schools, or anything at all even remotely or tangentially related to aboriginal rights or tribal tradition -- well, I doubt I would even have asked a question. The point would have been entirely clear to me, and I would take the same position in my own context.

That's not what you did. You vowed to vote against a Democrat who voted for an assault weapons ban.

So what I'm asking is really quite simple: would you please make the connection for me between

(a) assault weapons ban
and
(b) aboriginal rights /tribal tradition

?

There has to be a connection. If there were not, you would not have raised (b) in a discussion of (a). Right?

Help me out here, eh?

[Iktomiwicasa]

370. Real simple...

...banning a certain scary looking class of weapons is against the interests of native people. I drive by a mass grave on my way to work with about 300 of my people in it. It shows what happens to a disarmed population that's subject to an adversarial government.

"you tried to play some kind of aboriginal card."

Well Sweet Cheeks, you asked me what sort of box I should be put in, and what cheery label you should slap on it. I merely gave you an honest answer.

[iverglas]

371. yeah, I thought it might be loony tunes time

Thanks for clearing it up.

Oh, and

It shows what happens to a disarmed population that's subject to an adversarial government.

spouting the ignorant/right-wing party line while you're at it.

[Raskolnik]

374. Iverglas, you are spouting some ignorant nonsense right now

Strange as it may seem to you, a native population in the U.S. may have an entirely different viewpoint when it comes to being disarmed by the federal government.

And if you want to get punched right in the damn face, I suggest you go to Pine Ridge in South Dakota and tell the first person you see there that they are "ignorant" for valuing their right to keep their own guns when someone in Washington D.C. has decided that they don't really need them.

[Iktomiwicasa]

376. Presactly...

Virtually every household here on Pine Ridge has firearms. Guess that makes us ignorant indians a buncha right wing nut cases....

[Raskolnik]

378. Do you live there now?

I'm from east-river, but don't hold that against me.

[Iktomiwicasa]

386. yup, sure do. n/t

[Raskolnik]

389. Well, that's a coincidence.

I didn't realize when I used Pine Ridge as an example. I hope you don't think I was trying to be cute by using the place you live as a rhetorical device.

I'll tell you--a couple of the prettiest sunrises I've ever seen have been not too far north of you, driving with my dad on 44.

Are you dug out of the snow there, yet? I know you guys caught it in the shorts pretty bad this winter. I live in Chicago now, and when I try to explain to people here what its like to be sixty miles from the nearest "town" in the middle of winter (that people here couldn't even imagine being a "town") I don't get very far.

Take care.

[iverglas]

379. where'd those goal posts go?

Virtually every household here on Pine Ridge has firearms.

Was somebody talking about "firearms"?

Struck me the subject was the assault weapons ban, and your avowed intention to vote against any Democratic Party candidate who voted for it.

Guess that makes us ignorant indians a buncha right wing nut cases....

It might make you living in la-la land if you actually think guns are where your salvation lies.

Done you a lot of good so far, have they?



edited omitted word in

[Raskolnik]

383. Go ahead, iverglas. Tell him where his salvation lies.

I'm sure someone living on a reservation in South Dakota would love to hear from a person in a city in Canada how silly they are for valuing the ability to possess guns.

[iverglas]

384. you could try the Canada forum

a person in a city in Canada how silly they are for valuing the ability to possess guns.

if you're looking for one of them. I doubt you'll find one, but you can give it a shot.

Hey, while you're there, I'm sure they'd like to hear a USAmerican pontificate about how the solution to the strife in Kenya is to deliver an AK-47 to every man, woman and child in the place.

It wasn't you that said that? Oh well, eh?

[Raskolnik]

385. Oh don't pout just because you painted yourself into a corner & now feel foolish.

It can be quite a *burden* to tell other people how to best live their lives, can't it?

[Raskolnik]

358. See? Told you it would upset her...

[DrCory]

377. Are You Suggesting

That because Iktomiwicasa supports the RKBA, he is somehow in league with those who attempted genocide of the first nations?

"Your first loyalty is to your nation ... one of those ones that came close to suffering successful genocide at the hands of people with guns ...

Was the intent of the RKBA to facilitate genocide?

[iverglas]

382. actually, I'm suggesting

that Elizabeth II had Adolf Hitler's secret love child, and secretly married her off to the biggest richest Jewish banker in the world, and now the two of them head up a secret cabal of Saudi princes who are at this very moment plotting
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
aargh, they got me, I'm a goner .................

[DrCory]

387. Imaginative Dodge...

But a dodge all the same. How is supporting the RKBA in conflict with loyalty to the First Nations?

[iverglas]

388. "How is supporting the RKBA in conflict with loyalty to the First Nations?"

I give up.

How is your wearing purple polka-dotted underpants going to solve global warming?

[DrCory]

394. If It's So Nonsensical...

Then why would you say this: "Your first loyalty is to your nation ... one of those ones that came close to suffering successful genocide at the hands of people with guns ..."?

Where's the conflict?

[iverglas]

395. don't try to pretend you didn't say you are wearing purple polka-dotted underpants

[DrCory]

416. I'm Not The One...

Pretending that no conflict can be interpreted from the following statement:

"Your first loyalty is to your nation ... one of those ones that came close to suffering successful genocide at the hands of people with guns ..."

It wouldn't require much effort on your part to explain if no conflict is suggested. Unless, of course, you've rammed your foot in your mouth again (which is more likely considering your responses so far).

[Iktomiwicasa]

396. So, Iver....

How is supporting the RKBA in conflict with loyalty to the First Nations?

Can't answer, can you?

[DrCory]

445. The Silence Is Deafening, Isn't It? N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

446. She knows where your interests lie better than you do, darnit!

Cause she's like evolved. Or one of the vanguard of the proletariat.
Or something like that.

"Stuff White People Like" #62- Knowing what's best for poor people!

[Furyataurus]

329. this

"Would you call yourself a democrat, a Democrat, a liberal or a progressive?

Be sure to show your work."



this coming from someone who lives in canada?????

Who is she to ask this?

[Iktomiwicasa]

330. Iver is from Canada...

...I'm here in the U.S.

[Name removed]

342. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

346. I know, I know

"Would you call yourself a democrat, a Democrat, a liberal or a progressive?
Be sure to show your work."

this coming from someone who lives in canada?????
Who is she to ask this?

You don't think we understand English up here ...

Câline de bine, eh? Poutine.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

352. Missed the point, as usual. (n/t)

[iverglas]

357. but I expect no less; if you ask nicely, I'll explain the point for you.

[TXRAT2]

417. if you ask nicely, I'll explain the point for you.

I see your still burning up the keyboards. Will they ever learn?

[iverglas]

419. been on an extended vacation?

Watch out, one of these days they won't let you back in. ;)

Over the border, I mean!

You should come this way and we can try ice fishing. We'll just have to be careful not to run afoul of that Criminal Code section about not leaving holes in the ice unattended.

[TXRAT2]

442. You should come this way and we can try ice fishing.

Not enough whiskey in Canada to get me out on the ice, I need a parka if it gets below 60. Huh! I just notice the spell check here doesn't know the difference between Whisky and Whiskey.

[paulsby]

440. tabernac! nt

[slackmaster]

453. Same here, and that includes President Obama if he signs an AWB bill

:nuke:

[Fabio]

373. Dumb move.

but i think this is the classic trail balloon. Looks for a group of republican urban congressman to try to introduce this legislation to force the democrats and POTUS's hand.

[aikoaiko]

393. Wow, this thread is on fire.

Banning semi-automatic weapons from law abiding folks is political stupidity.

Holder was on the wrong side of Heller and he's on the wrong side now.

[AtheistCrusader]

403. This issue has the potential to torpedo our new Democratic majority.

One, single issue. Could hand our government back to the shitheads of the last 8 years. You bet this is a hot issue.

[Yavapai]

411. Yea, it worked for Clinton in 94,

that is how he got a Republican Congress and Senate.

As for myself, I think we need health care a lot more than the dumbest gun law ever dreamed up by the hijacked
Democratic Party. I read many posts here and wonder who thought this crap up. When I worked in JFK's
campaign this wasn't an issue. When I worked in LBJ's campaign it wasn't an issue. I worked in each Democrat
campaign including Clinton's first campaign and then discovered I was the enemy because I owned guns and
did not support disarming the American people. That is the reason that I (and many more Democrats voted
a straight Republican ticket in 1994. Guess what, it will happen again and Nancy Pelosi knows it.

So, if you all want to waste Obama's political capitol on this stupid idea and watch history repeat itself, I
don't want to have front row seat.

Also, I don't think Canadian flame-bait attention seekers like Iverglas should have any say
at all about what is a clearly an USA issue. In fact, she may be a right wing republican leaning provocateur
trying to influence US politics. Who knows what goes on in her thought processes. If one has read much of
what she spouts, I would be afraid to give her an IPOD. She would probably think the sounds produced are
just more of the voices she hears in her head all time.

[iverglas]

438. it might ... if you work it hard enough

[The Microbe]

414. So much misinformation here

The 1994-2004 ban had no discernible effect on crime. Assault weapons before during and since the ban are generally not used in crime(~3%), and the ban itself only prevented new guns from being sold that had largely cosmetic features. If someone wanted these cosmetic features for criminal purposes, he could simply ignore the law and put on that folding stock or thread the barrel, or attach a pistol grip. Or legally, simply buy one of the many guns that do the exact same thing but look slightly different.

So if the ban did nothing to stop crime or violence, why should American give up civil liberties, liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, in order to make a tiny sliver of the population who have an irrational fear of firearms feel better about their country?

Bush and his staff trampled the Bill of Rights. I like Obama and believe he wants smart solutions to problems. The problem of violence is not solved by enacting another ban on certain cosmetic features of rifles. Nor will Mexico's drug war violence be changed at all.

I do hope Holden educates himself on the subject and Congress does not fall into the same trap of scripting poor, ineffectual legislation that only alienates large portions of the voting public while ignoring civil liberties in the process. We've had enough of that for 8 years now and before.

[Xela]

423. Bad move, or Denial galore...

This has to do with dealing with the so-called drug war and less to do with taking away our constitutional rights one at a time.

How about considering what's been under our noses for decades? Legalization.

Xela

[dashrif]

426. Lessons

Don’t know about all of you but I love my bayo lug. The price of good let alone
crap ammo is insane, at least I have a spear and not a club. I can see it now some thug kicks in m door and I lead a bayonet charge on him screaming kill, just like Uncle Sam trained me. I jack every night just thinking about it really I do.

PM me if you would like bayonet fixing and charge lessons. You will learn how to exploit all the "Deadly Features" of your “Assault Weapon”, as the bayonet charge is a underrated tactic.

It was well know in the Revolutionary War that a bayonet charge with lots of crazy American screaming would demoralize a reloading British skirmish line.

:sarcasm:

Oh and btw

Where was Mexico when they where exporting drugs and criminals like the MM and MS13 in to our country they turned a blind eye, was the money to good. You play with a cold snake and let it get warm and comfy and then cry when it bites.

[yay]

443. pictar

[-Wolverine-]

447. Reason please?

Does someone have a reason to ban "assault weapons"?

"Well, someone might kill a lot of people!!!11" is ridiculous. Someone might use DU to molest minors, omg, we have to ban DU!

Also, these are not military/police grade weapons. There is not a single military in the entire world that fields them. Why would the military field a semi-automatic rifle instead of an assault rifle?
Police can buy post 86' machine guns. Civilians cannot.

Use some common sense.

[slackmaster]

451. Another vote for Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

:nuke:

[Tim01]

456. I also will vote against anyone who tries to bring back the Assault Weapons ban. nt

[JonQ]

458. Remember this last time they did this and it immediately led

to a drop in gun crimes, and violent crime in general?

Yeah, me neither.

[Treo]

459. Why are we worrying about a thread that is MONTHS old?

Obama isn't going to try an AWB he can't even get his own party behind him on it.

[JonQ]

460. Didn't read the date

but it popped up to the top of the page for some reason.

[Tim01]

462. It's best to not forget about this.

Give people a little time and they will swear Obama never said anything about the AWB.