Obama Seeks 'Assault' Weapons Ban

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
From the article:
“Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,” the warning said.

Both of these are already strictly regulated under existing federal law and has absolutely nothing to do with the “assault weapons ban”.

But since when do anti-gun federal regulators allow facts interfere emotions and policy agendas?[/quote]

You mean they want to grab my full-autos and grenades TOO!!111!!? What about my RPGs?

42

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And besides that, Democrats are the ones that are supposed to keep the government out of private affairs, what with civil rights, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-legislating morality. How’s this fit in?

They are?

I know you’re trying to be a smartass, but there is no arguing that the Democrats are far more “live and let live” then the GOP is.

The GOP would only approve certain positions in sex if you let them, the weird motherfuckers.

Well, what about freedom of association in regards to private entities hiring and firing? Don’t Democrats tend to use Government to dictate standards (their morality) onto people in this area? Or, how about the amount of time one spends working for the government (depending on the size of one’s tax burden) to fund redistribution programs based on moral principles (providing a safety net for the poor)? Heck, you have Democrats that want to dictate health-care for the entire nation! And liberals certainly do what they can to get their social views heard in local schools, to a captive audience. Democrats easily are as nosy and intrusive as any Republican. [/quote]

You omitted Democrat politicians not wanting you to be able to pick for your own child even between two “public” government-run schools in your immediate area, let alone any greater choice than that for what might be done with your property-tax dollars taken, at threat of seizing your house, for education.

43

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

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.

44

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

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.

[/quote]

Wow. I can’t believe she would be to the right of Obama on this. Shocking.

45

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
tme wrote:
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."

Why do I have to have my rights infringed because of Mexican criminals and not-so-on-the-level (or ignorant or criminal) gun dealers?

Certainly you’re not suggesting that the existing strict legislation, stringent checks, waiting periods, and regulations don’t work? That can’t be so-- they’re so well thought out. </obvious sarcasm>
[/quote]

Well if your lot would just stop buying the drugs then we would stop having to buy your guns :wink:

Personally I think we are getting the worst of the deal. You keep the guns and we will smoke the drugs!

I know very little about guns but was the comparison chart that you posted broadly accurate?

What actually defines an assault weapon that would be banned by the bill?

46

The Ruger Mini-14: one of the many dangerous “assault weapons” specifically named in the latest bill

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
What actually defines an assault weapon that would be banned by the bill?[/quote]

The bill that I referenced in my previous thread would ban, in addition to a great number of specific weapons identified by name:

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a pistol grip;
(iv) a forward grip; or
(v) a barrel shroud.

(E)
(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has–
(i) a second pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a barrel shroud; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip;
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

(K) A conversion kit.

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

In other words, practically any semi-automatic firearm, or its receiver.

47

Fine by me. :slight_smile:

[quote]
What actually defines an assault weapon that would be banned by the bill?[/quote]

It’s all speculation at this point, but here was the gist of the last bill. Certain semiautomatic rifles* could only have 2 (or 3, I forget) or less of the following features:

-bayonett lug
-flash suppressor
-Pistol grip
-detachable magazine (doohickey that holds and feeds ammo into gun
-collapsible stock

On pistols and rifles, magazines could not hold more than 10 rounds.

Guns/parts manufactured before the ban, or “pre-ban”, were exempt.

*With semi-auto, you pull the trigger once, gun goes boom once, and chambers another round ready to fire. Pull trigger again and whole process repeats.

An automatic rifle, like the ones being used in these border wars, goes boom multiple times with one pull of the trigger. These kinds of guns were essentially banned with previous laws set in place in 1934, 1968, and 1986. You can’t pop in a gun shop and walk out with these kinds of rifles.

48

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?[/quote]

Because I have a small penis and need something to impress ze Ladies!

What difference does it make?

49

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?

Because the goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves.[/quote]

And that too.

50

[quote]orion wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?

Because I have a small penis and need something to impress ze Ladies!
[/quote]

bota,

That’s been obvious from day one.

JeffR

51

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?

Because I have a small penis and need something to impress ze Ladies!

bota,

That’s been obvious from day one.

JeffR

[/quote]

That is why I did not even try to hide it from a master mind like you.

52

[quote]orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
orion wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?

Because I have a small penis and need something to impress ze Ladies!

bota,

That’s been obvious from day one.

JeffR

That is why I did not even try to hide it from a master mind like you.[/quote]

Thanks.

But, I would like a challenge once in a while.

Do you have any friends?

JeffR

53

[quote]tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:

"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.

In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."

So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.

[/quote]

Who the fuck cares?? I don’t give a rat’s ass what’s happening in MEXICO if they’re going to restrict MY freedoms to fix THEIR problems. Fuck that.

If that is the “real” reason they want this ban (and it isn’t of course), then they are subjugating Americans’ rights for SOME OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY. That’s wanton dereliction of duty as a US Congressman and POTUS.

I don’t know which is more offensive to me–that they are trying to mess with my freedom, or that they’re using violence in another fucking country to justify messing with my freedoms.

It would be a much more appropriate response to penalize the gun shops they seem to have traced the weapons to. Hell, if they could trace the weapons back to the gun shops then it should be no problem whatsoever to set up a little sting operation for illegals buying weapons and funnelling them across the border.

We’d get to strike against illegal firearm sales, immigration problems, and mexican drug dealer violance all in one blow. But Nooooo.

I feel marginally better now.

54

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:

"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.

In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."

So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.

Who the fuck cares?? I don’t give a rat’s ass what’s happening in MEXICO if they’re going to restrict MY freedoms to fix THEIR problems. Fuck that. If that is the “real” reason they want this ban (and it isn’t of course), then they are subjugating Americans’ rights for SOME OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY. That’s wanton dereliction of duty as a US Congressman and POTUS.

I don’t know which is more offensive to me–that they are trying to mess with my freedom, or that they’re using violence in another fucking country to justify messing with my freedoms.

It would be a much more appropriate response to penalize the gun shops they seem to have traced the weapons to.

Hell, if they could trace the weapons back to the gun shops then it should be no problem whatsoever to set up a little sting operation for illegals buying weapons and funnelling them across the border. We’d get to strike against illegal firearm sales, immigration problems, and mexican drug dealer violance all in one blow. But Nooooo.[/quote]

I volounteer to be involved in the sting operation though being British I don’t look very Mexican. My accent is pretty good and I could grow a 'tache and wear a sombrero, what do you think?

55

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:

"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.

In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."

So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.

Who the fuck cares?? I don’t give a rat’s ass what’s happening in MEXICO if they’re going to restrict MY freedoms to fix THEIR problems. Fuck that. If that is the “real” reason they want this ban (and it isn’t of course), then they are subjugating Americans’ rights for SOME OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY. That’s wanton dereliction of duty as a US Congressman and POTUS.

I don’t know which is more offensive to me–that they are trying to mess with my freedom, or that they’re using violence in another fucking country to justify messing with my freedoms.

It would be a much more appropriate response to penalize the gun shops they seem to have traced the weapons to. Hell, if they could trace the weapons back to the gun shops then it should be no problem whatsoever to set up a little sting operation for illegals buying weapons and funnelling them across the border.

We’d get to strike against illegal firearm sales, immigration problems, and mexican drug dealer violance all in one blow. But Nooooo.[/quote]

Remember when the democrats were accusing Bush of using 9/11 to justify “restricting their freedoms?”

What do we hear from them now?

Crickets.

Hypocrites.

56

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?

Because the goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves.[/quote]

Best answer ever. Fucking headcrabs.

57

[quote]hedo wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

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.

Wow. I can’t believe she would be to the right of Obama on this. Shocking.

[/quote]

Maybe the only thing she’s ever done that I agree with. I did not see that coming.

58

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The Ruger Mini-14: one of the many dangerous “assault weapons” specifically named in the latest bill

Cockney Blue wrote:
What actually defines an assault weapon that would be banned by the bill?

The bill that I referenced in my previous thread would ban, in addition to a great number of specific weapons identified by name:

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a pistol grip;
(iv) a forward grip; or
(v) a barrel shroud.

(E)
(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has–
(i) a second pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a barrel shroud; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip;
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

(K) A conversion kit.

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

In other words, practically any semi-automatic firearm, or its receiver.

[/quote]

OK, and are these types of guns more likely to be involved in a crime or the killing of an innocent person?

Seems to me, these are the kind of guns that an enthusiast would buy. An enthusiast is likely to look after their gun collection and be professionally trained how to play with it.

If I am a stick up artist looking to rob convenience stores to fund my habbit I probably don’t have the money to buy a flashy weapon. I am going to get the cheapest thing I can lay my hands on that will scare a teller into handing over the cash.

As has already been mentioned, the criminals who might be buying this type of weapon (rich drug gangs) have the money to lay their hands on weapons that are already illegal so this legislation would appear to be mainly aimed at taking showy guns away from enthusiasts.

Seems very politically motivated. Most of the people who own this type of gun wouldn’t vote Dem anyway. Whereas the people who would be likely to see this as an important step in advancing gun control might just be on the other side of the fence.

59

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
The Ruger Mini-14: one of the many dangerous “assault weapons” specifically named in the latest bill

Cockney Blue wrote:
What actually defines an assault weapon that would be banned by the bill?

The bill that I referenced in my previous thread would ban, in addition to a great number of specific weapons identified by name:

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a pistol grip;
(iv) a forward grip; or
(v) a barrel shroud.

(E)
(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has–
(i) a second pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel;
(iii) a barrel shroud; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has–
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip;
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

(K) A conversion kit.

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.

In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

In other words, practically any semi-automatic firearm, or its receiver.

OK, and are these types of guns more likely to be involved in a crime or the killing of an innocent person?

Seems to me, these are the kind of guns that an enthusiast would buy. An enthusiast is likely to look after their gun collection and be professionally trained how to play with it.

If I am a stick up artist looking to rob convenience stores to fund my habbit I probably don’t have the money to buy a flashy weapon. I am going to get the cheapest thing I can lay my hands on that will scare a teller into handing over the cash.

As has already been mentioned, the criminals who might be buying this type of weapon (rich drug gangs) have the money to lay their hands on weapons that are already illegal so this legislation would appear to be mainly aimed at taking showy guns away from enthusiasts.

Seems very politically motivated. Most of the people who own this type of gun wouldn’t vote Dem anyway. Whereas the people who would be likely to see this as an important step in advancing gun control might just be on the other side of the fence.[/quote]

cockney,

Since you live in England (correct me if wrong), you have a unique perspective that I think we could benefit from.

It might be enlightening to hear your personal experience of gun laws gone hay-wire.

JeffR

60

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
hedo wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

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.

Wow. I can’t believe she would be to the right of Obama on this. Shocking.

Maybe the only thing she’s ever done that I agree with. I did not see that coming.[/quote]

She doesn’t want to repeat Clinton’s folly, thus losing the House.

Pelosi for president.