Obama Seeks 'Assault' Weapons Ban

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Varqanir 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.

Okay, but explain to me how a ban on the sale and ownership of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in the United States is going to do anything whatsoever to prevent fully-automatic rifles and submachine guns from being illegally smuggled in from Mexico.

Or how it will discourage criminals, who are the primary recipients of these illegally smuggled weapons, from owning them.

Dude, this is the equivalent of banning the sale and use of Alpha Male and TRIBEX because of the illegal trafficking of Test and Dianabol from Mexico.[/quote]

No, go back and read the article, there’s nothing about anyone smuggling guns in from Mexico, just the opposite.

The point is that dirtbag gun shop owners who will sell anything to anyone just to make a buck give the gun control crowd just the foot in the door they need to try and get a ban in place.

This George Iknadosian guy in that article doesn’t give a shit about your or anyone elses rights, he’s more than willing to deny gun rights to anyone as long as he can move a few more pieces.

So maybe the gun industry should do a better job of policing itself and shutting down the shady fucks like Iknadosian before they create a problem that someone like Holder wants to fix with a gun ban.

Selling AK’s to Mexican drug cartels is just asking for some sort of eventual crackdown, but it might be a crackdown that will affect every gun owner.

62

This question is irrelevant because it validates the argument that weapons used by criminals to carry out crimes are somehow inherently more dangerous when, in fact magnitudes, and by that I literally mean 10s to 100s of thousands of law abiding citizens who own the same firearms and never maliciously injure others with them.

63

[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]

Not really it would be political suicide if she hadn’t. Midterm elections are coming up in another year and a half and congress already has a really low approval rating.

64

[quote]tme wrote:
No, go back and read the article, there’s nothing about anyone smuggling guns in from Mexico, just the opposite.[/quote]

I know. I admitted I fucked up, hence the edit.[quote]

The point is that dirtbag gun shop owners who will sell anything to anyone just to make a buck give the gun control crowd just the foot in the door they need to try and get a ban in place.

This George Iknadosian guy in that article doesn’t give a shit about your or anyone elses rights, he’s more than willing to deny gun rights to anyone as long as he can move a few more pieces.

So maybe the gun industry should do a better job of policing itself and shutting down the shady fucks like Iknadosian before they create a problem that someone like Holder wants to fix with a gun ban.

Selling AK’s to Mexican drug cartels is just asking for some sort of eventual crackdown, but it might be a crackdown that will affect every gun owner.

[/quote]

Well, let’s put it into perspective. On a larger scale, “dirtbag gun shop owners” are called “arms dealers.”

Just like “larceny” is called “taxation” and “organized crime” is called “government.”

But I see your point. My counterpoint is that just as Abbott Laboratories can’t police every shady pharmacist who sells Vicodin under the table to high school students, the “gun industry” certainly can’t be held responsible for the actions of some unscrupulous gun dealers.

How about the police police the gun dealers, and enforce the laws already on the books pertaining to selling weapons to ineligible people?

65

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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?[/quote]

Snitches are bitches.

67

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
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
[/quote]

Jeff: You were still in an undisclosed location when this gem of a thread had its day, so you probably missed it, but it should give you a good idea of Cockney’s unique perspective on the manner.

https://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/its_often_easier_to_kill_someone_with_a_gun_than_without_a_gun?id=2731875&pageNo=0

In his defense, it appears he has softened his stance a bit since then.

68

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

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.

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
[/quote]

Oh no, you didn’t!

69

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Oh no, you didn’t![/quote]

Oh, yes, he did.

70

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
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

Jeff: You were still in an undisclosed location when this gem of a thread had its day, so you probably missed it, but it should give you a good idea of Cockney’s unique perspective on the manner.

https://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/its_often_easier_to_kill_someone_with_a_gun_than_without_a_gun?id=2731875&pageNo=0

In his defense, it appears he has softened his stance a bit since then.
[/quote]

Ug.

But, it’s possible he was held-up at some point since then. The old, “Please don’t take my things” didn’t help.

Therefore, he’s starting to see the world from a different viewpoint.

It’s the same for all these Anti-Guatanamo pukes.

The very moment THEY are affected, they change their tune.

JeffR

71

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
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.

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
[/quote]

I live in Mexico. But in England you have a very different situation to the US. Within my lifetime, legal gun ownership has never been that much of an issue. You haven’t been able to use a gun in self defence in the last 70 or 80 years.

Gun crime is on the increase in the UK mainly due to guns brought in from Eastern European war zones. Along with gangs coming in from the same areas.

To the average Joe on the street, knives are probably more of a worry than guns.

Through a number of years spending time in some pretty rough areas I have only had a gun pulled on me once and that was by a total nutcase. I can’t think of anyone that I know who has been shot (other than my Grandad in North Africa during the second world war.)

72

How’d a border control issue get turned into a firearms issue in the first place. Can this be looked at as a “we aren’t planning to do jack about the border.” Have they thrown in the towel? Well, if you want to create 3 million jobs to keep more people employed, why not put them on the border?

73

[quote]pushharder wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

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

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

Pelosi for president.

Pure political expediency which in this case is a good thing.

I honestly cannot see how she could be this smart.[/quote]

Maybe I’m slightly off my proverbial rocker, but is anyone else noticing a pattern here?

On the Fairness Doctrine, the nationalizing of banks, and now the assault weapons ban:

First, a ranking Dem hints or directly says that they’re going to pass or push for such and such outrageous legislative bill/action.

Then, they watch while everyone on the right gets all hot and bothered, as news cycles to play out & anger builds, etc.

Finally, a higher ranking Dem recants/corrects the record and everyone on the right heaves a sigh of relief.

If true, it’s a rather intelligent PR move because it “softens up” the right for whatever else the dems actually intend to do legislatively - which might now appear relatively reasonable.

Crazy?

74

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Amazing how the only motherfuckers allowed to have guns are the ones who getem illegally.[/quote]

and the pigs…

75

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How’d a border control issue get turned into a firearms issue in the first place. Can this be looked at as a “we aren’t planning to do jack about the border.” Have they thrown in the towel? Well, if you want to create 3 million jobs to keep more people employed, why not put them on the border?[/quote]

The whole border thing is a total misdirection on this from what I can see.

76

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Oh no, you didn’t!

Oh, yes, he did.[/quote]

Look, I may not agree with the general principal that people need guns to protect themselves but if you have the law set up to allow guns then unless a specific set of guns is causing more problems than the others there is no reason that I can see to ban that set of guns other than to score political points.

77

[quote]hedo wrote:
Shouldn’t suprise anyone…except of course gun owners who voted for Obama.[/quote]

Yep, I told people about this.

78

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Amazing how the only motherfuckers allowed to have guns are the ones who getem illegally.

and the pigs…[/quote]

Yup. Armed swine. Terrifying.

79

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
How’d a border control issue get turned into a firearms issue in the first place. Can this be looked at as a “we aren’t planning to do jack about the border.” Have they thrown in the towel? Well, if you want to create 3 million jobs to keep more people employed, why not put them on the border?

The whole border thing is a total misdirection on this from what I can see. [/quote]

Why?

80

[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]

Exactly and very true. these are guns used for hunting in some states and target shooting matches such as high power rifle contests.