home

Obama to Reintroduce Assault Weapons Ban

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:25:44 PM EST
Tags: assault weapons ban (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Attorney General Eric Holder today said the Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban and a ban on "cop killer" bullets.

"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."

Just a few?

< Holder Trumpets Continuation of War on Drugs | President Obama Unveils Aspects Of Budget Proposal >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama to Reintroduce Assault Weapons Ban | 128 comments (128 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:06:36 PM EST
    I come from a country where guns are pretty much illegal, and I like that. I also realize that this would not be possible in the US. Guns are here to stay, and I don't care all that much, given that I don't see a way to do anything about it. I also think that the 2nd amendment is a weird, outdated item. The more fanatical 2nd amendment advocates remind me of people who take the bible literally.

    Anyway, about the "assault" weapons ban itself: the previous version was nonsense. It had nothing to do with assault weapons, and didn't outlaw anything (you just had to buy, say, higher capacity magazines second-hand, perfectly legally). It was all political grandstanding.

    If Obama wants to enact some useless gun legislation, just to say that he did, whatever.

    Oh, forgot to mention.. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:10:29 PM EST
    While I thought the previous "assault weapons" ban was nonsense, I definitely would support a cop killer bullet ban.


    Parent
    so, apparently, (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:09:29 AM EST
    While I thought the previous "assault weapons" ban was nonsense, I definitely would support a cop killer bullet ban.

    did the majority of the nation's law enforcement professionals.

    Parent

    You are the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:16:11 AM EST
    first person here to call the professionals.  I guess it depends on the thread.  
    Just about  any high power rifle bullet will penetrate the vest the police wear.  You want to ban hunting ammo also?  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#126)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:03:03 AM EST

    Virtually every 30-06 deer hunting round will go through a bulletproof vest designed to stop pistol rounds.  BTW, there are pistols that will chamber and fire rifle rounds.  They are not very common single shot weapons largely used in competition shooting.

    Parent
    Good (4.87 / 8) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:26:41 PM EST
    I think this is just going to be one of the things I'm going to have to disagree with you about Jeralyn.

    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    Assault weapons and "cop killer" ammo have no practical application other than killing people, IMHO.  

    You don't use them for hunting and you don't use them for sport shooting.  

    I don't think that a "ban" is going to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people though.  

    Parent

    Define "assault weapon" for me ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:15:16 AM EST
    ...please.

    Parent
    And why (none / 0) (#26)
    by Munibond on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:35:31 AM EST
    the distinction between assault weapons and ordinary handguns, if the main purpose of either category is to shoot other human beings?


    Parent
    Here's the basic difference. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:51:33 AM EST
    A single gunman can effectively lay down suppressive fire, and successfully assault a position that would otherwise require support fire from a squad based LMG.  

    That's the military function of the  StG44, M16 or AK47.  Then you get into self loading rifles and automaic fire and it's all a hazy blur.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    Let's not blur it too much.  Fully automatic weapons are already illegal.

    Parent
    You can modify a self loading rifle... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:11:35 AM EST
    ...to fire full automatic.  

    A lot of enthusiasts can also do this already.  The line between the two mechanisms is hazy.  Anyway, this is a big waste of time on Obama's part. It'll just cost him votes in the midterm.

    Parent

    You don't have to have a fully automatic (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:01:20 AM EST
    weapon to be able to lay down supression fire.

    Parent
    however you realistically need... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    ...more than one rifleman if you don't have fully automatic fire coming rom someone in your group.  Even if it is a self loading rifle the psychological effect(as well as the firepower) is considerably lessened.

    As steve rightly pointed out automatic fire is banned fgor civilian use.

    Parent

    I recently saw video (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    of an AWOL marine laying down suppression fire with something semi-automatic, happened in Modesto CA.  One of the police officers was exmilitary and realized what the gunman Raya was doing.  Two other officers though who arrived separately on the scene did not understand the tactics he was using, and they were coming in from the other direction too.  So Raya was able to hold off one officer from one direction and then using suppression fire techniques killed the other two officers who both arrived separately on the scene.  He then escaped down an alley.  If you know how to do it and you are willing to test how bulletproof you could be, serious serious damage can be done.

    Parent
    You Remind Me (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    Of that infamous bank robbery in California in the nineties where the two robbery suspects swathed themselves in body armor and, cornered by the police, engaged in a lengthy and bullet saturated shootout on the street, all captured live by tv helicopter cameras, of course.

    Non gun person, I...what a chilling spectacle that was.

    Wiki entry about it describes the guns the two suspects were using as 'fully-automatic rifles loaded with armor-piercing ammunition...' and estimates that'...approximately 650 rounds were fired at [the] two heavily armed and heavily armored men, who had fired 1,100 rounds themselves.'

    Then there was the chilling aftermath of one of the suspects being left to bleed to death on the street where he was left lying for an hour...

    Parent

    His dying in the street (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    Was by far the least chilling moment.  It was a relief.  I remember his mother trying to sue because he was left to die.  Now THAT was moxi.  Your kid, without a whit of concern for any innocent people he might murder, sprays enough bullets to kill hundreds, in a situation where no one knew, really, what the whole situation was, and you expect people to sacrifice their lives so he can get timely medical care.  I remember thinking that she must have raised her kid with the same kind of logic.  What's weirder is it kind of resembled that, then comical (to me anyway), shootout in downtown L.A. in the DeNiro/Pacino movie HEAT.

    Parent
    It Was ALL Chilling (none / 0) (#76)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    including the way the gunmen were outarmed compared with the police for so long.

    But yeah, when I hear substantive reports that "indicate that [the wounded gunman] was lying on the pavement with no weapons for approximately an hour before ambulances arrived." I feel outrage because I think we're better than that as a nation and that should be reflected in stress situations like this when it often is not.

    If there was still danger, or the reasonable concern of danger then of course I don't expect emergency responders to risk their lives. There was evidence that there was no remaining threat and that it was obvious there was none, certainly inside an hour.

    Parent

    however the marine didn't... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    ...assault their position did he?  

    if he'd had a Minimi handy he'd have charged into them while firing and sent them packing instead of defending a position of his own and picking off the cops and running off.

    This anecdote ought to be filed under PTSD among veterans though. Depressing use of his training.  The cops were probably ex service men in some cases as well.

    Parent

    He did assault the first officer's position (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    on the scene, the only officer to survive.  Let's face it though, we have all witnessed suppression fire tech training since we started watching cowboy flicks and they were covering each other.  I had never witnessed actual suppression fire used by someone in reality though whether they were single or alone.  I had never seen someone just fire into the whites of the opposition eyes and freak everyone out while killing them at the same time.

    Parent
    Call it an assault rifle. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    and you will be dealing with a different argument from the pedants.

    Parent
    Here's the first working definition... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    ...sturmgewehr 44.

    http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/stg44.asp

    Anything with those specs is essentially a military weapon...

    however I am surprized that obama is bothering with this. It'll hurt him in the midterms in a very dramatic way.

    Parent

    Define cop (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:13:31 AM EST
    killer ammo.  

    Parent
    Bullets designed to defeat kevlar vests? (none / 0) (#55)
    by JoeA on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:35:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Most (none / 0) (#85)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    hunting rounds can do that.

    Parent
    I read recently that the (none / 0) (#70)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    assault weapons ban during the Clinton years had some correlational data to support their ban.  Drug killings with those lethal weapons actually did go down. Of course all crime went down as well.  Sorry I don't have a link.

    Parent
    I'm not surprised but just remember (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:32:07 PM EST
    The Second Amendment is one away from the Fourth. I'm not in favor of relinquishing any constitutional rights voluntarily -- Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

    (The Third Amendment doesn't count, it's obsolete.)

    Parent

    Oh, I support the Second Amendment (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:35:00 PM EST
    and might even join your militia! ;-)

    Seriously, I think Obama is being an utter hypocrite if he supports reauthorizing the AWB. He claimed during the campaign that he believes that there is an individual right to bear arms.

    I do not believe that there is or should be.

    Parent

    I will forever be grateful (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    Axelrod and Plouffe didn't let Obama do a hunting photo-op.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    They learned from Kerry. . .

    Parent
    That's not why Kerry lost. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:03:52 AM EST
    Also, teh press did actually like Obama.  They had their orders.

    Parent
    Until the Supreme Court reverses ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:20:43 AM EST
    ...itself in D.C. v. Heller, there is such a right.

    Parent
    True (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:05:39 AM EST
    I meant to say that I don't think that's what the Constitution says.

    Parent
    I also think it's interesting (none / 0) (#27)
    by Chatham on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:36:49 AM EST
    That everyone agrees that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, but read the second amendment as the right to keep and bear guns.

    Parent
    i hate to break the news (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:07:38 AM EST
    to you jeralyn,

    I'm not in favor of relinquishing any constitutional rights voluntarily -- Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

    but you're about 80 years late (give or take a few) to this issue. the USSC already decided that the second amendment didn't confer an absolute right to personal ownership of weapons, of all sorts, by outlawing the manufacture, distribution and sales of fully automatic weapons to civilians.

    in fact, there's a whole range of weapons that civilians are legally precluded from owning in this country: ground-to-air missiles, bazookas, fully operational tanks, the odd f-16, etc, etc, etc.

    so, it would seem that your position, that there exists, in the second amendment, an absolute right of individuals to own weapons and ammunition, bears little weight with the supremes.

    methinks it bore little weight with the author's either, but that's mere speculation on my part.

    the problem you (and other absolutists) have, is that once you say, "well, i do think "joe sixpack" shouldn't be allowed to own fully automatic weapons.", then your entire position collapses, on top of its foundation of loose sand.

    Parent

    Of course, there is no absolute right ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:25:00 AM EST
    ...on anything. The First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law ..." notwithstanding.

    Parent
    agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    Of course, there is no absolute right ... ...on anything. The First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law ..." notwithstanding.

    which makes the whole argument, regarding the second amendment, bogus on its face. it seems self evident that the author's of the constitution devised a framework for a civilized society, where the government was subordinate to the governed, not vice versa.

    however, nowhere in the document, or the original ten amendments, does it state or imply, absolute rights to individuals, the states, the federal government, or anyone else. it just doesn't. the author's weren't stupid, if that's what they'd intended, they'd have stated it. they didn't. to do so would clearly result in anarchy and chaos, the polar opposite intended by the document.

    they insured this by creating three separate, yet equal branches, in constant tension, specifically for the purpose of avoiding absolutism, by any one of them. the natural consequence being the avoidance of absolutism of the individual citizen.

    Parent

    So where do you draw the line then? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:24:41 AM EST
    Do we as individuals have right to keep machine guns, flamethrowers, ICBMs, nukes?

    I am not saying I can draw the line but I can say in my view assault weapons and cop killer bullets should be on the prohibited side of it.  If there is any part of the Constitution I believe should be subjected to originalist interpretation it is the Second Amendment.  Single shot muskets and pistols are a far cry from the weaponry available today.

    As for the War on Drugs, what a waste. Legalize all of them for adults, like liquor.  I think it is absurd for anyone to believe the only thing between your average American and heroin addiction is the illegality of the drug.

    Parent

    I personally like having access to 50 caliber (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    weapons.  There's just something very reassuring about knowing that if I'm having a bad day I can  drive near the airport and shoot an airbus out of the sky if I want.

    Parent
    Teh FBI word tracker's gonna get ya. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:02:31 AM EST
    I like the idea of a personal 40mm cannon.  it'll stop anything short of a tank...and the more exotic ammunition designed for it probably could knock the plates off chobham these days.

    Parent
    They're going to have us all :) (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:09:15 AM EST
    You know what's sad?  And WE DID NOT DO THIS, but it was given out to us as an option by one of my family members who buys and sells guns as a place to sock some savings in these very crazy times.  I fear my cousin will be correct also, but his suggestion was for us to purchase 50 caliber Barretts.  They will not remain legal forever......Jesus, they should have never been legal but I digress....and once you can't make any new purchases he says that the worth of that weapon will skyrocket.  My husband and I talked about it, made our skin crawl though, decided we'd rather be poor.

    Parent
    how much? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:25:42 AM EST
    6 grand?  That's a fair deal.

    where the hell would you practice though?  That bullet would never stop.

    Parent

    The key was to never practice (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    The guns were to remain pristine and a creepy but likely very profitable investment.

    Parent
    personally, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:28:55 AM EST
    i prefer a portable, 20mm, rapid-fire cannon. the ammo's a bit pricey, but by god, when you hit something, it stays hit!

    my second choice would be an electric mini-gun, with the AC/DC option. chambered for a 5.56mm round, these puppies can put out up to 6,000 rounds a minute. mounted on the front end of my car, i wait for some jerk to cut in front of me on 95! you can bet he'll never do that again! it also makes a great hunting weapon. though it takes a while to get all the lead out of the deer, the meat is pre-tenderized. :)

    Parent

    Tracy, Salo, Cpinva...... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    may I say that you guys are scaring the cr*p out of me! I can't tell one gun from another let alone what could blow something out of the sky or go through a bullet proof vest.

    As for you Cpinva....the day you decide to mount whatever it is you are talking about on the front end of your car, please let me know. I would like to send you info on the make, model and license plates nos of my vehicles along with pictures of my pup who always travels with me. I take 95 from NJ to SC atleast once a month, so if someday I cut in front of you while I am cruising through VA please don't hurt us... :-)!

    Parent

    I am not a gun owner. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    I can't easily imagine wanting to own my own either.  So don't be scared.

    Parent
    Just stay away from Taser. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    Too lethal.

    Parent
    i'd prefer it if this great faker.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:55:37 AM EST
    ...would leave alone the gun issue and concentrate on providing universal healthcare.

    All the crap I took on Dkos questioning this guy almost seems worth it now. His priorities are so out of whack. bail out the banks, leave the manuacturers in the lurch, make noises about weapons, keep the war going, escalate in Aghanistan, keep the secret prisons going... Obama really is Mr Seamless Transition.

    Parent

    Wow. That's a strong condemnation (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:30:13 AM EST
    (not that I haven't been thinking along those lines).  Meanwhile, DK seems fixated on Jindal.

    Parent
    Why not apply the originalist ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    ...interpretation to the First Amendment. Pamphlets and hand-set newspapers are a far cry from flash drives, mobile phones and the Internet.

    Parent
    Here's why (none / 0) (#79)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:29:47 PM EST
    I think 1st Amendment jurisprudence has, to a much greater degree than the minimal2nd Amendment jurisprudence, kept up with the times.  As an earlier poster noted, no rights are absolute.

    And as BTD reminded us in quoting CJ Marshall yesterday from his McCullough v. Maryland opinion, we must remember it is a Constution that is being expounded upon.

    There's also the quote that I cannot without more research than I have time for accurately attribute about the Constitution not being a suicide pact.

    Parent

    "I am not saying I can draw the line" (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    I am not saying I can draw the line but I can say in my view assault weapons [cross the line]
    What, exactly, is it about AW's that bothers you?

    Parent
    sure (none / 0) (#78)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    lethality, pure and simple.  No other purpose than to use on fellow humans

    Parent
    What specifically about AW's (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    do you feel makes them so devastatingly more lethal than other rifles?

    Parent
    I think this is great (4.85 / 7) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:18:11 AM EST
    You can't hunt with assault weapons if you want to have anything to eat afterwards.  They take all the fun and challenge out of target practice.  The only way you would need one to defend yourself is if China decides to invade us and I don't see that happening.  I'm with Wes Clark on this.  If you want assault weapons he has a job for you.

    You are against it why? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    Do you have stats on the numbers of crimes committed with "assault weapons"?

    Parent
    We can argue but hasn't this (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    issue been argued into the ground?  I would like to simply agree that we disagree.  I can't imagine how you can change my mind about this and I can't imagine how I can change yours.

    Parent
    Something needs to be done (4.75 / 4) (#23)
    by Munibond on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:12:56 AM EST
    to reduce gun violence, but I'm not sure the ban on assault weapons will get us there.  by way of recent example, people ought to be able to watch a Mardi Gras parade in broad daylight at the corner of St. Charles and 2nd without getting shot.  The threat of immediate arrest and incarceration didn't seem to be much of a disincentive to those teenage perps.  To this non-gun owning, non-criminal lawyer prevention through restriction on availability of guns makes sense.

    I heard about the Mardi Gras shooting (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:21:31 AM EST
    Terrible.....shot a baby and two teenagers and two very young women along with adults.  Seems like they just sprayed.

    Parent
    lol spraying... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    ...a euphemism that doesn't quite describe reality. he peppered the crowd...ejaculated the rounds...collateral damage...Christ, we can't even call it what it is.

    Parent
    'Ejaculated the Rounds' (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by daring grace on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    Whoa, never heard it quite worded that way before.

    Apt, though.

    Parent

    Or have your angry 11 year old (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    kill his stepmom because he didn't like her and there were plenty of guns in the home.

    Parent
    Won't fly. (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:58:27 PM EST
    Too many Dem. Senators from 2nd Amendment States. Hence, stupid politics.

    Don't be so sure (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:06:06 PM EST
    of that/

    Parent
    Extending the AWB... (none / 0) (#16)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:14:12 AM EST
    was probably a far safer position than voting for an entirely new one. Even Bush said he would sign it if congress passed it, didn't he? I wouldn't be surprised to see us lose congress again if another AWB were passed under Obama.  This is an issue where a lot of people who don't even own guns will side with the 2A crowd, and we can't sit here crying foul over Bush eroding our rights when Obama is going to turn around and do the same thing.

    Parent
    This is excellent news! (4.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:46:48 AM EST
    I'm liking this administration more every day.

    with the direction of the economy (4.50 / 2) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    and unemployment and foreclosures, oh my -- you might be well advised to stock up on assault weapons and good bullets to protect yoursef from the impending crime wave.  

    Of course, Bernanke and POTUS would have us believe that the worst is about over.  But then again, I think their incomes are relatively secure.

    And their bodyguards... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    will continue to be allowed to possess assault weapons.

    No worries!  It's good to be an inner party...a prole, not so much.


    Parent

    I am really frightened (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:13:01 AM EST
    For this summer.

    It is gonna be really violent once the weather gets warm...

    I regret the day I ever discovered the difference in sound between fireworks and gunshots.  It was so much easier to pretend.

    I have no personal problem with this ban.  I am a little worried it will expend precious political capitol on something unnaffective.  But other than that, it doesn't really bother me.  My state banned them already in 2004.  Not that it made much difference.  NH is a 30 min. drive away.

    Parent

    I am for a ban in Chicago (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:28:27 AM EST
    as we haven been struggling with violent crime for years. I am not big on gun control in general even though I would not consider owning one now (I would say never but that would be silly), but would love to see policy that takes into consideration big city variables.  

    Parent
    gun issues (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    in cities are so completely different from gun issues in rural/suburban areas.

    I mean, I have shot a gun, in the country, for target practice.  It was wonderful stress relief, and I found out I am a pretty good shot.

    I would never own a gun in the city though.  Too many variables.  Way more likely to be used against me - and if someone was trying to rob me - I'd give them what they wanted and hope they leave me alone.  As far as I know, no one wants to kill me, and I hope to keep it that way.  I couldn't pull the trigger even if I had a gun pointed at a person.

    The problem with gun laws, is they aren't very effective.  Too many guns involved in violent crime are illegal anyway.  But yea, I wish the "2nd amendment" crowd would at least be honest about the fact that people are not buying guns to hunt when they live in the city.

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    i cannot recall reading any stories of late in our local rags that say "the gun used in the murder was purchased legally".

    I have many relatives down south who hunt regularly and I appreciate their rights to do so.  The issue is bigger than my brain but it simply does not make sense here in the city.


    Parent

    What is wrong with the ban on assault rifle (4.50 / 2) (#96)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    I mean think about. Do we want people to have enough fire power to lay siege to a school or a town.
     I agree that people have a right to own a gun, but does that really have to include assault rifles.

    Define (none / 0) (#97)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    assault rifle.

    Parent
    for me (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nyjets on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    Any weapon that
    1. Is standard issue by the military.
    2. Can shoot large amount of bullets at once ie. machine gun.

    I know that this is somewhat oversimplified, but I would think that assault rifles should be obivous to define.

    Parent
    Those that think so have generally (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    not looked into the definition much.

    Not a snark, I think you've really got to have a working knowledge of weapons and the definitions to get a handle on the issue.

    Parent

    Those have (none / 0) (#112)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    been illegal to own since the 20's.  

    Parent
    It gets complicated when one starts to (none / 0) (#100)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    modify certain kinds of guns and makes them  semi-automatic and beyond.  I read about it once and it seemed clear on principle to me. The modifying details are quite clever, often created with the idea of skirting certain kinds of restrictions.  Once you make the weapon more automatic the hunted animals become inedible, and humans in the city go down a whole lot faster and in greater numbers.  So those cute little pistols of the 1930's don't even figure in this dialogue.

    Parent
    Semi-automatics are quite common (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    and are not under the definition of assault weapon.

    Parent
    Too bad!! (none / 0) (#123)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 12:46:48 AM EST


    Parent
    It sounds to me like you don't have any idea (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:46:19 AM EST
    what a semi-auto weapon is.

    Parent
    Is that so? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:55:34 AM EST
    The last AWB targeted scary looking semiautomatics and normal capacity magazines.  The "ban" was a bit of a joke, as only manufacture and importation were banned.  

      Srangely all of the components of a magazine like this were OK to manufacture as replacement parts.  It was against the law to buy all the parts and assemble.  For all practical purposes and obvious reasons this was uninforceable.  Passing an uninforceable law is bad practice on many levels.


    Parent

    Fair enough. I should have written that (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    semi-autos are very common and they're not, as a category, under the definition of assault weapon.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#117)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    but do we really have a problem with people laying siege to towns with assault rifles?

    Parent
    Occasionally... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    I read about SWAT teams with assault weapons breaking down the wrong door...that kind of siege?

    Parent
    The canary in a coal mine (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:12:33 AM EST
    what is next, the gov't telling you what to listen to on the radio?  

    Done. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:15:24 AM EST
    They've been selling the public airwaves to fewer and fewer corps for years now.

    Parent
    Not a fan (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:12:33 AM EST
    Even setting aside the Second Amendment, the AWB is 100% useless as public policy.  Its sole purpose is to make legislators look like they care about gun control.

    Between this... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:23:29 AM EST
    and all this nationalization talk, and the shady national guard excercises being planned...the Alex Jones New World Order crew's collective heads are going to explode...and I've got half a mind to join 'em.

    I got no love for guns at all, never even held one and hope I never have to...but this ban will accomplish about as much as the war on drugs has in regards to the availability of the prohibited product...aka nada.  We can't uninvent assault weapons, as much as we'd like to...I sure as hell don't want government agents to be the only ones allowed to have them...especially with the threat of society-wide collapse on the rise.

    the threat of societal collapse (none / 0) (#30)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:31:19 AM EST
    is an argument for banning AW.  Imagine unemployed, desperate folks with no idea how they will eat there next meal walking around with assault weapons.  

    I believe it is society's (read all of us) responsiblity to insure children in particular are fed and housed.  Unfortunately, in our society my views are not always reflective of government policy. Imagine a society where people are unable to feed their kids, unable to find work AND have access to assault weapons.

    It should be easy to imagine as every day that passes we move closer and closer to exactly that society.
     

    Parent

    A government argument... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    for banning maybe, so they can continue their job of protecting wealth...do the people really want the state to be the only ones allowed to have them in a breakdown scenario?  Or more apt, just the government, the rich, and the black market connected?  

    Important to remember that a ban doesn't make the weapons disappear no more so than drug prohibition makes drugs disappear...it only serves as a hassle for the good otherwise law abiding people to get what they want, and imo  have every right to have.

    Parent

    Excuse me, but... (none / 0) (#45)
    by cowcommander on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    Exactly HOW is someone who is unable to feed their kids or have a job going to be able to afford that scary "assault weapon" in the first place?

    And if they wanted a gun, they'd go for the cheapest alternative, that being HANDGUNS. Not scary-looking rifles, but a cheap, easily concealed handgun.

    Parent

    If you absolutely... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Salo on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:22:59 AM EST
    ...need to kill everyone in the room accept no substitute for the AK47.

    Parent
    So you give up (none / 0) (#73)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    your right to self defense and rely totally on the gov't.  They'll let you know when to disagree.

    Parent
    To bring about the greatest change in my lifetime (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    and remedy some of history's greatest injustices, MLK Jr and millions of his brave colleagues did not rely on so much as a water pistol.

    Parent
    Good for (none / 0) (#86)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    them.  You relyt on a water pistol, but don't tell me what to rely on.

    Parent
    Strawman. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Thanin on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:49:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Good lord. (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    the threat of societal collapse is an argument for banning AW.


    Parent
    That's right,, rattle the 'gun nut's' cages (none / 0) (#66)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    Make the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' come true. Force all those might have been allies (not all weapons owners are 'gun nuts', folks) who view weapons ownership as a cornerstone of safety against a government that is toying with tyranny (PATRIOT Act, anyone? How about a little 'MCA" to go along with it?) into the ranks of your ideological enemies. Real bright, blindingly so. /snark

    Jeez, just out of the starting gate and the new Administration's stumbling badly. And this was a singularly dumb move...

    Personally (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    I am much, much less interested in the weaponry, than forming a militia. By my reading of the second, a militia should be set up and maintained before getting into the weaponry.

    Odd, to me, (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    that we should ban the specific arms that would seem best suited for use in the militia that the 2nd Amendment references.

    Not Really (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    I am the only one in this thread who is interested in forming a militia. Everyone else just wants their toys or to ban the toys.

    So by that logic the needs of a militia are for most tangential, or for arguments sake.

    Parent

    OK, not odd to you. Different strokes... (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:36:21 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    The whole thing is odd to me. If the point of these guns is to arm a well maintained militia, where are the militias.

    Talking about guns and bans of guns seems to be putting the cart before the horse to me. We should be talking about forming our militias well before considering how to arm them.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    imo, it seems much more logical to have an armed populace from which you can quickly assemble militias if & when need be, than gather a militia and then go get arms.

    If I want to get some guys together to play some baseball it seems a lot more practical to assemble a group of guys who already have gloves and bats and stuff rather than gathering a group of guys who have nothing and then going and buying the equipment.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:41:12 PM EST
    According to the constitution the Militia is not supposed to be a "pickup" Militia but a "well regulated" militia.

    The way I see it is that once the Militia is well regulated it is time to start looking at arming options.

    Parent

    So unusual to disagree with you. ;-) (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    § 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are--
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    That is not my militia. And if it is yours you do not have to worry about arms. They will be provided.

    Parent
    I guess I've been shafted, then. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    I'm part of the militia but no one's provided me any arms...

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    If I were you, I would write an letter, or start your own militia. That one seems crappy.

    Parent
    I'm cool with it. (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    I provided for myself long ago...

    Parent
    Hamilton Disagrees (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:40:54 PM EST
    A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[40]

    Wiki

    Sounds like belonging to a "well regulated militia", would be an inconvenience to you.  

    Parent

    Hamilton disagrees with what, exactly? (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:50:20 PM EST


    Parent
    That Your Militia (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    Is well regulated.

    Parent
    Well, first of all it's not my militia (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    it's our militia - the US Militia - according to the US Code.

    And secondly, if you really think that the 2nd's authors were saying that only the people who are members of a well regulated militia are the people who have the right to keep and bear arms, and not that the people, as a whole, have the right to keep and bear arms so that a well regulated militia may be composed of them, well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the Supremes.

    Parent

    Not My Militia (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    As I read the 2nd the militia has to be independent of the government, so that in case they act like the english did, we the people have recourse.

    And bear arms has zero to do with hunting. As it is pointed out in wiki, when you point a gun at a rabbit you are not bearing arms.
    It is exclusively a term used in fighting militias, armies the like.

    Parent

    "Not My Militia" (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    US Code disagrees with you.
    And bear arms has zero to do with hunting.
    Complete non-sequitur.

    Parent
    Actually, not be pedantic, (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:35:58 PM EST
    but I think a more clear statement would be:

    And secondly, if you really think that the 2nd's authors were saying that only the people who are members of a well regulated militia are the people who have the right to keep and bear arms, and not that the people, as a whole, have the right to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is composed of them, well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the Supremes.


    Parent
    The Issue Of Hunting (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    Is a separate one as far as I can tell. Bearing arms is about fighting. And yes, it would appear that the steps leading up to bearing arms would be

    1. Form a militia.

    2. Arm the militia

    3. Regulate the militia IOW, rigorously train them on a regular basis, much like a top athletic team.

    4. Bear arms in defense of the government or other armed groups who would try to take your constitutional rights away.


    Parent
    I agree that hunting's a separate issue, (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 04:49:46 PM EST
    that's why I haven't said a word about it. Not sure why you brought it up.

    As for your reptitious response of 1-4, albeit with numbers this time, again:

    If you really think that the 2nd's authors were saying that only the people who are members of a well regulated militia are the people who have the right to keep and bear arms, and not that the people, as a whole, have the right to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is composed of them, well, I guess you'll have to take that up with the Supremes.

    Parent

    Hunting (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    Is the subtext of this issue. The ban on assault weapons and armor piercing bullets is discussed in this tread as unnecessary because rabbits don't wear kevlar, etc.

    And I do think that the first clause is an ablative absolute and the right to bear arms is inextricably dependent on it.

    And if I really cared in any other that a theoretical way, I would argue my right to form a militia. The rest is a give, imo.

    One thing is clear and that is you cannot form a militia independent of the government. What good is that? It defeats the whole point of the 2nd amendment, imo.

    Parent

    Well, now you've gone on some tangents (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:07:56 PM EST
    that aren't really my bag. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what the 2nd says.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:12:32 PM EST
    Forming a militia independent of the government  is a tangent? That is hilarious. It is fundamentally germane to the amendment.

    I guess it is all about no work and all play when it comes to gun ownership round these parts. All hobbyists no doubt.

    Parent

    If you say so. (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 05:21:43 PM EST


    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#120)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 06:07:17 PM EST
    it's rare that I would disagree with you in favor of the often logic-impaired squeaky.  But you seem to be making contradictory arguments here.

    Of course the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to more than just the members of a militia.  But then you can't turn around and say, hey, a good reason to let those non-militia members have assault weapons is because those are the weapons best suited to a militia.

    Parent

    Well, I wasn't conciously (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    putting the two together, but, since you point it out...

    I'm not arguing that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to more than just the members of a militia. That's your statement.

    Perhaps I'm the only one who sees a difference, but my statement is that the 2nd guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the people, as a whole, because that's who composes our militia - the people.

    As I write this it is interesting that that ties in very well with my off-the-cuff observation that the AW ban bans the people from keeping and bearing those very arms that would be most useful to one serving in a militia.

    Parent

    Nice Drive By (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 08:43:27 PM EST
    From the oft racist supporting Steve M.

    Parent
    Make No Mistake! (none / 0) (#128)
    by re223 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:26:24 PM EST
    These so called "assault weapons" are simply civilian semi-automatic firearms with a military look. They shoot 100% identically to many hunting rifles and average target shooting long arms. They do not and never will spray bullets that could take out multiple targets with one sweep. They are meant for taking well-placed shots, not for combat. These types of firearms have absolutely nothing to do with the crimes taking place on the Mexican boarder. You'd have to be one heck of a salesman to smuggle guns into Mexico and then try to convince the drug cartels that your semi-automatic "assault rifles" are superior to their fully automatic machine guns and explosives. If Mexicans were armed with these semi-automatic civilian arms, we wouldn't have this boarder problem because the fight would be over in no time or there wouldn't be a fight at all. Statistics show that since the original assault weapons ban expired in '04, these readily available firearms are used in a fraction of 1% of all violent crimes in the US. It's all just another excuse for the government to strip our rights out from under us. How can they even think up such nonsense while our country is in economic turmoil?! Everyone that takes pride in their Constitution which is the foundation of our great nation, please do something about this and join the NRA today before it's too late! They need us and we definitely need them. They are our best hope to victory.

    Obama to Reintroduce Assault Weapons Ban | 128 comments (128 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment