Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[WashingtonBay]

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=2)

The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.

By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Site/byline_abcnews.gif

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6905255&page=1) said today.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_assault_holder_090225_mn.jpg

Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
(AP Photos/ABC News Graphic )

"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.

~snipping out for now... the side issue of Mexican gun trafficking~

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=5256159&page=1), which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

(more at link)







Comment:

First... I think we who worried about this before the election were patted on the head and told not to worry so much because Obama didn't want to take our guns... :rolleyes:

But lets break down what's been proposed here:

"Gun show loophole" = no private sales or transfers without the federal government's permission and knowledge and probably.... approval, fees and taxes.

"Cop killer bullets" = A cutesy made up gun-grabber term for any ammo that can penetrate a cop's kevlar vest. This may mean lots of legitimate high powered hunting rifle ammo. Will need more clarification from those who know more than I do.

"Assault weapons ban permanent" = Ban scary looking ("scary looking" to be defined by people who don't know a thing about what they're looking at) semi-auto rifles.

[HoustonFarrier]

Excellent!!!! I'm SURE all of the drug lords, drug runners, and assorted criminals will be first in line to turn in their guns too !!!! LMFAO

From my cold, dead fingers.......

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Which is the best point of all.... those who have already decided to become criminals will not be foiled by more laws. These laws will only hinder those who do seek to be law abiding.

[AppyLover]

From my cold, dead fingers.......

I second this...

[WashingtonBay]

It should not be missed, even though I snipped that part of the article out for posting, that much of the "need" for these laws is because it's apparently the fault of our guns that Mexico is a dangerous and violent place.

Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4695848&page=1) have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

"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. OK - lets hope the lawmakers know more than reporters, or at least that someone along the way does... (riiiiiiight)

Automatic weapons and grenades are already "illegal" for all intents and purposes. Assault weapons sold today legally are semi-autos.

The thing that most bothers me when lawmakers are throwing these ideas around, is most don't know what they're talking about, or the difference between what they're banning and what they think they're banning.



Second, in the article, there is a report of this major raid on a Phoenix gun dealer who's been selling weapons to Mexican drug lords. This is the problem they hope to solve with new laws... He was breaking existing laws already, and they busted him.... already.

Enforce existing laws, then tell us when there's a situation you can't solve that way, before writing new ones.

[Tatesgram]

Enforce existing laws, then tell us when there's a situation you can't solve that way, before writing new ones.

And this is true for so many situations. Illegal immigrates, we don't need new laws, enoforce the ones we have. Just one example.

[twofingers]

what the news fails to point out is that those automatic-weapons are not M16. but AK47s and that the grenades are not the US M26 fragmentation but the Russian grenade. but maybe if both we and Mexico would enforce our boarder laws-oh wait those guns don't get into Mexico through our boarders but through the ports and up from Central and south America. and I don't know what gun shows you go to but the ones I attend WAC they do not sell to non-members and to join they run a records check right then and there. And I would also like to point out that I have never seen any baggy pants at any of these shows.

[twofingers]

Oh, if you can"t get to the gun show try this:

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Default.htm

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...] (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=2)
First... I think we who worried about this before the election were patted on the head and told not to worry so much because Obama didn't want to take our guns... :rolleyes:

[...]


They are over-reaching. It was easy to predict they'd do it, but I have to admit I'm surprised how fast they're doing it.

I mean... they've quadrupled the deficit in only four (4) weeks. I figured they'd take at least a year to do that.

I thought BHO studied Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals more closely than that. He's forgotten the chapter about how you have to boil the frog slowly.

[John Boy]

Assualt rifles are toys that aren't used for hunting ... so

The number one gun that unfortunately can not be removed from the society is the pistol.
To many > value than human life I am afraid.

[WashingtonBay]

Hunting has no bearing in the right to keep and bear arms.

And you're right. My pistol is my most valued possession, but I don't think it unfortunate. With it, I can protect everything else, including my life. Without it, I'm a victim.

[miatapony]

i still agree with Steve
COLD dead fingers !!
i dont think i can or will ever be with out a gun i even took one to JAPAN yes it was a riffle but still had one and still to this day have them and more. nope not goning to list them all with anyone ever !!

[WashingtonBay]

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




The weather in Hell is a little chilly today.... :popcorn:

[Remali]

I see nothing wrong having your ordinary gun......but who in the heck needs an assault rifle..... Geez.

[WashingtonBay]

Who needs any toy or hobby? Who needs cars that go more than 55 mph?

The fact is, the problem with assault rifles is mostly that they "look" scary. They are not functionally different than other guns. They hold more bullets, but are actually a smaller caliber than most hunting rifles.

Some people like them, just like some people like snazzy muscle cars. Here's me shooting my brother's.

2402

Hopefully he'll come on and help educate on what qualifies as an "assault rifle" and what doesn't, under the former ban. I am not educated enough to speak on the details without making a mistake. But I know that about myself. Those who make the laws don't. ;)

[HoustonFarrier]

Who needs any toy or hobby? Who needs cars that go more than 55 mph?

yeah....while were at it, we'll have to do away with tire irons, crow bars, baseball bats, BB guns, paint ball guns, sledge hammers...

Oh, and we NEED to get rid of the single biggest killer of human life in the world.......CARS.

:rolleyes:

Steve

[Remali]

It's a proven fact that assault rifles are more deadly due to the fact that they fire more bullets. Comparing an assault rifle to a toy or a hobby.....gimme a break.... that is laughable.

But....eh...who is counting......what the heck. So, seeing as suicide bombers are now more popular....I guess that'd be OK here too. Geez people. You are out of touch with reality. Oh yeah, cars make me way more nervous than assault rifles.....lmao!

[HoustonFarrier]

It's a proven fact that assault rifles are more deadly due to the fact that they fire more bullets. !

Nope........my revolver can fire just as many bullets as ANY "assault" rifle....I may have to reload more often, but it will fire just as many....probably more in the long run, since there are fewer moving parts in a revolver than in an 'assault' rifle. In addition, a gun is only as accurate as the person pulling the trigger...and accuracy is paramount to success in firing a weapon.....but of course, you already knew that.

Now, of course here, you will spout off that you mean 'assault' rifles can fire more RAPIDLY....again, you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about. By law, current 'assault' rifles are semi-automatic.....same thing as my Ruger 9mm......S&W 40cal pistols. Semi-automatic means that every time you pull the trigger, you fire ONE round. In order for the next round to go, you have to release and pull again. Again, I can fire and reload my 9mm pistol MUCH FASTER than anyone using an 'assault' rifle.

Oh yeah, cars make me way more nervous than assault rifles
It's a PROVEN fact that more Americans have been killed in car accidents than by assault rifles in the Unites States.

You are out of touch with reality
You are clueless :)

Steve

[Remali]

I wouldn't have expected any less of you Steve.

Quote: "again, you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about."

Rude as always Steve. Of course that is OK tho, your opinion doesn't mean much to me....I just find it rather odd that you would choose to put it that way. As a professional you maybe may want to take some classes in diplomacy.

[HoustonFarrier]

Rude as always Steve.

Ahh...I see when YOU'RE rude and condescending, it's OK...but when I do it, I'm wrong......I understand now, thanks !:)

.gimme a break.... that is laughable.!

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

It's a proven fact that assault rifles are more deadly due to the fact that they fire more bullets. Comparing an assault rifle to a toy or a hobby.....gimme a break.... that is laughable.

It is my hobby. And the hobby of many other good people. And I go to the range with usually between 1,000 and 2,000 rounds in my bag for an afternoon of shooting. Of what real concern is it whether my guns will hold 5, 6, 3, or 16 rounds at one time? You do know that assault rifles only fire once each time you pull the trigger, right? We're not confusing them with machine guns or full autos? Because they're not full autos like you see in the movies, those have been 'banned' for all practical purposes, a long time, without a special license. And actually, my best and most lethal home defense gun, my shotgun, only holds 3 shells at a time. Each of those shells though, holds between 1 and twelve projectiles, depending on what I put in it.

But....eh...who is counting......what the heck. So, seeing as suicide bombers are now more popular....I guess that'd be OK here too. Geez people. You are out of touch with reality. Oh yeah, cars make me way more nervous than assault rifles.....lmao!Well, I'm not sure suicide bombing is much of a hobby, I'm not sure I get the comparison. Cars kill far more people than assault rifles. Assault rifles are not even a prefered weapon for criminals. They're only targets for banning because they look scary and are therefore easy for anti-gun people to identify as bad.

[Remali]

Please enlighten me Steve and please show me where I was rude?

I have no trouble debating issues and we do not have to disagree, but rudeness is not necessary. So, again, I'll ask...show me what I said where I was rude? I really am tiring of your personal attacks.

[FredRock]

My dad's really into guns, and he always laughs at the idea of assault rifles. Any gun is considered an assault weapon, when you think about it. What was a gun designed to do, grow daisies? It shoots a projectile at however many miles per hour to hopefully hit a target. Now, whether or not the intent is to kill depends on the handler. That's where the whole "guns don't kill people, people do" phrase comes in.

There have been studies with different colors on the same type of rifle, and if the color was black the weapon was received negatively, but if it was a color such as pink, the weapon was more readily accepted. It's a mindset, not the actual gun itself. Whoever mentioned assault rifles being not necessary, horses are dangerous and "unnecessary," and knives, and golf clubs, and even baseball bats. Heck, you can kill someone with a pen if you know what you're doing and want to bad enough. There is a level where banning something just because it's inherently dangerous becomes too much.

I am extremely glad that Pelosi displayed rationality about this, and saved the US from yet another piece of legislation that we don't need and can't afford.

[HoustonFarrier]

Please enlighten me Steve and please show me where I was rude?

No problem.....

.....gimme a break.... that is laughable.


You are out of touch with reality.


Steve

[WashingtonBoy]

There have been studies with different colors on the same type of rifle, and if the color was black the weapon was received negatively, but if it was a color such as pink, the weapon was more readily accepted.

http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2008/january/hellokitty_ar15assault_1.jpg

[WashingtonBay]

Please enlighten me Steve and please show me where I was rude?

I have no trouble debating issues and we do not have to disagree, but rudeness is not necessary. So, again, I'll ask...show me what I said where I was rude? I really am tiring of your personal attacks.

Remali, with all due respect, saying we are not connected to reality, comparing us to suicide bombers, and saying that our opinions are laughable does beg for responses in kind.

I'm trying to educate and inform, but those references to my post were insulting.

[FredRock]

http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2008/january/hellokitty_ar15assault_1.jpg

The only time a man can have something pink and no one makes a crack about it. :p I think that's sweet.

[Remali]

Oh well....as usual HF's opinions are always the right opinions and he isn't willing to debate because it is his way or the highway.

[Remali]

Ummmm, WB....I did not compare you or anyone on here to suicide bombers......gimme a break.
I was talking about suicide bombers around the world. Good grief. Just forget it. This thread is not worth it. Again, of course....it is OK for YOU to say something is laughable....I, however, cannot.

[HoustonFarrier]

Oh well....as usual HF's opinions are always the right opinions and he isn't willing to debate because it is his way or the highway.

No...I LOVE to debate...however, if you start slinging insults like "out of touch with reality"....and calling my point of view " laughable..."........well, I'm not a PC person, so if you're gonna sling mud.....we'll, we'll BOTH get muddy ;)

I give the same respect I get........

Steve

[HoustonFarrier]

Oh well....as usual HF's opinions are always the right opinions .

Well....mostly right :hysterical:

Steve

[Remali]

Steve.....like you have never insulted me? Think about it.

WB...go back an re-read my post if you like. Anyway.....forget it....I have been insulted countless times on here by one or two people, but if I utter one thing I am blasted for it and things get twisted in the translation. My apologies if I offended anyone.

[HoustonFarrier]

Steve.....like you have never insulted me? Think about it.

Never without being insulted first........at least, not intentionally.

And I NEVER deserved what I got in the social section.......

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Ummmm, WB....I did not compare you or anyone on here to suicide bombers......gimme a break.
I was talking about suicide bombers around the world. Good grief. Just forget it. This thread is not worth it. Again, of course....it is OK for YOU to say something is laughable....I, however, cannot.

I'm not sure why you brought up suicide bombers, actually, I just found it 'odd'. And I didn't say you can't say our opinion is laughable, I merely said if you do, expect responses that are in kind. Because it's not laughable to me, I was being very serious. I don't think Steve thinks it's laughable either.

[Remali]

Yes, of course Steve.....it was me first...always..... OK.

WB....I was only making a comparison.....sort of like the cars thing.....you know?
I found it odd cars were brought up.... ETA: I mean, cars killing people....

Well.....like the saying goes......tomato.... to-mah-toe......

[HoustonFarrier]

Yes, of course Steve.....it was me first...always..... OK.
.

No, I believe I said this(BOLD for emphasis, in case you didn't see it the first time I wrote it).....now of course, correct me if I am wrong....

Never without being insulted first........at least, not intentionally.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Well, it's a fairly derogatory comparison.... wouldn't you say?

Now, can we stop talking about how we're talking, and talk? I'd really like to get to the substance here. Of what real legal concern is it how many bullets an AR holds?

[Remali]

On with the discussion.....

[HoustonFarrier]

Of what real legal concern is it how many bullets an AR holds?

It's absolutly absurd to ban 'assault' rifles, and NOT ban every other semi-automatic weapon. Also, we have semi-automatic shotguns, I can put more projectiles in the air than even an automatic weapon. It's merely political fodder, meant to get votes, not really protect anyone....IMHO.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Hey tell me.... back on the last page, did I imagine things, or did my husband post a picture of a pink, "Hello Kitty" assault rifle? ;)

[HoustonFarrier]

Hey tell me.... back on the last page, did I imagine things, or did my husband post a picture of a pink, "Hello Kitty" assault rifle? ;)

Yep....YOUR husband :p

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

That's what I thought, but I was afraid to look again... :hysterical:

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It's a proven fact that assault rifles are more deadly due to the fact that they fire more bullets.

If you mean more deadly in actual crime, that's just not so. So-called "assault rifles" are just not a meaningful player in crime statistics. If you mean that they can fire more bullets faster than a pistol, that's also just not so. If you mean that rifle cartridges are inherently deadlier than pistol cartridges, that's basically true. That's what they are for. Actually... in that sense one might argue that a rifle is safer for the public in that in capable hands it takes fewer shots to do the same job.


Comparing an assault rifle to a toy or a hobby.....gimme a break.... that is laughable.

Go ahead and laugh at my hobby. It doesn't really bug me anymore. :)


But....eh...who is counting......what the heck. So, seeing as suicide bombers are now more popular....I guess that'd be OK here too. Geez people. You are out of touch with reality. Oh yeah, cars make me way more nervous than assault rifles.....lmao!

I don't quite get the suicide bomber bit. But I would submit that what's "out of touch with reality" is the idea that somehow taking my guns from me is going to make the gang-infested inner cities (which is what we're really talking about, let's face it...) any safer for anyone. It certainly wouldn't be safer for me.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That's what I thought, but I was afraid to look again... :hysterical:

Hmmm... Doesn't he have a birthday coming up soon? :p

[WashingtonBay]

LMAO - seriously... make it stop! :hysterical:

[mtnmollie]

I mean... they've quadrupled the deficit in only four (4) weeks. I figured they'd take at least a year to do that.



Yippee. I't only money. It only has value if you believe a promise.

I promise to pay my debts one day...

How much money can I borrow on a promise?

[mtnmollie]

Cars kill far more people than assault rifles.

Perhaps we should ban cars?

People drive drunk and kill people- so perhaps we should close bars that people actually drive to?

Maybe we should ban alchol so people can no longer (get drunk and /or ) drive drunk?

...or wait- maybe we need a designated rifle shooter?

Maybe we could just hold accountable the few bad guys?

[offgridgirl]

http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2008/january/hellokitty_ar15assault_1.jpg

Oh man!! I want one of these!! Can I Can I???!!?! :huh:

[cowpuncher]

TO begin with, the federal government, or any governement agency, can have my sidearm, my bolt-action, scoped .30 caliber, or my magazine-fed, AR-15, when hell frezzes over. The fact is, the government, irregardless of current socialist dogma of the left, has no right to remove MY right to defend myself and my home and my nation. Cold, dead fingers, nothing, they can have mine, one round at a time.


An "Assault" weapon, in the parlance of the professional, is a selective-fire (capable of semi- and full-auto fire), magazine-fed weapon in use by a military power. While the sale of such IS legal under federal statute, it requires the possession of a Class III permit, which is neither easy, nor cheap to procure.

What the so-called Assault Weapons Ban of 94 outlawed were cosmetic features. Removable magazines of over 10 rounds, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips most notably. In order to demonstrate the stupidity of this,

1. removable magazines of 10+ round capacity: The more rounds you have, the more that get wasted. The guy with one round, is gonna be hell for more sure of HITTING what he's shooting at, instead of just spraying rounds around. If I'm gonna get shot at, ever again, I PRAY that it's by some jackass with a 30rd magazine, and NOT a guy with a bolt-action rifle.

2. flash suppressors: are not "silencers." They reduce the muzzle flash from the round. That's it. Nothing more. Pretty friggin' scary, eh?

3. bayonet lugs: I've never heard of a hold-up with a bayonet, but I could be wrong. I HAVE however, heard of a homeowner, using the bayonet on the end of his SKS to ho,ld a burglar at bay until LE arrived......Seems like that was far better than just shooting the idiot......

4. pistol grips. Some rifles are designed this way, and it's ergonomic, so it makes them easier to fire accurately.....That's bad, how?


It's not even stupidity on the part of the political left......It's evil. It;s all about unarming the people, so that when the populace does wake up and realize that they;re getting shafted, they won't be able to do anything about it, to reclaim our heritage.

[rocknK]

I heard today that Pelosi is backing away from supporting the new Attorney General on this subject. She doesn't think they have the votes in the House to pass a new AWB. For once I hope she's right.

[Remali]

Ramius.....guess you missed my earlier point about the suicide bomber.....and I didn't quite get the "car thing" either, made no sense to me, but oh well, doesn't matter. But, like I say..... you say "toe-may-toe", and I say "toe-mah-toe". lol.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Ramius.....guess you missed my earlier point about the suicide bomber.....and I didn't quite get the "car thing" either, made no sense to me, but oh well, doesn't matter. But, like I say..... you say "toe-may-toe", and I say "toe-mah-toe". lol.

The thing about cars is easy. It's this:

Cars kill many, many times more people every year than guns do. For reasons, I might add, that are even more pointless and void of reason, and people who are arguably more innocent and less deserving. If the mission is merely to prevent people from being killed we could do far more good by banning cars than from merely banning guns.

We're not going to do that, of course. So obviously, we don't really care about merely preventing deaths. We're perfectly willing to accept some number of totally pointless deaths of utterly innocent people. They're not as important, as valued, as our desire for personal freedom. It sounds cold but it's true.

[SuperSTB]

I'm against gun banning- some control yes as in proper licensing and some tracking- but out and out bans no.

I think somewhere allow the line panic and fear has taken over though. People are afraid of weapons so they seek to ban it. The flip side is people are in fear that their rights will be taken away.

I've grown up with weapons in a home- as a matter of fact until moving out here to CA in the past 3 yrs is the only time there HASN'T been a weapon in my house. I feel just as secure as before however.

Kind of strange coming from me given my previous postings huh?

We should focus on proper gun EDUCATION and keeping them out of the hands of criminals, banning them won't solve those issues because the guns are still out there!

[WashingtonBay]

So on this we mostly agree then Super ;)

Depends what you mean by 'licensing and tracking'. most of these 'controls' only increase the costs and hassles for the law abiding, having no effect on actual crime and safety.

[rocknK]

Be skeeeered, really skeeeeeered!

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1405

[Pinky]

(Having only read the first post :P)
"Assault weapons ban permanent" = Ban scary looking ("scary looking" to be defined by people who don't know a thing about what they're looking at) semi-auto rifles.

To me, that would be the AK47's & alike. Big, serious guns that can kill lots of things very quickly. Over here, I'd be behind something that was actually done over broken gun laws. Gun crime in a certain area of my city (other side from me) is huge. People walk down streets with handguns hanging out of their pockets - becuase the police don't have the 'time, money or resources' to confront them. WTH?

The 'cop killer bullets' could be sold only with records kept of the serial #'s of ones sold & to who. However, people who are using them to kill cops probably don't buy them from normal ammo stores anyway; a Kevlar coated bullet counts as one of them and I'm sure they are bought on the black market.

Living in Britain, having all guns banned (virtually anyway), I have different views. They aren't used so much for hunting here as for the drug dealers to kill rivals. If you have a legitimate reason to have a gun, go for it.

[WashingtonBay]

Always interesting to hear your perspective :)

[Pinky]

Thanks WB :).
Sometimes though, I wonder what would happen if mooseman (Gordon Brown) came on TV one day and announced that they were banning all guns. I'm 99% sure absolutely no one would give a stuff. A very (like...0.1%) small amount of people here hunt and own guns.
They've already banned hunting without a permit, and a max of 300 of them are given out each year. Hunting with dogs [on horseback] has been banned. There really isn't much more they can do IMO.

In some ways, the UK is ahead of the US. But in others, the US is ahead of the UK. It's all relative really - just British people are far less outspoken in their views (not that you'd guess it by me though :D)

Edit: If I could, I'd have that Hello Kitty rifle!