Obama:Assault Weapon Ban made sense

[rl6214]

Obama: Assault weapons ban made sense
MEXICO CITY – President Barack Obama says he prefers to focus on enforcing existing laws to keep assault weapons out of Mexico, rather than trying to renew a U.S. ban on the weapons.

Obama says he still believes such a ban made sense. The most recent one expired in 1994.

But he says he'd rather enforce laws on the books that make it illegal to send assault weapons across the Mexican border.

Guns flowing into Mexico from the U.S. have been fingered in a rise in killings by Mexican drug cartels.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promised to push to reinstate the ban. He now says doing so would be politically difficult.

Obama commented in Mexico City at a news conference with President Felipe Calderon after their meeting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_go_pr_wh/lt_obama_newser_assault_weapons

[Deep13]

1. It expired in '04.

I voted for Obama despite this, not because of it.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. well, interestingly enough

The 90% number is bogus. The ATF knows it's bogus, because when questioned on it the ATF clarified the statement. And doubtless, Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and the President also KNOW it is bogus, but if you are trying to mold public opinion, you relentlessly adhere to the party line.

The chief of the ATF, Michael Sullivan, said last year that "investigators have traced 90 to 95% of the weapons found in Mexico to the U.S. Generally, only law-enforcement officers or military personnel can legally possess guns in Mexico."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-11-mexico-guns_N.htm

"What’s true," an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency’s assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

"But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

What is deplorable is that the OAS Firearms Convention Treaty that President Obama wants the Senate to ratify, the treaty itself states that most guns are coming from Venezuela, Africa, the former Soviet Union, and other nations, and NOT from the United States.

Seems like Mark Twain was on the money yet again, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

[slackmaster]

2. It only made sense to people who didn't understand it

Nothing has changed.

[benEzra]

3. Yup. For those who don't know, here's what the 1994 law did (and ALL it did):

To reiterate, that is a ban-era (2002) rifle. Circled areas are where the rifle differs from a pre-1994 or a post-2004. And thanks to the AWB, two or three times as many were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous decades combined.

Was that worth throwing away the House and Senate over?

[nashmack]

31. Did you actually read the thing before you posted this?

please also circle the 30 round magazine as only 10 rounders were legal unless it's a "pre ban" magazine (this has to be proved by serial numbers and bills of sale showing that it was sold prior to the enactment of the ban, and most Kalashnikov style magazine DO NOT have serial numbers on them), please also circle the pistol grip, as that is also another cosmetic feature banned by this insane breach of freedom, and next time please read the law before posting.

All the "AWB" banned was cosmetic features, it was totally useless.

[benEzra]

36. Wrong. That magazine was purchased legally in 2003, for $9.99.

20-round magazines were $5.99 at the time. Both were manufactured prior to 9/94, just like most AK magazines on the planet, but were imported from Europe circa 2002, as allowed by the law. The Feinstein law only required that newly manufactured over-10-rounders be marked restricted, and only magazines so marked were controlled. And yes, the protruding handgrip was a listed feature, but one listed feature was allowed, and on that rifle, the pistol grip did NOT have to be deleted.

Did you catch the fact that this rifle is a 2002 model? The circled areas are the ONLY areas the law mandated changes to newly manufactured guns. The ergonomic handgrip and 30-round magazine were perfectly legal.

And I agree with you that the 1994 Feinstein "assault weapon" fraud was a ridiculous breach of freedom. But I am quite familiar with what it did, and did not do. I am also familiar with the far more draconian proposals that have been floated since, such as H.R.1022 et seq, which would be more along the lines of what you described.

[bossy22]

4. what do u expect

For him to say it was silly?...he would never do that...it would alienate a large part of his base who support this silly measure for numerous reasons.....

he will never denounce gun control....hes an inner city president with a large inner city base which almost always is anti gun

ive come to accept this

[yay]

5. accept

I agree, but I'm glad he put the breaks on any further talk. He's not as dumb as everyone painted him to be.

[rl6214]

6. I saw his comments on tv and

He said NOW is not the time to pursure a new ban, and i am paraphrasing here because I don't remember his exact words.

Now is not the right time tells me when he thinks the atmosphere is right, he will pounce on it to get a new ban in place.

[bossy22]

7. not necessarily

dont read too much into it....its a political move....by being ambigous he allows himself room to wiggle and doest have to defend a strong decision

its so they can appease both sides by pleasing neither

[gizmo1979]

8. Rat alert.

I smell a Republican.

[bossy22]

10. i smell bs

i was merely stating fact....he has an inner city political background with a large inner city base

inner city political feelings tend to be anti gun...thats fact

so why dont u think before u type and not accuse me of something im not....because i simply pointed out the reality of the situation

[rl6214]

11. His response was to post 5

And I still say bs. YAY is a strong gun rights advocate, that is all I see in him, dosen't make him a republican.

[yay]

12. Eh I'm used to it.

I'm not a liberal either, but I sure as hell ain't a republican.

Come to think of it I can't tie myself to any one party.. they all have their merits.

[bossy22]

17. my apologies

[Callisto32]

13. I smell a tribalist....

What's your point? So what if somebody is a Republican? I'm a registered Libertarian. Having people around that don't agree with you lets you figure out what you actually believe provided you actually engage in real discourse with that person rather than degrading to childish BS. Don't shut yourself into a group; there is nothing stupider in the world than a group.

[yay]

14. Nothing wrong with a group

It's when your group closes your mind to anything else that is stupid.

[dashrif]

19. Thank

You I believe that to be very true amen brother






I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.
Will Rogers,

[gizmo1979]

21. No freepers allowed.

[yay]

27. What's a freeper?

[Tim01]

9. And AGAIN Obama says he wants a ban.

[Pullo]

16. "I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense"

"I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense," Obama said, adding that he is not "under any illusions that reinstating that ban would be easy."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-i-have-not-backed-off-on-assault-weapons-ban-2009-04-16.html">TheHill

Probably smart politics. He's not abandoning the rabid gun banners in his base, but he's denying the NRA the fight they're dying to have.



Still, his comments should keep "assault weapon" sales in overdrive.

[kudzu22]

33. Somebody tackle this guy

We voted for change. The AWB is not change -- it's old and stupid. I want some fresh ideas out of this historic presidency.

[virginia mountainman]

15. As if guns weren't flying off the shelves fast enough...

I think Obama owns stock in a gun company..

[gorfle]

18. It is heartening...

It is heartening to know that President Obama must be aware that since he has taken office he has sparked one of the largest booms in firearm and ammunition sales ever. I'm positive that this is not lost on him and those in power. Gun owners are demonstrably motivated. And if the amount of money and effort pouring into buying firearms and ammunition were turned into political money and effort, it would be bad news for any anti-gun politician.

It makes me happy to see the respect, though it is disappointing to read that the reality is he still wants to ban firearms. I just hope that when he wins his second term he doesn't pass the legislation after he has nothing to lose.

[Statistical]

20. The Democratic party would still lose a fact lost on the Feinsteins & Rendells of the world n/t

[old mark]

22. If it were not for PRO GUN DEMOCRATS LIKE US emailing those

politicians and telling them how many of us there are, they would have passed that bullshit legislation years ago.
Democrats in Congress are still politicians, looking for a quick fix and easy votes while expensing as little effort as possible.
The fact that Obama still believes in this crap is the main argument I have with him, and I entend to email and blog his WhiteHouse site as often as possible to make the point that he is wrong about it.

It was a stupid law, prevented NO crime, accomplished nothing except making gun importers richer by making prices higher and creating panic buying. It would be ridiculous to pass another, especially a permanend more-inclusive law as they discussed.

President Obama must be made aware of this loudly and frequently by many gun-owning Democrats.

mark

[one-eyed fat man]

26. look, it is simple,

You can look at the posts of the antis, in their hearts they truly and fervently believe no one but the government and career criminals need guns. They have always stated their ultimate goal is the complete elimination of private gun ownership, and they have always worked to do it incrementally.

There will some who claim, all they want is a few "common sense" restrictions, but real question is "Are they lying now or were they lying then?"

They whined about loopholes during the last ban when after THEY defined an assault weapon as having certain features and gunmakers built guns WITHOUT the very features they said were the acme of evil. So in all their draft "improved versions" they now add the kicker, that any gun EVER USED by the police or military is BY DEFINITION an assault weapon, what does that leave?




Nope, not even the old Red Ryder BB gun as the Army used them for training back in 1968.

Instinctive Shooting

[old mark]

29. I fired one of those BB Guns in the Army in 1968 - the object was

to teach you to shoot wiothout sights, to hit a moving target firing from the hip just to prove to you it could be done.

I hit a penny tossed into the air, carried that dented penny for years after that. I still can't believe iI hit it, but I did.

I understand what you are saying and it's all true - they don't want a "reasonable" compromise - they want it all and CANNOT UNDERSTAND that the writers of the Constitution thought gun ownership for self defense and protection against government and military tyrany to be so essential a right they made it #2 after only freedom of speech. They cannot see that is is still as important as it was then, and they cannot see that criminals won't care either way because they are (!) criminals.

mark

[jmg257]

23. And in other news, gun sales took another jump today, as the administration sends out mixed message.

dumb asses.

[slackmaster]

24. Cabela's Rises As Data Indicates Coming Rise In Gun Sales - WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090416-711813.html

[jody]

25. Facts are clear. Obama will sign a bill to renew AWB and he misled people like Schoenke of AHSA.

Press Conference with Presidents Obama and Calderon (RealClearPolitics)

OBAMA: First of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban made sense and I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the second amendment rights in our constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe, to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that as we now know here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence. Violence in our own country as well.

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy, so what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws. Because even under current law, trafficking, illegal firearms, sending them across the border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop. So our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder, our entire homeland security team, ATF, border security, everybody who's involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws.

In fact, I've asked Eric Holder to do a complete review of how our enforcement operations are currently working and make sure that we're cutting down on the loopholes that are resulting in some of these drug trafficking problems. Last point I would make is that there are going to be some opportunities where I think we can build some strong consensus. I'll give you one example and that is the issue of gun tracing. The tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information that have been used in major crimes.

That's information that we are still not giving to law enforcement as a consequence of provisions that have been blocked in the United States congress and those are the areas where I think that we can make some significant progress early. That doesn't mean that we're steering away from the issue of the assault guns ban, but it does mean that we want to act with urgency, promptly, now. And I think we can make significant progress.

Letter to Eric Holder on Assault Weapons Ban By Ray Schoenke at March 2, 2009 (American Hunters and Shooters Association)

We share your commitment to reducing crime and gun violence. We believe, as law-abiding gun owners, the way to do that is not by banning guns, but by making sure that criminals, terrorists and people who can harm themselves and others do not get guns. Law-abiding gun-owners will overwhelmingly support your efforts along those lines. Again, I applaud your long-standing service to our country and defense of the Constitution. I do however ask you work to ensure that any law enforcement legislation the administration proposes aimed at reducing gun crime in our communities will actually lower gun crime. Policy considerations should dictate this decision.

When does "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." NOT mean what it says?

When it's said by Obama unless he recants his renew AWB position.

[Tim01]

30. So, Obama would like to see an Assault Weapons Ban

Now, will there be enough support to put one on his desk?
I think I'm going to buy some more mags for my AR15, while I still can.

[kudzu22]

32. Good luck finding any n/t

[Caliman73]

34. A letter I sent to President Obama.

Dear President Obama,

I am a life long Democrat who supports the 2nd amendment. I am very concerned about your stance regarding the Assault Weapons Ban and your desire to reinstate the 94 legislation. Specifically, I am concerned about why you would say the AWB makes sense. How does the ban make sense when what was banned was basically cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles? I own a Kel Tec Su-16. It is an American made semi-automatic rifle the fires an intermediate range rifle round. It is typically used for hunting small game, target shooting, and for home defense. It is perfectly legal in the state of California where we kept the AWB. However, if I put a pistol grip on it, which does not change its function or lethality at all, it suddenly becomes an illegal "assault weapon". Please explain to me how that makes sense? I am as shocked and appalled at the senseless violence that has happened recently as anyone. What I don't understand is why the problem is laid squarely at the feet of rifles which are used in less than 3% of gun crimes? The problem is not guns. They are inanimate objects which require an operator. The problem is that people are desperate, that they are poor, that parents are forced to choose whether to feed their children or to spend time guiding their actions. Guns are not the problem. I own firearms and my firearms are secured when not in use. They are handled with respect to the fact that they are dangerous. The problem is that some people use firearms to commit violence whereas the vast majority of owners do not.
I think that you understand that banning objects is a failing strategy. It did not work with alcohol during prohibition, it is not working with drugs, and it has not worked in Washington DC, Chicago, or Los Angeles with regards to guns. I am for solutions to the problems that face this nation but I believe that banning certain firearms is just a "feel good" measure that will not have any impact on gun deaths let alone on violent crimes. What pushing forward with this AWB issue will do is fracture the Democratic Party, cost seats in the legislature, and allow the Republican Party to assume power and restart their failed economic and foreign policies that have lead us to the brink of Depression. We need your assurance that you want to focus the efforts of this nation on real solutions to the problem of violence. Real solutions like ensuring that people have well paying secure jobs, so that they do not have to work 2 instead of being with their children. Real solutions like education about violence and a focus on peaceful conflict resolution. Real solutions like an honest conversation about how the stresses of our society impact our mental health. Real solutions like taking the stigma out of mental health treatment and fully funding mental health treatment programs. Real solutions like rethinking our stance on the War on Drugs which has served to make illegal activity highly profitable and compelling to protect by using violence and intimidation. We need to treat drug use as a health issue and practice harm reduction. We need real solutions like expanding the NICS by mandating the States to maintain their databases for criminal and mental health issues which would actually assist in keeping ineligible people from obtaining firearms. I urge you to make a definitive statement that you understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is not to protect hunters which make up only 20% of gun owners, but to allow for personal and the common defense of the state. I urge you to allay the fears of your constituents and to quiet the argument of those on the right who claim you are out to take away their arms and their freedoms. Thank you for your consideration.

[Tim01]

35. Well, he pulled it from his website so we can't reference it.

Now we'll see what he does.