Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:01 PM
Original message
First 100 days: Assault weapons ban
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 07:02 PM by JTFrog
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664/

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban
Obama’s goal of permanently renewing the ban appears to be a longshot

By Pete Williams
Justice correspondent
NBC News
updated 11:14 a.m. PT, Fri., April 24, 2009


WASHINGTON - Campaigning before a church congregation on Chicago’s South Side one Sunday in July 2007, Barack Obama said an epidemic of big city violence was “sickening the soul of this nation.”

Among the potential cures, he said, was permanently reinstating a ban on assault weapons.

One-hundred days into his presidency, President Obama says it remains a goal. But it is one the White House has been forced to abandon.

Voices of agreement
President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good.
It's a useless, feel-good law which has been proven to do nothing to reduce crime, but does help Republicans win elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. The weapons it bans are useless to law abiding gun owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Doesn't matter.
There's still the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No, they're not.
In fact, an "assault weapon" is the fastest selling centerfire rifle in America.

And the AWB didn't "ban" anything. It just specified a few features like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors that couldn't be fitted to a rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. What a crock of BS, a renewed AWB would ban some of the most popular firearms in the U.S. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. The most common target rifles in America are useless to target shooters?
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 08:39 PM by benEzra
Who knew?

You are quite wrong, of course. My so-called "assault weapon" is my most useful rifle. Recreational plinking, competitive shooting (IPSC/USPSA), defensive standby, AND hunting should I ever take up that endeavour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Obama has come face to face with reality, if he presses to renew AWB he will cause we Dems to lose
seats in Congress in 2010 and seriously hurt his chances for reelection in 2012.

If he is real smart, he will go before the voters and promise, "I will veto any bill that renews the Assault Weapons Ban".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. I support the AWB and hope he renews it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. Good. Cosmetic bans are stupid.
It would be like banning all red cars, because red cars look dangerously fast, and nobody needs a red car anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think we should continue to scare freepers into buying weapons
on credit.

Not only does it keep the economy going, but they can help reduce the bill collector population.

And help bankrupt the credit card companies.

Black cloud, silver lining, etc...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. Are any
"assault weapons" legally sold in the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Since "assault weapons" are no longer covered by fed law, all such semiautomatic firearms with the
cosmetic features are legally sold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Depends what you mean by "assault weapons."
The common definition is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a similar military model. Examples would be the AR-15 and various AK-47 knockoffs. There are plenty of them for sale.

If you're thinking of automatic weapons--which are deliberately confused with "assault weapons" by groups that support banning them--you can still buy one, but you'll pay $20,000 for it in addition to background check fees, waiting periods, transfer taxes, etcetera. They're collector's items, and thus both rare and fabulously expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff30997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Can't AR-15 be converted to automatic ?

I'm just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. My understanding is that
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 07:44 PM by bbinacan
the gun would have to be rebuilt from scratch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. You are pretty much correct. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. No! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. No, they cannot.
They're specifically designed to not be convertible. Legally any gun which can be easily converted to fully automatic is considered to be so already, and thus governed under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

An experienced machinist could theoretically convert a rifle to full-auto, but it would be easier to build one from scratch. Siezures of converted semi-autos by law enforcement are virtually unheard of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff30997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. I found this site:

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

I'm not a weapons expert so can you tell me if

this is BS ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. For a pre-86 colt AR-15 + M-16 parts, not BS, but not likely
As is mentioned upthread, guns were specifically changed so as to not be able to be converted in 86..

For a pre-86 AR-15, you'd have to get someone to sell you m-16 parts without a title II / class 3 license.

For a post-86 AR-15, you'd have to mill out the receiver to accept the DIAS to extremely tight tolerances and find someone willing to sell you m-16 parts without a title II / class 3 license. Any machinist who could make these kind of modifications could make a receiver from scratch much easier (bren / sten open bolt comes to mind.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff30997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Thanks for the infos X_Digger.
You answered a lot of questions I was asking myself and helped debunking some myths that I've heard about.:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Not BS, but it's no different than any registered automatic weapon.
To be legal, any of those have to have been registered prior to the 1986 ban on new NFA registrations. It would then be treated just like a full-auto gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Under U.S. Federal law, easily converted guns ARE full auto for the purposes of the law
even if not actually converted. That's why there are no U.S.-legal magazine-fed civilian firearms that fire from an open bolt; they are easily converted to full auto, and hence are restricted as machineguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. If Obama simply drops this, that should shut the gun nuts the fuck up at last.
The law doesn't work, and all it does is give fuel for the Glenn Becks of the world to fire-up the militia nuts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. The issue can no longer be handled by "Obama simply drops this". It will continue to dog him until
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 07:53 PM by jody
he says openly "I will veto any bill that renews the assault weapons ban".

Nothing less will get him out of the political trap he created for himself by leaving on his website the statement "Obama and Biden . . . support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Nothing shuts up obsessives
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 09:03 PM by depakid
nor the cowardly who, like Cheney, live in irrational fear.

Like most highly vocal extremists, give 'em an inch- then they'll want a yard- give 'em a yard, they'll want a mile.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greguganus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. Fastest way to rally the Repubs. Obama better back track on this one.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
23. A 'cure' for less than 3% of crime? Some 'cure'. n/t
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 08:42 PM by X_Digger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. It would help to prevent cops from being killed 3 and 4 at a time
not that most of those who advocate the proliferation of these weapons cares one lick about things like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. As if..
.. non-'scary looking' rifles aren't just as deadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Yep- it's easy to kill multiple swat team members with hunting rifles
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Thanks for the quote..
Then why ban scary looking rifles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. ....
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. You did step right into it..
Seriously, though, what about 'assault weapons' makes them especially dangerous to cops that a weapon of the same caliber, same capacity, but without a pistol grip, barrel shroud, bayonet lug, folding / collapsible stock wouldn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. Shotguns are a lot more deadly to police.
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 10:36 PM by TheWraith
Because they can find the chinks in body armor. Two out of the three cops in Pittsburgh were killed with a shotgun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
36. Nothing says squirrel hunting like an AK 47
Hunting like it ought to be.

Death to Rodents and other fur balls.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC