Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Can people here , who feel threatened by this law, compare this with the drug laws in my country? [Netherlands].

If guns , [assault rifles] will be banned.. black markets will grow and even more dangerous weapons will be available[also for gangs/cartels] Why by a colt handpistol if you can get a .30 caliber minigun? I think its pretty the same, as in, you've come beyond a certain point in which there is no return. The right to bear arms is an institute and i do understand and respect that freedom of yours.

But this is what i question of the bill of rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Was this also written with the purpose to rebel against your own corrupt government?[if that would be the case] cause i hope you still have trust in your own government and their [monopoly?] institutes of enforcement.It was your own legislature who voted for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in 1994; 95 in favor, 4 against..[expired 2004] its not really New..
Imo i really don't think this would mean a total ban on guns in the future, thats impossible..Keep participating in these policies and don't alienate from your representatives, and in the end its their enforcement who have to keep your streets clean from gangs and thugs..you don't want to get things too messy right? with these automatic Assault rifles..




[edit on 27-2-2009 by Foppezao]

As someone who is certainly willing to grant that some regulation of firearms ownership is acceptable, I still think that the AWB is a nonsense piece of legislation.

A common misconception (one that has been encouraged by some in the gun control lobby) is that the AWB bans fully-automatic machine guns.

It does not.

Ownership of machine guns has already been restricted for decades - since the National Firearms Act of 1934, in fact.

The AWB bans certain semi-automatic (as I say: bang bang bang - not ratatatatat ) rifles with military-style cosmetic features like bayonet lugs and pistol grips.

These rifles are for the most part functionally identical to popular semi-automatic hunting rifles.

The AWB is pure scaremongering, it had absolutely no effect on gun crime when it was in effect.

It's a nonsense law, period.

-

Anyway, I don't think it has much chance of being reenacted.

I am in fact beginning to think that the only reason it was brought up at all was to placate Felipe Calderón.

Note that Obama himself (who I am convinced has no really strong inclinations on gun control at all, pro or con) hasn't ever mentioned it publicly.

His AG did immediately after meeting Felipe Calderón, but refused to discuss any timetable at all for when it might actually happen.

Democrats including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have both said they oppose the renewal of the AWB - which means it essentially has no chance at all of being reenacted.

But now Obama can go to Calderón and say "hey buddy, we tried to pass it, but Congress said 'no way!' Sorry Felipe, I really am."

[edit on 2/27/09 by xmotex]

reply to post by Toolbox


What is military grade? This is just another "buzzword" that makes no real sense.
Fact: Many regular hunting rifles are more powerful than your regular military rifle. Larger caliber bullets, etc.
Most "military grade" weapons all have a full auto selector next to their semi/safe/burst fire modes. No civilian can own a "military grade" weapon. (they can get a Class III firearm owner ID card which does allow for fully automatic weapons and silencers, but these are expensive and very tedious and plenty of legal hoops to jump through). They can get rifles that look "military" but are just semi-automatic or single shot. And those that do buy them, buy them for collection, plinking, target shooting, hunting, and self-defense of the home. I have yet to see one person with a legally owned rifle walking the streets with it. Majority of gun crimes are still committed by handguns, not assault rifles.

As for handguns, the only people in Chicago that own them are police officers (both current and retired) and criminals. Now as to who is doing the killing, its the criminals. Gang bangers. Very very rarely we will hear of someone anywhere with a legally owned handgun commit a crime. Over 90% of crimes with guns are done by illegal guns.

So, why not allow civilians to legally carry in self-defense against these already armed bad guys? I am sure you have heard of the terrible massacre at Virginia Tech University a few years back. One student with two handguns managed to murder over 30 people. Of course the campus is a "gun free zone". So the only guns are with the police and guards. But that did not stop the murderer from committing this violent and brutal crime. And nobody was able to stop him. I am sure as many others are, that had there been allowed trained students with handguns on campus, allowed to carry their guns (and some universities do without problems) the death toll would have been much much lower. Police didn't do squat to save anyone. There have been instances of armed students who actually stopped would be killers on campuses, but these stories have been suppressed by the media. Why?

And yes, Chicago is pretty bad, though there are certain areas you just stay the heck out of. In my neighborhood its decent, and crime is relatively low. But criminals will strike anywhere and anytime. And unfortunately, most only understand brute force.

EDIT to add:

It has happened. But lets look at this logically. There have been many instances where the pissed off ex ran over the other with a car, or stabbed, beat, clubbed, strangled, rather than just going and shooting the ex.

I am all for background checks and in some cases mental checks. But we should use our heads in this. Cause a car is just as lethal as a gun.

[edit on 2/27/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Toolbox
reply to post by mattifikation

 

I think I understand what you're saying:

The constitution should be treated as a whole, not seperate articles/rights. By changing one of the articles in the constitution, it opens the door for more changing and in the end, the abolition of the rights you hold dear.

Just reread that and it sounds confusing

Let me try again. Politicians decide to change something in the constitution. They propose a bill, and it gets passed. Now the politicians think: 'hey that was easy, let's try it again, so in the end we can do as we please'

Yes! Sweet, that's exactly what I was saying! :-)

From what I understand Obama wants to change the law about what kind of guns you're allowed to own. He's not saying he wants to take them ALL away, is he?

Cluster bombs have been outlawed because they are deemed to dangerous (which they are!). Maybe this government feels that assault weapons are too dangerous. You can still buy plenty of guns, just not assault rifles....

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]

Real "assault weapons" are pretty dangerous. I don't think it's something that we couldn't handle though. Look at Switzerland for example... extremely low crime rate. Every adult male owns an assault rifle there. And I mean a real assault rifle: Fully automatic, high-powered military rifles.

What this bill is really going to ban is guns that take extra bullets, and guns that you can attach flashlights and other accessories to. Most of those accessories actually make the weapon safer. For example, a foregrip can make the gun easier to control. A flash hider can protect your eyes at night. Those are the sorts of things that are being banned.

Full automatic weapons - which is the true definition of "assault weapons," are already illegal. And even then, why should they be? The reason for having them are those stated by the founding fathers. Plus, they're cool.

Now here's the thing... there DOES need to be a way to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous and insane people. But there's a better way than punishing everyone. The dangers of those people should be addressed by a more effective criminal justice system. Very rarely does a person start out shooting people. Once somebody shows a tendency towards violence and no will to repent, they should be locked up forever (Or, if they're bad enough to warrant, executed.)

In short... ban criminals, not guns.

reply to post by mattifikation


I agree. In the hands of responsible adults, assault rifles (or any other gun) should be no problem at all. But how are you going to judge if someone is suitable to buy a gun and not 'dangerous or insane'?

Let's say I punched someone in the face once for feeling up my girlfriend. That's voilent behavior, should I be able to buy a gun? Where do you draw the line?

'The reason for having them are those stated by the founding fathers'. I don't feel this is true, the founding fathers had no such thing as an assault rifle. But that's another discussion

A better criminal justice system would certainly help. But people who come into contact with that system are per definition already bad guys, no? I detest criminals, they destroy society. And you're right, it's not because they abuse guns, we will also abuse guns.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by TV_Nation

 

What possible reason could you have for the average joe to own a
Assault Rifle. They were designed for one thing only, the word "Assault"
should be clue.

Average joe? You mean a constitutionally empowered citizen of the united states.

He/she has the right to "keep and bare". This amendment does not imply a casual application but a reservation to use force and guarantees the capacity.

What does the average joe need with the right to free speech?

This here ATS is actually a free speech gun range if you will.

Here we go....

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state,
or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming
the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed

This has to be the most misinterpreted sentance that has ever been
commited to paper. Because it places conditions on that right.
Politicians even know this and let it slide because it gets votes.

Gun nutters only read one part of this entire sentance
"no law shall be passed for disarming of People", the rest just meaningless
dribble. And by doing that you are not following the constitution in it's full contxt.
The sentenance does a actually contain "and" and "or" placing
conditions on that right. I think it's pretty clear what the original wording
means. And understanding at the point in time it was written makes it even
more clearer what it was inteded to do.

reply to post by skeptic_al


The actual passage as written in the Bill of Rights is as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's all- no if's, and's, or's or but's. This article was written by law makers as a basis for interpretation as do ALL lawmakers. While gun-grabbers want to focus on the usage of guns as defined in this article the closing of the legal loophole is actually at the end of the article. The article does not say you can't have a specific weapon, nor does it say whether or not I can use it to kill gophers or target shoot.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

The actual passage as written in the Bill of Rights is as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's all- no if's, and's, or's or but's. This article was written by law makers as a basis for interpretation as do ALL lawmakers. While gun-grabbers want to focus on the usage of guns as defined in this article the closing of the legal loophole is actually at the end of the article. The article does not say you can't have a specific weapon, nor does it say whether or not I can use it to kill gophers or target shoot.

I was going to add assault riffle into the mix, but that would be wrong
as it just refers to firearms in general.

Anyway

But it wouldn't matter anyway because the law says you only have the right
to bear arms if the your State is under attack (WTF, like one state is going
to invade another state) or the country is under attack (Ok, it is from
a source that the US created, so I don't think that counts). And Hunt'n.
As the State is not under atack, nor the Country being attacked (it's not)
Then you only can only carry one if your Hunt'n. Does anyone actually go hunt'n
using a Machine Gun or Magnum 45 or a Assault Riffle. You can't go Hunt'n
other Humans because there's a Law about killing other Humans.


I don't see Obama as the President that will discard the Ammendment, but
as the first President to actually enforce the Ammendment.

reply to post by skeptic_al


No it doesn't. Please point out where it says that(as speaking towards that the weapons can only be used in defense of the country?). Becasue in law if it is written in the article it is law, otherwise it is interpretation and conjecture.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]sp

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

No it doesn't. Please point out where it says that(as speaking towards that the weapons can only be used in defense of the country?). Becasue in law if it is written in the article it is law, otherwise it is interpretation and conjecture.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]sp

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

I'll expand out the original ammendment

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the United States

The people have a right to bear arms for the purpose of killing game


One of those conditions gives you right to carry firearms, it is not
an automatic right at all times. It is very specific.
As the first two don't apply, it only leaves for the Purpose of Killing Game.
Target Practice is not for the Purpose of Killing Game.
It does not list all the cases you CAN'T carry one, only the circumstances
you are permitted to carry one.

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

No it doesn't. Please point out where it says that(as speaking towards that the weapons can only be used in defense of the country?). Becasue in law if it is written in the article it is law, otherwise it is interpretation and conjecture.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]sp

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

I'll expand out the original ammendment

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the United States

The people have a right to bear arms for the purpose of killing game


One of those conditions gives you right to carry firearms, it is not
an automatic right at all times. It is very specific.
As the first two don't apply, it only leaves for the Purpose of Killing Game.
Target Practice is not for the Purpose of Killing Game.
It does not list all the cases you CAN'T carry one, only the circumstances
you are permitted to carry one.

Expand it out all you like with your own wordage. That is NOT what the BOR's says. That may be your interpretation, but not law.
Bill Of Rights
It neither lists or dictates the areas, or reasons, or situations to own, discharge, or handle ANY weapon.

Originally posted by djvexd

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by skeptic_al

 

No it doesn't. Please point out where it says that(as speaking towards that the weapons can only be used in defense of the country?). Becasue in law if it is written in the article it is law, otherwise it is interpretation and conjecture.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]sp

[edit on 27-2-2009 by djvexd]

I'll expand out the original ammendment

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state

The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the United States

The people have a right to bear arms for the purpose of killing game


One of those conditions gives you right to carry firearms, it is not
an automatic right at all times. It is very specific.
As the first two don't apply, it only leaves for the Purpose of Killing Game.
Target Practice is not for the Purpose of Killing Game.
It does not list all the cases you CAN'T carry one, only the circumstances
you are permitted to carry one.

Expand it out all you like with your own wordage. That is NOT what the BOR's says. That may be your interpretation, but not law.
Bill Of Rights
It neither lists or dictates the areas, or reasons, or situations to own, discharge, or handle ANY weapon.

What can I say.....

Except

All gun nutters like to wave this 2nd Ammendment thing around like it's
the National Flag. But when you explain it to them they all go off on tangent.
Yeah, that's what it says, but that's NOT what it means. It means I can
carry guns.

I still prefer the Origianal, it is much easier to read and comprehend than
other peoples explanations of what it means.

reply to post by Foppezao


Two points that need to be made. One, this would not outlaw automatic weapons. Those are already illegal without a license. This would outlaw semi-automatic rifles.

Second, and more importantly, so-called assault rifles are far from the weapon of choice in most violent crimes in the US. This idea that assault rifles are commonly used in crimes is a huge misconception. They are not (and a big FU to the media for their role in promoting that lie).

In almost 80% of all firearm-related homicides, the perpetrator uses a handgun.

Its my opinion that gun-grabbers in the US betray their true intent to ban *all* firearms by going after assault rifles. Those weapons obviously are not the problem. About 700 people a year are killed in the US with rifles of any kind, not just assault rifles but also including guns such as grandpa's lever action 30-30. Interestingly, that's roughly the same number of Americans who are splattered on bicycles every year in this country. Perhaps they should also be banned.

EDIT: Actually, I've badly overstated the homicides by rifles of any kind. Its less than 500 yearly.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by vor78]

reply to post by skeptic_al


No...and you are right..people from the far right do take it a tad too far. But the fact is A right as defined as it is , is a right. I can think of quite a few that would love to give the freedom of speech a once-over. But because we have some fairly concrete items in a very responsible document, we have freedom. Whether you love it or hate it, in the end you love it because it gives us ALL a chance to be us and be here and speak our peace.

Governments banning guns eh ?

Hardly surprising - they knew their economies would collapse years ago, they knew the planet is in real trouble on a number of fronts, they knew they have been/are now/are continuing to lie to their populations saying it'll will all be ok . BS BS BS !!!

Hell, the last thing they want is an armed population when everything snowballs into total collapse, global depression and mass starvation !

But what the hell - go build your own SMG. It's not hard now is it..

reply to post by Clairaudience


you just described the situation in europe, only thing you can get is a handgun or a rifle and to get it you need to:
- have a clean legal record
- proof of good citizenship (you lose that if you went bankrupt, are convicted of racism,etc..)
- fill in the paper and if accepted
- welcome to the 2-years minimum wait list
- afterwards take a 6 month training in the shooting club and pass the exam afterwards.
- if you succeed all this your obliged to go to a shooting club once a month
- if the police catches you with a weapon in public places; license revoked.
- license needs to be renewed every single year.

end result : about 3/4th of the population is unarmed
the rest is illegally armed or are a part of law enforcement

now do you think this has done anything good to the crime rate here in belgium? offcourse not, its combined with laws protecting criminals; if a criminal enters your home with a gun drawn your not entitled to defend yourself. you may shoot him after he shoots at you if you want to evade legal charges.

in other words it is encouraged to bend over and let them maybe rape,kill your family at the very least rob your hard earned goods
and wait for the police to catch him. that doesnt happen half of the time and even when they do catch them; 95% of small crime in brussels goes unpunished (including robbery,assault) (this was news just 3 weeks ago) and when they do catch them and convict them; our prisons are more then full. if you get sentenced here to 10 years for a murder it means you do 3 years minus the time they hold you before trial. i find it hard that when i go to my capital; i cant speak my motherlanguage, i cant feel safe on the street because of young immigrants packing together in groups to rob and harass people. (happened more then once to me) every weekend when i go out of my gf's appartment which is at the very hart of brussels i go to the parking lot (500meter walk) i see atleast 1-3 cars with windows thrown out. happened to myself twice. No europe is no longer good place to live

reply to post by xmotex



First, I will state that I am an NRA life member and NOT an Obama supporter.


As for Holder's comments, it doesn't surprise me given Holder's position during the Clinton Admin as assistant AG. Obama commented numerous times over the years about his support for the assault ban and going even further into such things as concealed carry laws. It should surprise no one that this Admin leans toward reenacting such things and if it does surprise you then, well, you've had you're head up your a$$ for a couple of years.

Second, and quite the surprise to me, both uber liberal SOTH SanFranNan Pelosi and uber dipstick Senate majority leader Harry Reid have deflected Holder's comments regarding the possibility of such legislation as having no place in their agenda and little chance of succeeding in the current Congress which is heavily Dem.

Third, I do not own an "assault weapon" nor do I think I will. The semi-auto firearm is not new by any means.........they've been around for around the last century now. What has changed is the form, appearance, and function of said firearms in the likes of ARs, AKs, etc. The original AWB seemed to seek out said "black firearms on cosmetic and appearance grounds. If they want to reenact the original AWB........fine, many gun makers have altered their designs to eliminate or mitigate the cosmetic restrictions in the original AWB. Pistol grips replaced by thumb-hole grips and smaller magazines, etc.


If any of the super libs in Congress want to press this, they can. But they will run up against a littany of opposition, design changes that render the original AWB moot and require a total retooling on the concept, and then challenges to such a law derived from the Heller decision.

Originally posted by nicholaswa


It's time we inject a dose of common sense into this discussion...

Yea and you aren't it.

You have little understanding of what your talking about and/or you would have our grandchildren out tossing rocks.

The people have the right per the 2nd amendment to bring as much power to bare in the time of need that they can. Nobody's talking warhead here dude.

This is not an issues for the government to decide. Per the second amendment the people have the right to this determination. This is way the argument for comparable assault type weapons is valid.

The amendment is clear that force can be used to repel. So that force has to be comparable at least in held hand weapons.


How would you like it if the government restricted the number of people that could be addressed at one time at a public speaking engagement? Or the number of subscribers a newspaper could have? Same as restricting the number or rounds a clip can hold?

That's Bull#. Ban the old guns so they can bring in the new ones.

By the way Holder by way of the government approved press is basically blaming americans for the Mexican violence.

DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS MAN.

The Mexican drug thugs are by no means now or ever been waiting around for weapons to be smuggled across the american border! This is a flat out lie and misinformation.

The southern border of Mexico is where this stuff comes from. And wherever its coming from an assault weapons ban in the US WILL DO NOTHING to stop the flow of weapons into Mexico. It too late anyway.

HOLDER IS A LAIR and anyone that buy into his spew is a fool.

IT is the American appetite for drugs that has turned these drug smugglers into a power to challenge the Mexican government.

We will need our assault rifles.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Logarock]