HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sen. Al Franken Raises Do...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:05 AM

Sen. Al Franken Raises Doubts About Support For Assault Weapons Ban

Source: TPM

Sen Al Franken (D-MN) on Wednesday indicated that he's undecided on an assault weapons ban, the Post-Bulletin of Rochester, Minn. reported.

Speaking at an event in Rochester, Franken pledged support for a number of provisions in the gun control package outlined by President Barack Obama at a news conference on Wednesday including limiting high-capacity magazines and instituting stricter nationwide background checks but the junior senator from Minnesota did not mention a ban on assault weapons.

When asked if Franken would back an assault weapons ban, Marc Kimball, a spokesman for the senator, couldn't say for sure.

"I guess I don't have an answer for you," Kimball said. "He's been listening to Minnesota, trying to be thoughtful on this and trying to get input from people from a wide spectrum of views."

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/sen-al-franken-raises-doubts-about-support-for?ref=fpb



Link to full Post-Bulletin article:
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/franken-undecided-on-assault-weapons-ban/article_b15db9ab-6909-571d-a7c6-124e38108dc8.html


UPDATE here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372143

170 replies, 22542 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 170 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sen. Al Franken Raises Doubts About Support For Assault Weapons Ban (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
SHRED Jan 2013 #1
karynnj Jan 2013 #3
rtassi Jan 2013 #4
Undaunted Jan 2013 #66
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #78
2pooped2pop Jan 2013 #103
WI_DEM Jan 2013 #8
progressoid Jan 2013 #36
johnfunk Jan 2013 #11
OKNancy Jan 2013 #2
davidpdx Jan 2013 #6
DonViejo Jan 2013 #7
OKNancy Jan 2013 #17
hack89 Jan 2013 #5
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #9
calimary Jan 2013 #10
dotymed Jan 2013 #12
gateley Jan 2013 #35
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #82
WhoWoodaKnew Jan 2013 #134
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #162
Ter Jan 2013 #13
DreWId Jan 2013 #74
Ter Jan 2013 #131
daschess1987 Jan 2013 #14
jberryhill Jan 2013 #15
russspeakeasy Jan 2013 #28
still_one Jan 2013 #16
James48 Jan 2013 #18
butterflygirl Jan 2013 #45
appal_jack Jan 2013 #52
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #19
Hoyt Jan 2013 #22
hack89 Jan 2013 #24
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #25
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #161
krispos42 Jan 2013 #38
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #50
NickB79 Jan 2013 #137
Paladin Jan 2013 #141
NickB79 Jan 2013 #142
Paladin Jan 2013 #145
SylviaD Jan 2013 #150
FrodosPet Jan 2013 #160
SylviaD Jan 2013 #164
FrodosPet Jan 2013 #165
SylviaD Jan 2013 #166
immoderate Jan 2013 #55
wordpix Jan 2013 #20
JVS Jan 2013 #21
LibDemAlways Jan 2013 #23
hack89 Jan 2013 #26
Paladin Jan 2013 #29
hack89 Jan 2013 #31
Paladin Jan 2013 #37
hack89 Jan 2013 #39
Paladin Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #56
sir pball Jan 2013 #48
nick of time Jan 2013 #33
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #63
nick of time Jan 2013 #65
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #67
nick of time Jan 2013 #70
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #73
nick of time Jan 2013 #76
Socal31 Jan 2013 #136
NickB79 Jan 2013 #139
NickB79 Jan 2013 #138
hack89 Jan 2013 #34
Paladin Jan 2013 #41
hack89 Jan 2013 #42
Paladin Jan 2013 #46
hack89 Jan 2013 #58
Paladin Jan 2013 #95
hack89 Jan 2013 #98
Paladin Jan 2013 #105
hack89 Jan 2013 #106
BainsBane Jan 2013 #154
hack89 Jan 2013 #155
BainsBane Jan 2013 #156
hack89 Jan 2013 #157
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #64
hack89 Jan 2013 #69
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #71
hack89 Jan 2013 #72
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #75
hack89 Jan 2013 #77
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #83
hack89 Jan 2013 #85
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #89
nick of time Jan 2013 #92
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #94
nick of time Jan 2013 #99
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #100
nick of time Jan 2013 #102
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #108
nick of time Jan 2013 #110
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #112
nick of time Jan 2013 #113
Prog_gun_owner Jan 2013 #146
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #148
EX500rider Jan 2013 #104
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #107
EX500rider Jan 2013 #116
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #118
NickB79 Jan 2013 #140
Prog_gun_owner Jan 2013 #147
NickB79 Jan 2013 #144
Prog_gun_owner Jan 2013 #149
hack89 Jan 2013 #96
Ash_F Jan 2013 #120
hack89 Jan 2013 #121
Ash_F Jan 2013 #122
hack89 Jan 2013 #123
Ash_F Jan 2013 #124
hack89 Jan 2013 #125
Ash_F Jan 2013 #126
hack89 Jan 2013 #127
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #130
krispos42 Jan 2013 #43
bongbong Jan 2013 #53
NickB79 Jan 2013 #143
grantcart Jan 2013 #158
krispos42 Jan 2013 #159
24601 Jan 2013 #152
Marrah_G Jan 2013 #27
nick of time Jan 2013 #32
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #30
sir pball Jan 2013 #51
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #57
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #79
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #84
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #87
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #88
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #90
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #91
nick of time Jan 2013 #93
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #97
nick of time Jan 2013 #101
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #109
nick of time Jan 2013 #111
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #114
nick of time Jan 2013 #115
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #117
nick of time Jan 2013 #119
Pale Blue Dot Jan 2013 #40
LibDemAlways Jan 2013 #44
forestpath Jan 2013 #54
immoderate Jan 2013 #59
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #86
madville Jan 2013 #128
immoderate Jan 2013 #129
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #49
Android3.14 Jan 2013 #60
amandabeech Jan 2013 #163
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #61
jeff47 Jan 2013 #62
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #68
mzmolly Jan 2013 #80
Deep13 Jan 2013 #81
samsingh Jan 2013 #132
DonViejo Jan 2013 #133
samsingh Jan 2013 #135
SylviaD Jan 2013 #151
BainsBane Jan 2013 #153
Politicub Jan 2013 #167
DonViejo Jan 2013 #168
SylviaD Jan 2013 #169
aikoaiko Mar 2013 #170

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:07 AM

1. WWPWD?

What would Paul Wellstone do?

So tell us Al...does politics now trump lives?


---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:13 AM

3. Somewhat serious answer?

It may be that, like DOMA in 1996, the AWB in 2013 could be a tough vote in Minnesota. (Caveat - I( do not presume to know how this plays in MN, but suspect from his aide's comment that he was listening to MN, it might be.

Wellstone in 1996 voted for DOMA - like all but one Senator up for re-election. (That was Kerry and Massachusetts was far more liberal - the risk for him was his long term Presidential ambitions and that was likely less than the risk to Senators in other states.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:13 AM

4. time for Minnesotans to get on the phone I guess ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rtassi (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:41 PM

66. Indeed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rtassi (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:14 PM

78. Sounds like many of them already have do so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rtassi (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:59 PM

103. yes

at least he is trying to do what his constituents want rather than vote his own feelings on the matter.

So get the people to let him know what they want. One senator from another state said the pro gun people were being much louder than the anti gun people. We know that is usually true of the screaming rabid republicans, so I don't doubt it. We also know a larger percentage of people do support these measures. He must hear from them.

They must not quietly agree with the President and assume all will work out. Only the squeaky wheel gets greased.

Start squeaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:23 AM

8. He's not Paul Wellstone

Not that I agree with him if he opposes an Assault Weapons Ban, but to ask what would Paul Wellstone do really doesn't accomplish anything. What would Hubert Humphrey do? or Walter Mondale do? or Eugene McCarthy do? for that matter. Franken was elected in his own right and while I hope will see the light on this he isn't going to vote on every issue by thinking first about Wellstone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:07 AM

36. I think because Paul was a friend, mentor and inspiration to Al.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:34 AM

11. Wellstone would do what Franken is doing: listening to constituents

Franken, who is dealing with far more outspoken crazies than Wellstone ever had to, will back aggressive control of automatic weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:11 AM

2. I wish posters would quote the original source

so we could get the whole article and not these little blips from tpm ( I like the site, just not for LBN)


Here is the article: http://www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/franken-undecided-on-assault-weapons-ban/article_b15db9ab-6909-571d-a7c6-124e38108dc8.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:19 AM

6. I agree

Someone in another thread posted a Kos article. Sure that's where the person saw it first, but clearly there was a link to the newspaper article the person was writing about. Would it have killed them to take 5 extra seconds to put that in their OP? The Kos article only had some of the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:21 AM

7. I usually do post the link to the original story, Nancy...

Sorry I forgot it in this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:03 AM

17. I know... you are a valued poster

I had a temporary cranky moment. My apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:14 AM

5. There are about a dozen Democratic Senators that may oppose the AWB

Washington (CNN) -- Unlike most issues these days that divide along party lines, the immediate fate of President Obama's new gun proposals will depend not as much on Republicans as his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Democratic leadership sources tell CNN that passing any new legislation will be extremely difficult because more than a dozen vulnerable Democrats from conservative states will probably resist much of what the president is pushing.

These Democratic sources say the most likely legislation to pass will be strengthening background checks, since it is the least overt form of gun control and it also appeals to gun rights advocates' emphasis on keeping guns away from people with mental health and criminal problems.

Democratic leadership sources say they intend to spend next week -- the first week the Senate is in session -- canvassing red-state Democrats to see what, if anything, is doable. Democratic senators who advocate various gun control measures will be lobbying their colleagues as well.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-gun-legislation/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:24 AM

9. Don't support AWB? No money from me next time, Al. Get it from your CONSERVATIVE supporters.

 

Yeah, right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:30 AM

10. Battle Stations! TOLL FREE!

Updated TOLL FREE Capitol Hill switchboard numbers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022203784

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:35 AM

12. Actually, "our" politicians

are elected to presumably represent us. That means voting according to your constituents wishes. Sometimes, what you think is right, isn't what the majority of your constituents want. They may need to be educated as to the benefits-vs-the dangers. Some things, like civil rights, are easier to vote your conscience on. I can see where Mn. may be a hard sell on AWB. I am not agreeing with their position but I am glad that Franken actually considers the people (not corporations) that elected him.
If our President did the same, bush policies would be repealed. Wall street cheats would be prosecuted, mj users in states that voted decriminalization would be safe from federal prosecution.....
I may not agree with with some aspects, but democracy in action is a welcome sight. IMO, he should hold town meetings and educate his constituents on the need for AWB.
Yes, he is a leader, but in a democracy..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:05 AM

35. Good point -- actually doing the job HIS VOTERS sent him there to do. An anomaly, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:18 PM

82. +1000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:57 PM

134. Agreed. Good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:24 PM

162. That's the problem. Many politicians aren't ready to stand up for what is right...

Too many politicians vote on how they think their constituents want them to vote instead of voting on what they believe is right. If Franken truly believes the assault-weapons ban is not good policy, fine, let's hear his reasons. But this bullshit that his constituents won't support it, therefore he might not support it, is an absolute cop out. So, if his constituents didn't support desegregation ... he wouldn't support it, either?

True. Politicians are there to represent us. But sometimes they're also there to make tough decisions ... that maybe many of us disagree with.

What's the point of having elected officials if they're just going to vote the way they think their voters would vote? That's not leadership. So, let's not call 'em leaders then. Could you imagine if that line of thought existed for many who voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964? It would've never successfully passed...

Yeesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:36 AM

13. Maybe he just thinks federal bans of any sort are a bad idea

 

Forget the 2nd Amendment for a moment, I don't see how it is constitutional under the 10th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:11 PM

74. ATF or FDA?

I don't think the constitution lays out restrictions on the amount of mercury and lead to be presented in baby food, so would the 10th amendment apply to mercury-filled baby food in lead-lined containers hidden under an umbrella of "proprietary" copyright?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreWId (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:32 PM

131. IMO, yes

 

I don't think an federal ban is legal, whether it be banning drugs, guns, or whatever. Remember, in late teens/early 20's, they needed to enact a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol because they knew just banning it with a federal law was unconstitutional. They respected the 10th Amendment much more back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:40 AM

14. That really surprises me!

If it were somebody else, it might even piss me off. But I have a lot of faith in Senator Franken. I've read a few of his books and watched him shred the republicans throughout the Bush* pretendidency. (Yeah, I'm also a big SNL fan.) He'll make the right decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:02 AM

15. How DARE he be undecided

Doesn't he understand that be was elected to have a fully formed non-negotiable position on anything, anytime, suitable for printing on a bumper sticker?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:41 AM

28. Well said. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:02 AM

16. As far as I can see it isn't saying one way or another /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:03 AM

18. Im sorry, but I do not agree

with those who wish to ban assault rifles.

I am about as left-leaning as they come around my area. I strongly support background check improvements and the 23 areas outlined for executive orders, and I strongly support mental health care improvements.


But I do not support bans on rifles or magazines.

That's just me- but if that is where I am on the issue, then it has no chance of moving through Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:33 AM

45. Well, maybe then

 

If you have a relative that gets gunned down by an assault rifle you'll have a change of heart. However by then it will be too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to James48 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:54 AM

52. I'm with ya, James.

I'm with ya, James. I know that this place has a lt of groupthink going on with respect to guns, but there are still some of us here who want to honor the spirit & letter of the Constitution, WHILE also improving public safety. Glad to hear that Senator Franken is willing to think these issues through as well.

I also agree that the the President's Executive Orders of yesterday raise no major red flags, tough the devil will be in the details & agency implementations.



-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:07 AM

19. The ban was just SO AWFUL when it was in effect!

I mean, civilization reeled! Everyone who wanted a gun was unduly oppressed and the misery the Assault Weapons Ban inflicted can never be fully understood, it ran so deep!


Oh wait.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:20 AM

22. LOL. I bet it affects gun stores. Without "assault/tactical" weapons to pique yahoos' interests,


store traffic will be a little slow.

Now if we could do something about semi-auto handguns . . . . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:31 AM

24. Perhaps he doesn't want to commit political suicide

for an act of security theater. He is not alone in the Senate:

Washington (CNN) -- Unlike most issues these days that divide along party lines, the immediate fate of President Obama's new gun proposals will depend not as much on Republicans as his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Democratic leadership sources tell CNN that passing any new legislation will be extremely difficult because more than a dozen vulnerable Democrats from conservative states will probably resist much of what the president is pushing.

These Democratic sources say the most likely legislation to pass will be strengthening background checks, since it is the least overt form of gun control and it also appeals to gun rights advocates' emphasis on keeping guns away from people with mental health and criminal problems.

Democratic leadership sources say they intend to spend next week -- the first week the Senate is in session -- canvassing red-state Democrats to see what, if anything, is doable. Democratic senators who advocate various gun control measures will be lobbying their colleagues as well.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-gun-legislation/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:35 AM

25. Perhaps he doesn't want to commit political suicide

I can understand that.

And he's not there to promote his personal ideas but his constituents'....so Al is OK.

I was just pointing out it IS security theatre..... of the absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:18 PM

161. This line of thinking is why we got DOMA and the Iraq War...

"Oh, I'm just promoting what my constitutions want!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:08 AM

38. The question is not awfulness.

The question is effectivness. An AWB is the "appearance" of action. It is not action, not real action.


It's a "massive political victory!" It's a "sharp blow to the NRA!"


And it means that people can still own semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifles as long as they take off a secondary feature or two.


So you've irritated gun owners, who feel they have to be politically active about this issue, for the Democrats to try to appeal to... who?

People that don't own guns and have no interest in doing so have to do absolutely, literally NOTHING to continue to do so. Democrats already have the vote of people that want to disarm in one fashion or another the general population.


The NRA was reduced in relevancy last election because of the general ineptness and short coattails of Romney, and because Obama didn't move on gun control.

Now, every person that warned that Obama would be moving on gun control once he was elected for his final term has been 100% vindicated.

If the grandstanding politicians really were serious about this, they would be calling for a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns instead of trying to draw some imaginary and arbitrary line between "good" and "assault" semi-autos. But, they aren't, which means they are either clueless about guns (which I doubt; they have staffs for a reason) or they're interested in a propaganda victory for 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:46 AM

50. Now, every person that warned that Obama would be moving on gun control once he was elected for his

Now, every person that warned that Obama would be moving on gun control once he was elected for his final term has been 100% vindicated.


So? Who cares? They are the nut fringe minority. He is not coming to get everybody's guns. They have not been 100% vindicated.

Why should sensible people be held hostage by a minority of nuts and a few incredulous pandering rabble rousers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:23 AM

137. I'm afraid it's not just the nut fringe minority

I've had several coworkers that I KNOW for a fact voted for Obama in the last election start spouting off the "coming-to-get-our-guns" factoids put out by the NRA. It's pretty sad, actually.

It's far more pervasive than you think among gun owners, the fear of a gun ban and confiscation. Even among gun owners who had no previous interest in assault rifles or other tactical guns, just the fact that they're being told they can't have them is making them think maybe they should buy one or two, just because they might not be able to in the future.

It's human nature: tell someone they can't have something, and suddenly they REALLY want it just because they perceive it's more valuable or important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #137)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:48 AM

141. So: We Should Tailor Our Policies Down To The Level Of Gun Activist-Spawned Paranoia?


No, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #141)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:56 PM

142. No, that's not what I'm suggesting

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss these arguments coming from the other side as just part of a fringe minority, and realize they're more pervasive than many here seem to believe.

If you really want to pass any meaningful gun safety regulations, you need to understand what the pro-gun side believes, what the NRA has indoctrinated them to believe for decades now, and come up with reasonable explanations to sooth their fears. I've been countering the paranoia at work by simply explaining the facts to my coworkers.

For example, I had to counter one who said he heard that Obama already passed a law to require background checks on ammo and that a friend of a friend had to wait in line 30 min to buy a box of shotgun shells. I told him I knew that wasn't true because 1) Obama couldn't unilaterally make such a law without the approval of Congress, and 2) I'd just witnessed a man buy 200 rd of 9mm ammo at the store a few days ago with no fuss.

You know, to enlist the support of all the reasonable, responsible gun owners everyone here at DU keeps saying we need help from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #142)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:35 PM

145. Let Me Stop You, Right There.


I'm presuming that you're including that co-worker of yours as one of the "reasonable, responsible gun owners" you're talking about doing missionary work with. If that guy constitutes one of what you consider to be the "reasonable, responsible" types, what does that say about the gun rights movement we're up against? Understand, I'm not quarreling with you; hell, I'm agreeing with you---we're up against a whole bunch of deranged people, people who were already unhappy about having a black Democrat for a second presidential term, and then the gun proposals come along. What the hell support can we expect from such people, if your co-worker is one of the best and brightest they have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #145)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:36 PM

150. If they don't like/respect the law, lock them up for breaking it. Simple. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SylviaD (Reply #150)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:52 PM

160. The for profit prison industry thanks you for your support

With marijuana getting legalized, they need fresh bodies to fill up the beds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #160)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:44 PM

164. So you don't believe in the rule of law? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SylviaD (Reply #164)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:19 AM

165. I believe in the rule of law

But the trouble is, more laws means more law enforcement (aka Police).

More police with massive numbers of laws to enforce and powers to enforce them = police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #165)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:31 PM

166. 1000s of right wing gun nuts thank you for your opinions. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:10 PM

55. Well done. AWB ban only imposes cosmetic differences -- does not affect lethality.

Is a gun less deadly if you suppress a bayonet mount? How many people die from bayonets? Is it less deadly if you eliminate a pistol grip, spark arrestor, or folding stock?

Perhaps limiting magazine capacity will have an affect on massacres, which account for less than 1% of murders. Most murders can be accomplished with a 3 shot magazine.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:15 AM

20. why does ANY congressman think assault weapons are fine? Are we in a civil war now?

I guess so. The rational vs. the irrational with assault weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:16 AM

21. Midwestern Senators have to be careful on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:30 AM

23. Is there some benign purpose for assault weapons that I am not aware of?

Seems to me the only purpose of assault weapons is to kill other human beings or am I missing something? Is there some animal species so deadly and dangerous roaming our country that the only way to take it down is with an assault weapon? I'm serious about this. Why would any civilian need this kind of weapon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:37 AM

26. It is merely a rifle

it is accurate, light, very ergonomic, and easy to shoot.

It is perfect for hunting and target shooting (which is what I use it for).

Lets keep in mind that every rifle is basically a military rifle at heart. Millions were killed in WWI and WWII by bolt action .30 caliber rifles - like those "hunting rifles" I keep hearing are ok to own.

Like every generation before, a large group of men in the military become familiar and comfortable with a certain type of rifle. The AR-15 is a 50 year old design - is what two generations of men think of when they hear the word rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:51 AM

29. A Bushmaster AR-15 .223 Is A "Hunting Rifle".......


....to the same degree a Ruger No.1 single-shot is a "military rifle." Fail.

I'm curious: As a Gun Enthusiast, did you ever think that Al Franken would be the guy to deliver your side of the argument some desperately-needed (if perhaps short-lived) encouragement? I'm surprised by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:56 AM

31. Why not? Put a 5 round mag on it as required by law

and it is a perfect small game rifle. Remember that the .223 round is adapted from the .222 Remington which is a very popular varmint round.

You are getting hung up on cosmetics - would you feel better if it looked like this?:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:07 AM

37. Your side is the one that's hung up on cosmetics.


And I bet the wooden stock on that Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle (I had mentioned that I know something about firearms, hadn't I?) makes guys like you cringe.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:08 AM

39. Would you ban the Mini-14? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:44 AM

47. Aw, A Feeble Attempt At A Trick Question. How Sweet.


Fail. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:11 PM

56. Not a trick question. Merely shows the futility of banning weapons based on appearance.

I understand your need to "just do something" but don't you think "something" should actually accomplish what you want? An AWB has to draw the line somewhere - where do you draw it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:45 AM

48. I like the wooden stock

Never took it off when I owned one, I quite appreciated the classic Garand lines...they just look tacky with pistol grip stocks, awkward and poorly designed IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:00 AM

33. I use my AR-15 for shooting coyotes

 

when they come after my chickens and ducks.
The .223 is the ideal round for taking down those wily coyotes, however, that's about the only time it comes out of the gun safe.
I don't even have a hi cap mag for it, the only mag I have is a 10 rounder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:34 PM

63. That is incredibly dangerous...and expensive.

You better not have any living person within miles of those coyotes you're shooting at. And why would you use expensive AR-15 rounds when a .22 will do? Did you just join DU to spread NRA propaganda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:41 PM

65. I've had the same box of .223 for years now.

 

A .22 is not an ideal round for shooting a pest like a coyote, a .22 is ideal for things like ground hogs, foxes, of which I have around here also.
I own 40 acres of land and have no neighbors around me for a few miles, I'm very careful when I do shoot.
.223 rounds weren't expensive until just lately.
And what NRA prop. am I spreading?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:47 PM

67. Claims that the AR-15 is used for hunting is NRA propaganda.

You are suggesting that the AR-15 is "ideal" for shooting coyotes. Sorry, but I call bullshit on your claim that a .22 is ideal for "ground hogs, foxes" but not coyotes. The AR-15 is ideal for killing a lot of people in a short perior of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:53 PM

70. Call bullshit all you want.

 

Fact is that the .22 round is not small enough for a quick and humane kill on a coyote unless you get a head shot and even then, it's not guaranteed to kill right away.
The .223 round will achieve a quick and humane kill on a coyote. I have experience in this, do you?
And I also have experience on the .22 being a sufficient round for smaller pests, do you?
The only time my AR-15 comes out of the gun safe is if I have a coyote raiding my chickens or ducks.
I still don't see how I'm spreading NRA prop., please enlighten me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:06 PM

73. I already answered your question.

Sounds like you joined DU to troll about guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #73)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:13 PM

76. Have you even read my posts?

 

I not really pro nor con on guns, I said in an earlier post that I could care less if a new AWB ban were passed, although I think that's not doable in the congress at this time, it wouldn't affect me in the least.
If I had to get rid of my AR-15 I would for market value and go buy another rifle of similar caliber.


It seems to me that you have a real problem with people who own firearms, whether they're lawful or not.
Have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:31 PM

136. He very well could be a troll, but nothing he is saying so far is wrong.

Using a .22 to kill a coyote is inhumane, unless you are a serious marksman.

He stated that he uses it for protection of his farm animals, which is more than legal, even here in California.

NRA propaganda is easy to spot and goes against the opinion of the vast majority of ALL people, gun owners or not. Everything this poster has said (so far) leads me to believe that he is the type of gun owner that would be necessary to have on the side of any new legislation put through congress. Not someone to be flamed. Although that could obviously change if it is only a way to get post-count up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:31 AM

139. The .223 Rem. round is ideal

For shooting any game from a few pounds up to 50-lb coyotes (so long as you're not eating the meat). It's the most popular round chambered in heavy-barreled bolt-action varmint rifles for just that purpose. The fact that a semi-automatic also fires it makes no difference on the performance of the cartridge itself.

If you think the .22LR is an ideal round for coyotes (which it is far from), that would imply the much more powerful .223 is an ideal round for what, deer? So would that make the AR-15 a good deer rifle then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:26 AM

138. A .22LR is a piss-poor choice for shooting coyotes

It's best used for squirrels and rabbits. Even 10-lb woodchucks can be problematic with a .22LR; I've had a couple get away after solid chest shots.

To suggest using a .22LR on coyotes is ridiculous, unless you can guarantee a brain shot.

As to the "miles" argument, that's just odd: a .22LR will also travel well over a mile if you're not careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:04 AM

34. I have never been concerned about an actual AWB passing

I am a political junkie - I follow Congress very closely and have a very good understanding about how it actually works. I knew, for example, that the House would not do nothing until the Senate acted - the repukes are not willingly going to stick their fingers into the saw blades. They are happy to sit there until the debt ceiling fight starts in a few weeks and distracts everyone away from guns.

The only way for the President to keep any momentum was for the Senate to get the ball rolling and send a law to the House. But one look at the Democratic Senators up for reelection in 2014 makes it clear why many of them may not be willing to support gun control as they represent conservative states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2014_Senate_election_map.svg

And low and behold, I was right:

Washington (CNN) -- Unlike most issues these days that divide along party lines, the immediate fate of President Obama's new gun proposals will depend not as much on Republicans as his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Democratic leadership sources tell CNN that passing any new legislation will be extremely difficult because more than a dozen vulnerable Democrats from conservative states will probably resist much of what the president is pushing.

These Democratic sources say the most likely legislation to pass will be strengthening background checks, since it is the least overt form of gun control and it also appeals to gun rights advocates' emphasis on keeping guns away from people with mental health and criminal problems.

Democratic leadership sources say they intend to spend next week -- the first week the Senate is in session -- canvassing red-state Democrats to see what, if anything, is doable. Democratic senators who advocate various gun control measures will be lobbying their colleagues as well.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-gun-legislation/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:18 AM

41. What's So Surprising About This?


The gun activist movement has had a junkie-level dependence on right-wing politicians, judges and commentators for decades. And there's certainly nothing new about a few Democratic office holders cratering to gun lobby pressure. I'll settle for something short of a full AWB at this point---there will be other school massacres in the future, other political assassinations. In the long run, the pro-gun extremism movement is toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:22 AM

42. I have been hearing that for years - not concerned

In the long run the steady decline in gun violence and death will continue their 30 year decline. The good news is that we will be safer regardless of what happens in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:42 AM

46. Yeah, Keep That Optimistic Attitude, By All Means.


Here, let me help you: Everything's OK, Obama won't be president forever, those twenty dead school kids in Connecticut are nothing more than a brief PR problem, AR-15's are big sellers because they are ideal hunting rifles, Wayne LaPierre really makes sense, Antonin Scalia will be on the bench for the next 50 years, if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd have a stack of 30-round magazines......

Anything else I can do for you? Nothing I like more than a happy gun activist.



(Sarcasm alert, for those dim enough to require one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:15 PM

58. You sound like those folks railing against Roe v Wade.

"Any day now". Fortunately they have been consistently wrong - even after getting a sympathetic President and Supreme Court.

I admire your passion. But your grip on political and social reality is lacking. When a dozen or so Democratic Senators will not support an AWB then the issue is a little more complex than your simple black and white cartoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:45 PM

95. Tell You What: Let's Talk About What I DON'T Sound Like.


What I don't sound like is somebody on a Democratic site, feverishly pimping for a position on guns that's backed by the likes of Wayne LaPierre, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, Dick Cheney, Glen Beck, Jim Yeager, Steve Stockman, Rick Perry, Larry Pratt, Sarah Palin, John McCain, and every other far right-wing skidmark in the country. And you're going to lecture ME about political reality? Fail, yet again.

Helpful point: Don't accuse real liberals of being like those who oppose Roe v Wade. It only confirms your utter desperation, whatever your claims to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:50 PM

98. Yet I bet you and I see eye to eye on many progressive issues

like abortion, marriage equality, health care, social entitlements, unions, voting reform. It is unfortunate that you are completely unable to accept the idea of pro-gun Democrats. But that says much more about you than it does about me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:02 PM

105. There you had a nice, respectful post going, something potentially constructive.....

....something with some truthful content, and you just couldn't resist fucking it up with that last sentence. You gun activists are all alike. Spare me any further responses for, oh, the rest of your life, howzabout?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:06 PM

106. You really work hard at being offended, don't you?

because god forbid you ever have to grapple with shades of grey.

You have yet to post anything respectful on the subject. You demand total capitulation and are offended when we tell you to fuck off. Better get use to it until you and the other grabbers learn some manners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:26 PM

154. gee, you say that to all the girls

(and guys). What a charmer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #154)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:48 AM

155. I unfortunately have been known to sink to the level of my opponents

not something I am proud of.

The gun "debate" on DU is poison - I wish gun posts were removed from GD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #155)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:05 AM

156. but what would you have to post about?

I actually agree that they should be removed. But I have never seen you post on anything other than guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #156)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:08 AM

157. Does it matter?

I have been here for eight years. I have posted on a lot of subjects. Right now the subject that interests me is guns.

Don't make this personal - this is a discussion board, not an echo chamber. There are people that disagree with you - learn to either accept it or ignore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:39 PM

64. It is not "merely a rifle."

I am getting so sick of seeing NRA propaganda on this site.

As another DUer explained, the 5.56 NATO rounds AR-15 takes should not be confused as being no more dangerous than a lil' ol' 22. The key here is that the 5.56 can be twice as heavy as .22LR and can travel twice as fast. With kinetic energy proportional to mass and velocity squared, that gives the 5.56 round as much as eight times the energy (close to 2000 Joules) that the .22 packs (perhaps 250 Joules).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:51 PM

69. There are many other rounds that are much more powerful then a 5.56mm

in many states it is explicitly illegal to hunt deer with a 5.56 because it is not powerful enough. The 30-06 round is a classic and popular deer round - do your calculations for that round and get back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:59 PM

71. You don't put a 30-round magazine on a deer rifle.

An assault rifle shoots powerful bullet for miles, and can have huge-capacity magazines that obviate the need to even aim. You can just saw a person in half with the spray of bullets. An assault rifle is not "just a rifle." It is a mass killing machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:00 PM

72. So implement a ban on large mags. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:13 PM

75. That too.

But assault weapons are a triple threat; the speed/energy of the bullets; the large mags and the semi-auto feature (which can be converted to auto with the right small parts). You can't pop a 30-round mag into a regular deer rifle. I'm fine with the traditional deer rifle. An assault rifle ain't that. Civilians have no business owning assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:14 PM

77. So you want to ban all semi-automatic rifles?

even those that are not military style?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:19 PM

83. What do you mean "not military style"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:24 PM

85. There are many civilian semi-automatic weapons

it is an old technology (about 100 years) that is not used exclusively by the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:31 PM

89. 100-year-old rifles are not the problem. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:36 PM

92. 100 year old semi auto rifles work the same way as a modern semi auto rifle.

 

And that's fact, not NRA prop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #92)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:43 PM

94. They don't shoot with the same energy nor can you pop a 30-round mag in them.

Nor can you pop a part in them that makes them full auto. They're antiques. Your suggestion that 100-year-old antiques are the same as a modern semi auto rifle is a lie --like all NRA propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:51 PM

99. Not quite a 100 years old.

 

But this rifle can do what you just said is all NRA prop.

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was a family of United States automatic rifles (or machine rifles) and light machine guns used by the United States and numerous other countries during the 20th century. The primary variant of the BAR series was the M1918, chambered for the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge and designed by John Browning in 1917 for the U.S. Expeditionary Corps in Europe as a replacement for the French-made Chauchat and M1909 Benet-Mercie machine guns


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:53 PM

100. That's talking about machine guns.

You really are a gun troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:56 PM

102. Whatever.

 

Believe what you want. I just pointed out the fallacy of your argument and you accuse me of something I'm not.
Have a good day.

On Edit:

The Browning BAR is a gas-operated, semi-automatic rifle produced by the Browning Arms Company first in Belgium and later in Japan. The rifle loads from a box magazine detachable from a hinged floor plate. This rifle should not be confused with the M1918 military rifle, which is a completely different design, sharing no parts, though also referred to as the BAR. Browning introduced a redesigned BAR in 1996.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:18 PM

108. Link(s)? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to nick of time (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:24 PM

112. Seeing that it's fed by a "detachable box magazine," it should be illegal, IMO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:30 PM

113. I won't disagree with you there.

 

But those semi auto mag fed rifles have been around for a long time and the technology is basically the same as todays semi auto mag fed rifles.
I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if they banned mag fed semi auto rifles tomorrow, I'd just go buy a tubelar fed semi auto for use on my farm.
No sweat off my b___s.
The only reason I own my AR-15 is due to a good friend of mine needed fast cash a number of years ago, so I bought his AR-15 for $300.00.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #112)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:01 PM

146. Did you happen to go to the pdf manual for that rifle?

 

If you had, you would see that the "detachable box mag" can hold no more then five rounds, and probably more like three.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prog_gun_owner (Reply #146)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:15 PM

148. I see you joined DU to troll this post.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:59 PM

104. "They don't shoot with the same energy"

You are correct, they have muck less "energy" then earlier designed bolt action rifles which all use a larger, faster round.

"Nor can you pop a part in them that makes them full auto." BS...feel free to post a link to that being done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:14 PM

107. "BS"? Seriously? Well, here's your link. Can't believe you didn't already know about this....

"In the late 1970's and early 80's items such as the "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic is very straightforward (sometimes requiring machining of the lower receiver with use of a lathe and M16 Bolt Carrier Group)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15


No civilian should own an AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:41 PM

116. Did I say it wasn't doable?

Or did I ask for a link of it being done?

Other then the North Hollywood Bank of America shootout in '97?

So no civilian should own a AR-15...so AK's ok? H&k-G-3's? M-14's? Or just AR's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:55 PM

118. All assault rifles should be illegal for civilians to possess.

Our lives should not be endangered so some gun nut can fullfill his Rambo fantasy. But we're getting way off topic here. This thread was about Al Franken maybe not supporting an AWB. Turns out he DOES want to reinstate the AWB: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372143


If you want to keep yammering about how innocuous assault rifles are, you can go to the gungeon, i.e. the Gun Control & RKBA (Group)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172


I'm done with this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #107)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:36 AM

140. That part is regulated as a machine gun

Yes, that little metal piece is classified as a machine gun by the ATF, and will set you back $7000 or more, IF you can pass all the background checks to own it.

And they stopped making them in 1986; modern AR-15's likely won't even accept them without major metalwork since the design has changed in the past 30 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #107)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:14 PM

147. My step dad took a nail file to a 1940's German Luger Pistol.

 

Converted it from semi-auto to full-auto with a nail file. So you tell me should we ban semi-auto pistols? or nail files?

Yes I realize that is was dangerous and most likely illegal to convert it, but not physically impossible. So in short, I was all ready illegal to do what my dad did. The current laws did not prevent him. additional legislation will not prevent tragedy. It was all ready illegal for the shooter to bring a fire arm to sandy hook. Murder is illegal too.

How about we ban 12 gauge shot guns? a typical pump action holds 5-7 rounds in the tube, but if you load it with 00 buck shot, that is a total of 63 projectiles before you need to reload. We gonna ban pump action shot guns too?

I finish this post by answering your last sentence thus:

No government should own a nuke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #94)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:21 PM

144. Research the Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=659

Made in the 1930's, it was semi-auto, the .35 Remington it fired put out three times the energy of the 5.56mm round used in the AR-15 today, and they used high-capacity, detachable magazines.

Install a pistol grip and folding stock on that gun and it would be classified as an assault rifle today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #94)


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:47 PM

96. I am talking about the technology being 100 years old.

there are civilian semiautomatic rifles are being built right now.

Here is a good example:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:10 PM

120. You are better off target shooting with 22lr and hunting with 30-06

.223...semi-auto...30 round magazines. All these things were designed for combat. I will not miss them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:15 PM

121. I disagree

You can't shot High Power competition with a .22

30-06 will vaporize small game - there is a reason rounds like the .222 Remington are popular varmint rounds. Besides, the recoil is too much for small framed individuals like my wife and teenage daughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:28 PM

122. OK, then use .222 with the bolt action rifles with which they are common

.223 semi-auto 30 round rifles are specifically designed for combat for a multitude of reasons. Not self defense, combat. This means that compromises were made that made it sub-optimal for both target shooting and hunting. The reason .223s have become so popular is because of American's infatuation with the war hero, not because it is great for other uses.

I realize that you own such a rifle and whish to hold on to it. But the argument that it is better for hunting and target shooting is not a strong one to counter a civilian ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:35 PM

123. It is perfect for target shooting and hunting

light, adjustable, ergonomic, low recoil and accurate as hell.

Besides the 30 round mag, what design feature of an AR-15 makes it inferior to a traditional wooden stocked rifle?

It is a 50 year old design - if it was sub-optimized then someone would have come along with a better design for civilian semi-automatic rifles. But they have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #123)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:09 PM

124. Well for one thing, .223 doesn't have the killing power to bring down game(Deer and bigger) humanley

and is banned for use in hunting in many states and counties for that reason. For target shooting, semi-autos are generally less accurate than bolt action rifles. As far as ergonomics and ease of use, bolt action rifles are much easier and faster to clean. Semi autos can jam more easily, particularly when fitted with 30 round magazines. You've never had to clear a jam for your Daughter because she couldn't?

The combination of .223/5.56, a semi/full-automatic rifle and a 30 round magazine is called a weapons system. It's called a weapons system because none of those features exist in a vacuum. They all come to together to create a platform for combat. The idea is to give a soldier the ability to fire the maximum amount of bullets with the maximum damage dealing ability in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of carried weight. These design objectives resulted in the compromises I detailed in the previous paragraph that negatively affect civilian uses.

I'm not saying there is no possible argument for these weapons to remain in civilian use. I am just saying that "better for hunting and target shooting" is a bad one. "Sufficient/possible for hunting and target shooting" is closer, and that's not even true in many states regarding hunting. But then the argument becomes less strong does it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #124)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:19 PM

125. It is a varmint round - not everyone hunts larger game.

but if I wanted to shoot deer, I would simply get an AR-15 chambered for 6.8mm. Or an AR-10 chambered in 7.62.

As for the rest, I don't think you have kept up with modern weapons.

AR-15s are a standard for competitive target shooting - they became common because people win with them.

I have never shot a bolt action rifle where I could adjust it's physical configuration to fit my body. And the pistol grip is much more ergonomic to shoot - why do you think it was adopted so quickly once rifle makers were able to mold rifle furniture instead of carving it?

Our rifles very seldom jam - I can't remember the last time it happened during competition. And if they do we clear them. Including my wife and daughter.

You are wrong. They are modern rifles - period. They are perfectly suited for hunting and target shooting - the fact that so many people actually use them for that purpose should tell you something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:37 PM

126. It's popular because of military fetishism

I went to buy ammo last weekend and someone told me soon as I got through the door that Obama was going to put vapor packets in ammo boxes so the bullets go bad after a few months. .223 was through the roof. Over a dollar per bullet. It's ridiculous because because nobody is talking about outlawing the round that these rifles shoot.

The culture dictates what is popular more than practicality, and there is something very wrong with the culture for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:40 PM

127. Every rifle is basically a military rifle at heart

that bolt action "hunting" rifle killed millions in WWI and WWII.

I guess we will have to disagree. Have a good evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:35 PM

130. it is also popular

Because the AR-15 is a modular platform that can fire many different calibers by just changing out the upper at a lower cost than purchasing another rifle. In this case it is very practical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:22 AM

43. Self defense is about killing people

Or at least being prepared to. The caveat being that the person you're ready to kill is an attacker or intruder.

But the line between a "legitimate" semi-automatic rifle and an "assault weapon" semi-automatic rifle is arbitrary.

Some features that make a rifle an "assault weapon" are just the natural development of good ergonomic design. Pistol grips are easier on the wrist than traditional straight grips. And quick-adjusting buttstocks make the gun fit a variety of people (tall person vs. short), or clothing conditions (winter vs. summer).


But an AR-15 with a pistol grip and a quick-adjusting stock... that's an "assault weapon" in several states.



They make AR-15s optimized for hunting, as well as several other types of semi-automatic rifles. The AK-47 pattern, for example, is used by people that hunt deer and wild boar at close range, in timber or heavy brush.

The nice thing about the AR-15 design is that you can buy what's called an "upper" in different calibers. You can swap "uppers" for cartridge for is more suitable for deer or boar or whatever at a lower cost than buying a whole new rifle. Other rifles, you generally can't do that. You have to buy a new rifle, or have an old rifle permanently modified to a new cartridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:01 PM

53. ?????

 

> Self defense is about killing people

Nothing short of killing will do, eh? Pepper spray, tasers (non-lethal ones, anyway) aren't useful? Pretty bloodthirsty.

Remind me to stay a few dozen miles away from folks with your mindset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:05 PM

143. You should always keep the possibility of lethal force present in your mind

When entertaining the idea of self-defense. Even the best-laid plans to use non-lethal force can go awry. Say your pepper spray doesn't work, or your taser snags in clothing and doesn't give a incapacitating charge? Or what if you accidentally left them in your car when you need them most? What do you do then? Do you fight with all you have in you, even if that means grabbing a frying pan or a piece of wood and crushing in someone's skull? Or do you just lie down and accept the possibility of death?

The worst possible thing in a life-or-death situation is to not be prepared mentally to take a life in defense of your own or your loved ones if it comes to that. If you don't want to rely on overtly lethal means of self-defense, that's your choice, more power to you. But you need to consider all the possible outcomes of that encounter if it ever occurs. This is one instance where you truly should think about what you'd do in a worst-case scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:25 PM

158. Not a gun advocate (wish we could live like UK or Japan) but nevertheless feel that you make good

points that us non gun folks aren't really interested in.

Question:

What do feel about high capacity clips?

Rather than labels we should have been focusing on the lethality of a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #158)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:06 PM

159. I feel the following.

If we're going to have a limit, it should be done after some kind of scientific study. For example, in all self-defense shootings where the intended victim did not shoot the gun empty, what is the average number of shots fired?

Then, once we have that number, we can say "okay, it should be 2x, or 3x, that number".

If the average number of shots fired in a situation where the victim did not run out of ammo is, say, 5 rounds ,then we can say "okay, if the average is 5, then a limit of 10 or 15 is statistically valid."

Or something like that.



Alternatively, we could have two separate limits: on long guns (rifles and shotguns) we can set a limit to, say 30 rounds, because despite the high-profile mass shootings, all rifles (not just ones fed from a detachable magazine) account for only 5% of murders. And remember, Virginia Tech's slaughter was done by handguns, and Sideshow Bob in Aurora used a shotgun and a pistol after his rifle jammed. Magazines that hold more are often complex and unreliable; Sideshow Bob's 100-round wonder-mag for his rifle jammed after less than 30 shots, and rather than clear the jam he simply switched guns.

There is a mechanical limitation here where only so many rounds can be stacked on a spring before feeding becomes a problem, so there's a practical overall length limit. The same length magazine that holds 30 rounds of .223 might only hold 20 rounds of .308 or 10 rounds of 12-gauge shotgun ammo. Trying to make it longer results in feeding problems and jams.

But, there are new kinds of stick magazines out there called "casket magazines" that are basically two staggered-column magazines in one housing. Listed capacities are 60 and 100 rounds. Now, of course this magazine will be as heavy as hell, and I don't know how reliable it is.

Or we could specify that the total column length of the cartridges can't be more than X inches high, and no more than two columns per magazine.

As for handguns, we could put a limit in based on what is usually the maximum number of rounds that fit into a full-sized handgun's standard magazine. Since handgun magazines are pretty much designed to fit flush to the bottom of the handgun's grip, this would make the maximum for a typical 9mm gun to be about 17 rounds. Again, with mechanical limitations, the fatter the cartridge the fewer can fit into the same column height.

Or we can do a handgun magazine limit based on column length like the long guns, above: no more than Y inches high, and no more than two columns.



A limit based on ammunition column length would put people in the position of have many smaller shots, or fewer larger ones. For example, an AR-15 is normally chambered to shoot .223 Remington ammunition. But by purchasing a separate upper receiver, you can quickly convert your AR-15 to shoot the much larger, but shorter-range .50 Beowulf. The same length magazine that holds 30 rounds of .223 only holds 10 rounds of .50 Beowulf, but the .50 Beowulf is much more powerful at close to medium ranges.



Arguably, the .50 Beowulf is a much more effective cartridge for self defense than the .223, so maybe it's a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:50 PM

152. That's the thing about the Constitution - rights aren't about needs. Why does any individual need

to make a speech or need to assemble peacefully or need to exercise his/her faith?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:38 AM

27. Perhaps he wants to see the specifics of the bill before making a decision

Something that in a rational world, all of congress would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:56 AM

32. What you said.

 

He's probably hearing a lot of noise from his constituents about this issue.
Minnesota has a long and rich tradition of firearms ownership and are very leery of any bans, whether it be assault weapons or hi cap bans.
Sen. Franken is a very thoughtful man and he will vote according to what his constituents want, not what his personal feelings are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:54 AM

30. Sounds like Al is considering a run for higher office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:47 AM

51. Sounds like he simply values his job

And would like to stay there through another election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:12 PM

57. Either way. As Rachel Maddow would say, "He is triangulating his position."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:17 PM

79. Or simply trying to keep his current one. He is up for reelection next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:24 PM

84. That's his choice but disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:28 PM

87. These new restriction are going to die the House anyway, so why

should Democratic Senators stick their necks out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:28 PM

88. I think it's called leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #88)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:31 PM

90. If enough Democrats in the Senate do this, there will be new 'leadership' in the Senate in 2015

Mitch McConnell will be Majority Leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:34 PM

91. This is a bit circular, isn't it?

We accept elected leaders compromising their values so that they can be re-elected? And when they are re-elected... will they then act like Democrats? Or will they continue to vote with the Republicans that we don't want in power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #91)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:38 PM

93. But what if his constituents are against what he believes in.

 

Should he just go against what his contituents want or what his values are?
Sticky question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #93)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:48 PM

97. Are they? Was Al Franken elected because he is known to be a capitulating centrist?

If the answer is "yes," then he should cave on this issue. If not, then he should stand strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:54 PM

101. But that doesn't answer.

 

If his contituents don't want an AWB, should he go against his constituent or should he vote for what the people whom he represents want him to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #101)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:19 PM

109. He is under no such obligation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:22 PM

111. He's under no such obligation to vote how his constituents want him to vote?

 

Is that what you're saying?
Pretty good way to lose the job you were hire to do, represent the people who voted for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:37 PM

114. Leaders lead. They don't take polls to make decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #114)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:40 PM

115. You're seriously saying that elected leaders have no obligation

 

to represent the views of the voters that elected them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:48 PM

117. Not all the time. How many times have I said this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #117)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 02:55 PM

119. Ok.

 

Personally, I think that's wrong, but we're all entitled to our own opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:10 AM

40. Sounds like everyone should contact Sen. Franken. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:32 AM

44. The message I'm getting from the pro assault weapons posters here is that

their right to own these weapons supersedes the rights of school children to be safe in their classrooms, the rights of audiences to be safe at the movies, the rights of shoppers to be safe at a mall and so on. That's what it's come to. The US as a free for all shooting gallery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:02 PM

54. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:16 PM

59. An AWB ban does not make children safer in the classroom.

It means the person who shoots them will not be allowed to have a bayonet mount or a spark suppressor. I see no solace there.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:26 PM

86. This is why an AWB is tricky business

Now for those people who are in support of strict bans and of taking the gun control issue further, I would guess a large majority of them would be okay with complete confiscation though they may not say so publicly. So the gulf between conflicting viewpoints on this topic is huge and a good indicator why even Al Franken is being cautious about his position, which I respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:01 PM

128. Supporters of that ban need to be better educated on the topic

It's apparent 99% of the people that support reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban have no idea what it actually was and how little it did.

Like you said, if I wanted to retain the pistol grip I had to give up the flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and adjustable stock.

High capacity magazines were abundant and available as well, a little pricier than before but not terribly ridiculous, there's a billion of the things in circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:08 PM

129. I have a handgun. I bought a 20 and a 30 round mag before the first AWB

I filled the 30 round clip once. Because it projected below the grip, I was uncomfortable shooting with it. Never used it again. Never even tried the 20.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:45 AM

49. That's the most depressing thing I've heard so far today.

Yes, I understand he is playing to his constituents and being cautious, but.... et tu, Al?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:17 PM

60. The part of the effort that bothers me is the regulation around mental health

A government tracking their citizenry's sanity? A government database of people under mental health care? The no-fly list was bad enough, but that is freakin' creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 08:36 PM

163. Yes, it is very creepy.

If passed, it is quite likely that people in need of mental health services will refrain from treatment.

The stigma against mental health issues that prevails is strong enough as it is.

We need more balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:21 PM

61. Sen Franken has a lot of nerve

listening to the people who sent him to Congress instead of the posters here on DU, most of whom probably aren't even in MN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:31 PM

62. Franken Clarifies: I Support A Reinstatement Of Assault Weapons Ban

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:47 PM

68. Mr. SOPA moron himself. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:17 PM

80. Not quite. His spokesperson didn't

have an answer. ... The update clarifies his support of the ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:18 PM

81. Vague term, better to regulate actual things...

...then try to figure out what "assault weapons" are.

>10 round detachable magazines? check.
unregulated transfers? check.
registration? check.
bayonet lugs? um...why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:41 PM

132. i thought he was more enlightened than that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #132)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:47 PM

133. SamSingh...

the post was updated (at the bottom of the original OP), here:

Franken Clarifies: I Support A Reinstatement Of Assault Weapons Ban

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372143

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #133)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:17 PM

135. oh - thank you - he is more enlightened!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:37 PM

151. My support for Al Franken is at an end, and I will phone/email my MN friends. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:24 PM

153. I'll make sure to call Franken on Tuesday

and make clear I will not be supporting his reelection if he does not support the AW ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:35 PM

167. Et tu, senator Franken?

I can understand from a political perspective, but I've never thought of Franken as a regular pol.

Still love the guy though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:01 PM

169. Has Franken lost his mind?! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:23 PM

170. It is a badly conceived law that won't accomplish a reduction in gun violence


Its really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread