Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:02 PM
Original message
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Source: ABC News

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1



So much for Democratic control of Congress - it was nice while it lasted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Dumb. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. In fact, the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas
And who will define the term "assault weapon?" The Brady Campaign, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. This is the worst, most expensive use of political capital that they could have come up with. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
127. Yep. This should be at the VERY VERY end of the agenda nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #127
165. It shouldn't even be a part of the agenda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #165
168. I'd agree to that. nt
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 01:05 PM by anonymous171
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #3
98. Oh, that reminds me: I need to send $ to the Brady Campaign
Thanks, it had slipped my mind there for a minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #98
153. I'm sure plenty of repubs are contributing to that REPUB organization.
Newt Gingrich skillfully played DLC Dems into passing the first "assault weapon" fraud in '94. Looks like gullible Dems clueless enough to push a ban on the MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN RIFLES IN AMERICA are still around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
128. I believe the government definition of "assault weapon" is "scary-looking."
That was my gripe about the original bill. It defined the weapons it was banning by how cool those weapons were. So silly things like forward hand grips and folding bayonets--most of which can be removed and later reattached, anyway--were what made weapons illegal or not.

I'll be the first to point out that if the Constitution mentions hunting and recreational shooting, I don't know about it. The purpose stated in the 2nd Amendment refers to the "militia," which at the time was every male citizen who could use a gun. The Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers both show that at least some of the Framers knew exactly why they didn't want to take away guns: because they didn't trust governments and wanted the power of government to spring directly from the people, and the way you guarantee that is to give the people at least the chance to come and take back their government back by force, if they must.

Now, I just spent the most miserable eight years of my life watching the most criminal Presidency in our history fuck up every single possible thing it could fuck up, make a mockery of every legal construct we had, scare the people into inactivity, and fill them with inaccurate propaganda. They did everything they had to do to build a Fourth Reich, except one thing.

And then they just walked away. Why?

I can guess why. It was because by 2008 three out of four Americans were ready to go and remove those bastards if they didn't leave peacefully, and we had a hundred million firearms--about twenty times what our armed forces can muster due to their manpower constraints--to make it happen. I don't know if we could have pulled it off, but it's pretty obvious the Bush Department of Defense didn't know, either, because I'm certain they would have tried it if they thought they could pull it off.

I don't much like guns, I don't own a gun and probably never will, and I have no plans to ever use a gun in anger or for coercion. But there is a gun already out there for every American who wants one, and while we pay a huge and tragic price every year for having them, we're not going to get rid of them. And they just may have saved our asses, again, from those who would wish to take away our power. I can't be okay with taking away our guns because I can't trust our government. And you shouldn't, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. Yep. dumb, dumb, dumb.
I'm sure Rahm's behind this agenda, too. It's like he wants us to lose power as soon as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #36
73. Yes Mr Emaul is thinking with his ass again
Not really unbelievable--but the timing is very very bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Stupid nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bad politics
Not smart
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:45 AM
Original message
Why? Have you been drinking the NRA Kool-Aid?
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:48 AM by primavera
Despite what the NRA would have you believe, public opinion polls consistently show a very solid two-thirds majority of respondents in this country favor strengthening gun control laws. So why is it political suicide for a public official to comply with the clear wishes of the majority of his constituents? Because the NRA doesn't want him to? I thought we were in favor of reducing the influence of lobbyists, or is that only when you don't agree with the lobbyists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
109. Apples and oranges.
Strengthen gun control laws... yeah I am in favor as well.

Ban weapons based on ergonomic design and other cosmetic conciderations... effin insane and political suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #109
115. Interesting point, thanks.
One grows so accustomed to seeing such knee-jerk reactionism from the gun community against any kind of gun legislation, it's easy to overlook those that do favor gun control but may have valid criticisms of a specific piece of legislation. Hmmm, will have to think about that, but thanks for your reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vet4life63 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
124. RE: Why? Have you been drinking the NRA Kool-Aid?
I believe Hitler did the same thing. You see, first you must disarm the people before you can control them completely. I miss the old America where we had freedom. The nasty politicians dont represent the peoples wishes, only there own greedy ego tripping, lying , kaniving, wasteful, BS agenda. THEY are SUPPOSED to REPRESENT US, NOT THEMSELVES!!!! I say its time we took this country back. Enough is ENOUGH! the 2A protects the 1st folks, so if you are going to be complacent and let the 2A be trashed then you can forget having rights under the 1st and the 4th. Another thing that burns my arse is that those rights outlined in the constituition are God Given and unalienable rights, meaning they cannot be taken away. What are the politicians doing? Well, they convince the people those are priveleges and as we all know a privelege can be taken away! If we cant vote em out, then maybe we need to protect this country against all threats foreign and DOMESTIC. DOMESTIC = crooked usurpers of the Constitution of the United States of America!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. Well, politicians certainly don't represent the people's interests...
... when they disregard the wishes of the substantial majority that wants stricter gun control laws, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
225. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
243. Well, it might expend a lot of capital and energy
that the RW doesn't have to waste. So it might be a very smart move, from a man that I find to be quite brilliant.

Those "are you smarter than Barack Obama IQ ads" are a joke, too much of a joke to be an insult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. You're entitled to your opinion...
but I welcome it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. You welcome Democrats losing control of Congress?
I don't know what to say about that. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Those were, in retrospect, the glory years," says Paul Helmke, former GOP mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind.,
Packing heat on the hill
The NRA is riding high; gun control is a political loser

By Will Sullivan

Posted Sunday, July 9, 2006

Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren's Washington office features his hunting trophies, including a stuffed wild turkey and a mounted deer head. The freshman congressman's enthusiasm for firearms might always have stood out in the Democratic Party, but Boren now finds himself among an even more endangered species: Democrats willing to discuss guns at all.

"When we as Democrats are trying to reach out and speak to voters in the center of the country, I don't think that we can support gun control," he explains. After seeing Democrats hammered at the polls for voting to regulate guns, many of his colleagues seem to agree. As a result, a number of pro-gun measures moving through Congress will most likely face little opposition, as advocates of gun control increasingly find themselves marginalized and ignored.

Not long ago, it was the gun lobby on the defensive from the passage of the Brady bill in 1993 and the 1994 ban on "assault" weapons. But some say support for gun control cost Democrats the House in 1994, and former President Clinton credited it with Al Gore's 2000 presidential defeat. "It's different than it was in the early '90s. Those were, in retrospect, the glory years," says Paul Helmke, former GOP mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who recently took the reins of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.



Yup, lets go back to the GOP glory years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. I'm with you....why in the hell does anyone want an assault weapon..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. What's an "assault weapon?"
Can you give me an actual techincal definition of the term?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
30.  No they cannot. Ugly suppressors and bayonet mounts.....Big magazines
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 10:55 PM by cliffordu
scare idiots who won't learn the difference between semi-auto and full on machine guns....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pasto76 Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
47. Hardly - "assault" means specific things
and yes, large magazine capacity is one of them. US doctrine is in fact (although it is a holdover of the cold war) "I have more bullets loaded and ready than you".

The M16A2 I carried in Iraq didnt have automatic as an option. But you know that. I still assaulted targets with it. The semi-auto rate of fire is HIGH, as fast as I can pull the trigger, and Ive burned through my 210 rounds of standard issue in a few short minutes more than once. In reality, an AR15 isnt that far behind a fully auto weapon.

Gun nuts (I am a gun enthhusiast) only want to talk about part of the 2nd amendment. Lets talk about the word REGULATE thats in it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #47
55. Why the fuck would they give you a semi auto rifle if you were going to be
"assaulting targets" with it??

Fully automatic weapons are not a matter of having a bigger dick, either.

It's about survivability and efficiency in combat, but because you were in Iraq you knew that, right???

And you need to get hip to what the word 'regulated' meant when that phrase was written....

Well regulated meant fully outfitted.

But as a gun enthusiast you knew that, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #55
59. The army determined some time ago that....
a three shot burst is the ideal compromise in effectiveness between single-shot and a nervous newb spraying automatic weapon fire all over and wasting ammo.

Automatic weapons, unless mounted and chain-fed, are not more efficient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #59
220. In the hands of an 18 year old
if you go gonzo on a 240golf you are still not hitting jack shit and thus dead, or at minimum not hitting what you are firing at.. Every weapon I was behind had sights. The point of those being to aim fire at a target.

The M4 is fully automatic. However three shot bursts were expected. Not to say no one ever did a mag dump.

Any comparison to civilian rifles is moronic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #55
106. ROTFLMAO!!!
So now the word "regulated" in fact means "armed to the teeth"? OMG, that's priceless! You know, I've read lots of definitions of the word "regulated" and nowhere have I ever found a definition for the term such as the one that you suggest. Leave it to a gun nut to redefine the English language to better suit their political agenda! Thanks, it's good to start the day off with a hearty laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #106
112. Sorry, 18th Cent. "well-regulated" means in good working order.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 09:14 AM by FudaFuda
Well-regulated mind, well-regulated hospital, well-regulated clock, well-regulated militia. "well-regulated' was a common idiom in the 18th and 19th centuries, which has fallen into disuse in modern usage. But its usage had nothing to do with government 'regulation' in the modern sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #112
117. Any chance you might have sources for that?
You may be right, I'm not personally acquainted with the definition you're employing here, but I'd like to check it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. yep.
Yeah, just run a google on 'meaning of well regulated 2nd amendment' and you'll get a plethora of discussions on this. But one problem with trying to extract objectivity out of the 2nd amendment debate is that almost any source of info you find on the subject is advocating one side or the other ... everyone's on a soapbox. But the meaning of 'well-regulated' in the 2nd amendment context has been discussed here before ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And this .pdf has some examples of historical usage of the phrase 'well-regulated' which supports the 'in good working order' meaning ...

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/writings/WellRe...

I was an English major before losing my mind and going to law school, and read a LOT of 18th and 19th century literature. My opinion through that experience is subjective, but I have no problem reading 'well-regulated' to mean fully decked out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. Ah, a fellow sufferer!
Truly, we must have been insane to sign up for the torment of law school! Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. As you note, it's tough to get straight info on these topics as they are so politicized, the credibility of the sources is sadly questionable far more often than not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #106
133. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #106
134. Or, you COULD have used the google and found THIS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #134
136. Good examples
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 11:24 AM by primavera
"Well-regulated courts," "well-regulated mind," "well-regulated clock," etc., all suggest a quality of control, orderliness, organization, discipline, and strict adherence to rules, not all that different from what we understand the word "regulated" to mean in today's context. Nothing in the examples listed suggests "equipping" or "outfitting" anyone or anything - what equipment does a mind need? What outfitting does a clock need? Employing this definition, how can a disorderly mob of untrained, undisciplined citizens, unsupervised by any, accountable to none, qualify as a "well-regulated" militia? Thank you for fortifying my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #136
137. Well...Reading helps.


"If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


"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."


Well-regulated == fully developed.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #137
141. That's an assumption on your part
None of the examples you cite demonstrate that well regulated is synonymous with well-outfitted or fully developed; the sentences make as much sense or more when read employing the standard definition of regulated which implies order, organization, control, discipline, etc.. You are choosing to read into the sentences a meaning of the term which may or may not be accurate - I'm certainly no authority on the history of 18th century American linguistics - but the examples you provide neither refute nor support the definition you wish to perceive in the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #141
151. 'Mkay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #137
161. But the word "militia" implies organization and oversight too.
And nothing about the definition of well regulated as "in good working order" excludes the additional definition of "subject to appropriate oversight to ensure its proper functioning".

Militia means civilians *trained* to be soldiers but not part of the regular army. It implies that some organization (and please god, not the NRA) is responsible for training and monitoring the use of military-like equipment by civilians.

And if "well regulated" only means "in good working order", then technically it would be fine for civilians to have nuclear weapons as long as they stored them safely.

If people want to own guns, more power to them. But nobody needs armor piercing bullets or the ability to fire two hundred rounds a second. And I think the government is perfectly within its rights restricting access to weapons which serve no purpose except to kill large numbers of people quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. Your definitions of militia circa 1750+ are incorrect.
Fully automatic weapons are already extremely difficult to get and tightly controlled,

no one is looking to get nuclear weapons, there's already laws preventing that,

no one is advocating for 200 rounds a second anything...

And you know that. Your straw men, however, are getting tired.

Please try to come up with arguments next time instead of boogey man statements.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #163
188. Except we don't live in 1750
and if people want to argue that they have a right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia as it relates to the 21st century(such as the National Guard) I have absolutely no problem with that. If people want guns for hunting or to protect their home from burglars, I have no problem with that.

I'm not the one invoking Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot because Obama wants to revisit the issue of the assault weapon ban, nor am I the one advocating that people stock up on guns now because the democrats are coming for all of them.

I didn't say anyone was advocating nuclear weapons for all citizens, simply that if you insist on interpreting "well regulated" in the extremely narrow sense of "in good working order" then there is no argument against citizens owning nuclear weapons. Clearly, that's an absurd proposition so you do agree that the government has a right to restrict (or "regulate", if you will) Americans' right to bear arms.

Having agreed that the second amendment does not apply to all weapons, I'm sure we can have an adult national discussion of where that regulation should fall without it descending into straw men arguments or boogey men statements too. Nor is it necessary to let the discussion descend into a boring and cliched analysis of argumentative style instead of a genuine attempt to understand where the other person is coming from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alias Dictus Tyrant Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #161
199. The term "militia" is defined in 10 USC 311
The Federal law has had an operative definition of "militia" since forever. In short, members of the militia are defined as all able-bodied males ages 17 to 45 who are not members of the organized military service.

The "militia" is just a legal class of natural person in the US, like "minor". You do not have to do anything to be a member of the militia if you have the right body parts and are of the right age. There is no training implied either by statute or judicial precedent, and indeed the status of "militia" of people with no training is settled law (see: "the draft").


It is a bit discriminatory to use the narrow "militia" interpretation insofar as it implies that women have no 2nd Amendment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #136
157. Response
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 12:26 PM by FudaFuda
Primavera wrote = "Employing this definition, how can a disorderly mob of untrained, undisciplined citizens, unsupervised by any, accountable to none, qualify as a "well-regulated" militia?"

I don't think the founders intended the majority of citizens to be untrained or undisciplined in the use of firearms, though we have allowed that to occur. But 'disorderly mobs' tend to get orderly pretty quickly when they assemble for a common cause.

If you had a time machine you could ask that question of the typical militiaman who showed up to fight during the Revolutionary War, who was not issued a weapon or uniform but instead came in his own clothes, with his own gun.

Or, you could refer to the U.S. Code and discover that all men (with some exceptions) in the United States aged 17 to 45 belong to the 'unorganized militia'.

Or, you could ask the VietCong, or the mujahideen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #157
160. Disorderly mobs do get organized, I'll grant you that
Take, for instance, the Minutemen vigilantes "patrolling" the border, or the self-described citizen militias who patrolled post-Katrina New Orleans assaulting and murdering African-American refugees left homeless after the flood. I'm just not sure that was what the framers intended to protect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #160
187. 'The Minutemen' are cowards and bullies and have nothing to do with the
original meaning of Militia.....

Neither do those scummy fuckers out of N.O. all need to be arrested and tried and executed after a fail trial....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #157
164. That's exactly right. Welcome to Du.
Wear a cup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #164
171. LOL. I hear ya.
All political power flows from the barrel of a gun. I would prefer that as much of that power as possible remains in the hands of the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #47
60. M16A2 is not a civilian rifle
An M16A2 is not the kind of rifle that this ban would affect. The M16A2 is a select-fire automatic weapon with semi-auto and 3-round burst modes. Semi-auto rifles sold in the US do not have full auto or burst capability. And there are LOTS of semi-auto rifles sold in this country that are not AK47's or AR15's. As for the rate of fire from a semi-auto being high, the same can be said of John Wayne's lever-action rifle, if the shooter is well trained. Or even a revolver.

Jerry Miculek shows how fast a revolver is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

So 'rapid fire' is not a valid argument against semi-auto firearms. And the poster above is correct that 'well regulated' in the context of the 2nd Amendment meant 'fully equipped,' which means when the redcoats are coming, every man shows up with his battle rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nedrgr21 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
182. "Regulate"
"Lets talk about the word REGULATE thats in it too."


OK, let's:

from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Regulated refers to trained/disciplined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #182
186. I give!! Come and take all my guns!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
192. Bullshit
nuf said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
218. The M16Ax and M4 are NFA
weapons. That means rich people can buy them. And they do. Funny how you never hear about NFA weapons used in crimes.

ANY part of the M16 is regulated. And you cant own it.

Back in my day we were taught you weapon goes from safe to semi to full for a reason. An aimed shot is better than a blind burst. Spray and pray is not effective.

The AK goes from safe to full to semi. The Soviet model actually counted on waves of people firing full auto.

The M16 is a select fire rifle, I NEVER heard the term assault rifle in the army, not ONCE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #218
222. As Stalin said ...
re: your statement "The Soviet model actually counted on waves of people firing full auto."


Stalin said : Quantity has a quality all its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. Have you ever been in GD:P?
I only go in there strapped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cabluedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
77. Most people target shoot with them. Bye,bye to the Dem congress in 2010. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #15
104. Target shooting, collecting, hunting, self-defense, teaching firearm safety to kids
Any kind of firearm is a useful tool that retains its value over time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
107. Why does the Administration need to not betray its voters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
111. You mean a hunting rifle with a pistol grip... well hunters. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
174. Why does anyone
Want a computer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. God forbid we learn from history....so lets just repeat it!
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 10:24 PM by davepc
Hopefully it wont cost us congress again.

I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it. -- Bill Clintons 1995 State of the Union


And by "several" Bill meant the Democratic majority in both houses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. This confirms that Holder's head's up his ass.
Legislating restrictions on US citizens to help nationals of another country.

And, of course, they can always get them elsewhere.

What a disappointed tool Holder is turning out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
75. Holder was always a tool
Another individual with no understanding of the common person in my neck of the woods

I'm sure Chuck Scummer has his hand in this too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. Bad move. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. Amendment II Democrats report on MySpace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. The Dems shouldn't be touching the gun issue even with a ten-foot pole
I grew up in a rural area and I know a lot of people there who would be loyal Dem voters were in not for the gun issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EraOfResponsibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. lots of GUN OWNERS in this thread, I see
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I don't own a gun and I know it's bad politics.
They say we want to take peoples guns away, and what do we do? Take peoples guns away. Dumb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parker CA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Technically, they aren't taking anything away, rather, banning future sales. Not sure how I feel
about this. Seems to be a tough time to be putting this idea forward with everything going on, and I agree with someone up thread, that this decision could result in spending some serious capital. GOP heads will explode over this.

The article does make it sound as if this could be some sort of a trial balloon to test public reaction. There is no definite time-frame, and Holder is quoted as saying he's not sure even when this would happen due to the amount of issues currently on Obama's plate.

Perhaps they are going to measure the temperature of the responses to this idea and decide against it which could be a very bright political move in the sense that it will look as if Obama really listened to those in opposition, but if they do in fact make the decision to move forward, they face the risk of heading directly into the quagmire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Banning future sales IS taking our rights away, however
It is taking away your right to purchase something to which you, as an American, have a Constitutional right to own. You may never wish to own a semi-automatic rifle, but you have the right to own one if you so choose. Holder, on the other hand, disagrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
101. Talk of banning something is the surest way to increase sales
Even discussing an AW "ban" is going to result in MORE firearms of all types being sold, often to people who have not been properly trained in firearm safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. And thank your gods that we ARE here
Unless you'd rather we side with the anti-union, anti-choice, anti-science, bullshit-spouting cavalcade of corruption and shame that the Republican Party has devolved into. No, thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
110. So what you're saying is...
... that you'd support an "anti-union, anti-choice, anti-science, bullshit-spouting cavalcade of corruption and shame" before you'd support a party that attempted to move the country even a fraction of an inch closer to the standard of gun control legislation that prevails in the rest of the developed, industrialized world? Wow, that really says a lot about your loyalties and your priorities, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #110
142. If you're done trying to twist me into a pretzel...
...I'll respect your right to speak out as long as you respect mine. 'Kay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #142
145. I quoted you verbatim
Not sure how that twists you into a pretzel, but of course, I respect your right to speak out, I just think you need to be mindful of the implications of what you're speaking out in favor of. If one implies or insinuates a conclusion one isn't willing to embrace, then one deserves to be called upon to explain it, wouldn't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #145
167. Not quite, you didn't
"And thank your gods that we ARE here...unless you'd rather we side with the anti-union, anti-choice, anti-science, bullshit-spouting cavalcade of corruption and shame that the Republican Party has devolved into. No, thank you!"

That's the verbatim post. That was directed at anyone who thinks I should join the Republicans. Not gonna happen. I've been through that phase, already, and I'm not going back. Ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #167
180. Oh good, I'm glad to hear it
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 01:41 PM by primavera
Your comment "unless you'd rather we side with" the Repukes made it sound a lot like you were offering that possibility as the alternative to embracing your position on guns. I'm pleased to hear that whether Democrats share your views on guns or not, you still support them. With all of the references to the Democratic administration having its head up its ass and so forth, one can't help but wonder how many gun-loving Dems share your level of commitment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #180
181. My apologies for any confusion
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #145
213. Do you know the definition of quote or verbatim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aandrews Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #110
185. Yeah,
worrying about what prevails in the rest of the developed, industrialized world really keeps me up at night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
74. Lots of supporters of the Constitution you mean.
I don't own a gun - never had. I still think this is a stupid move both politically and legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #74
123. By which you mean...
... lots of supporters of what five ultra right-wing justices whose opinions we've never before considered to be worth the paper they were written on, and who gave us such fine rulings as Bush v. Gore, have subjectively decided the Constitution says, in direct opposition to what liberal justices whose opinions we've typically respected consider the Constitution to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #123
190. I don't consider support for the 2nd amendment an ultra right wing position
supporting individual freedoms never is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #123
200. Another fake argument.
I believe in ALL of the contstitution and the amendments as well.

shall not be infringed....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #200
211. What argument?
I presented no argument of any kind. I simply stated that the ruling you are trumpeting was penned by Tony Scalia, an ultra-right-wing judge, and supported by four right-wing justices, and was opposed by the four Democratic justices. That's not an argument, that's just a fact. If your adherence to views held by right-wingers who have historically been wrong in every ruling they've ever made and your opposition to views held by Democratic justices causes you discomfort, that's entirely your concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #211
212. I trumpeted no court decision.
You obviously have an agenda...

and a piss poor one at that

I feel sorry for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #211
214. Please show where he mentioned a ruling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #211
227. The RKBA...
Was very much a "left-wing" concept when it was conceived. It still is, as it empowers individuals.

"and your opposition to views held by Democratic justices causes you discomfort..."

In the first place, the opinions of USSC justices are not officially defined nor controlled by political parties. Oh, and this may come as a shock to you, but Democrats are not always right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #211
229. By The Way...
What about the court's ruling on U.S. v Hayes? Hmmm...looks like several of those same justices who decided in favor of Heller also decided to uphold the Lautenberg Amendment in this case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
92. Yes, they're an extremely vocal minority - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
100. Yes, there are a lot of us on DU and in our party
We intend to keep it that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
177. A lot of FREE SPEECH advocates
in this thread, I see.

Glad no one is bashing them. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
219. Yep. WTF is wrong with that???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
237. right, and everyone in the pro-choice threads had an abortion
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. Smart! Hunters don't use 'em. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Read the Second Amendment again...
I don't see any mention of hunters in there.

Haven't you read DC v. Heller yet? I'd be happy to send you a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Join a well organized militia.
I'm pro-rifle, anti-assault weapon and anti-handgun.

To be frank, I'd prefer assault weapons to handguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. In other words, you haven't read DC V. HELLER
It affirms that "We, the People" are the well-regulated militia spoken of in the Second Amendment.

Sure you don't want the link to the Supreme Court ruling?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
93. No, no, we all know what the five right-wing justices said
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:30 AM by primavera
It's just always odd to see "Dems" worshipping Mad Dog Scalia and lambasting the dissenting opinions of the justices from their own party. It just seems so... inconsistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #93
140. This is no longer a "liberal vs. conservative" issue
The Brady Campaign tried to make it so. Wayne LaPierre tried to make it so. But some of us know better. This issue affects all Americans, and it's time we stopped casting it as Left vs. Right. That paradigm doesn't work anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #140
143. Then why did only right-wing Republican justices support your point of view...
... while all of the Democratic justices opposed it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #143
148. Please read the dissent and you'll find that Stevens & Breyer recognized RKBA but argued the 2nd was
for the militia. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The question was not raised on whether if RKBA was not protected by the 2nd as an enumerated right, was it protected by the 9th as an unenumerated right.

A careful reading of Stevens and Breyer's dissents will show that they recognize RKBA as preexisting our Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #148
155. The dissenting (not concurring, mind you) opinion...
... makes no mention whatsoever of the Ninth Amendment. But I will re-read it and keep my eyes open for the argument you describe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #155
156. I said the question re the 9th was not posed but read Stevens/Breyer, both recognize RKBA. n/t
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 12:23 PM by jody
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #156
159. Thanks, I'll keep looking
I'm seeing lots of stuff refuting Mad Dog Tony's assertion that the 2nd supports an individual's RKBA independent of the military context, but am not seeing the point you ascribe to them. But it is a very long opinion, I feel like I'm searching for a needle in a haystack, so it may well be there and I just haven't found it yet. Thanks though for the tip to look for it - I'll keep digging!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #159
162. Below is an old DU thread that discusses the two dissenting opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #143
204. Everybody drank their own kool aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #93
203. Are you equating my stance on the second amendment with
"mad dog scalia"??

Funny. My belief was formed when I was a kid, 40 years before that idiot was appointed.

Just because those toads agreed with PART of what I believe does NOT invalidate my belief or make it fascist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #25
114. Why are you anti handgun... kinda of hard to conceal carry with a rifle. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Yes, Smart. We all recall the wave of popularity the 1994 law brought to the Democratic Party
Entrenched the Democratic Majority for the rest of the decade and well into the year 2000 and beyond....

Banning the most popular center fire rifles in the country does nothing but cost votes.

If you want to ban guns used in crimes then these are the guns you ban.



1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver
2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic
3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic
4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic
5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun
6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic
7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver
8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic
9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic
10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,0...



The 2nd Amendment is NOT ABOUT HUNTING. The DLC/Third Way claptrap about protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen didn't fool anybody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. BOOM! goes the dynamite
Nicely done! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
206. Well played, Sir!!!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
61. Yes, we do.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #18
215. Most are illegal to hunt deer with, the bullets are too small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
244. You are misinformed
Hunters do use semiautomatic firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duckhunter935 Donating Member (777 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
20. Define assault weapon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
29. US Is A Vast Arms Bazaar For MexicanCartels

Published: February 25, 2009
PHOENIX The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the fire power that greeted them.

When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy gun store here called X-Caliber Guns.

Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges he sold hundreds of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers, knowing they would send them to a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa. The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.

Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border. It also offers a rare glimpse of how weapons delivered to American gun dealers are being moved into Mexico and wielded in horrific crimes.

We had a direct pipeline from Iknadosian to the Sinaloa cartel, said Thomas G. Mangan, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Don't see why law-abiding Americans should be punished as a result
Ever watch Lord of War? It's based on the true story of an international arms dealer. Believe me, the cartels would get their arms one way or another. Best to simply go after the cartels instead of our Constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Then maybe Mexico should watch their borders better
I've crossed into Mexico twice. Once at San Ysidro and once at the California/Arizona/Mexico border. No one said a word to me either time. It's a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. The BATFE should be enforcing existing laws against straw purchases
And Border Patrol should be preventing the export of illegal weapons across the border.

Actually, even if weapons are being taken to Mexico, its not grenades and automatic weapons (i.e. machine guns). The Mexican drug cartels have plenty of those, but theyre not coming from the US civilian market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #29
99. Mexico should enforce its own laws
It's not our problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
31. Oh don't worry, that won't come back to bite us all in the ass or anything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Mr. Hyde - Ask DUs Nadin Brezenski (sp) about these drug cartels.
She has first hand information on how they operate and predicts they will not only come across the border to bite us on the ass, she states in 20 years Middle America will be dominated by them!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. Drug Catels Are not About Drugs They are About Power -
New style Mafia - murder - exortion - kidnapping - Blackmailing - Money Power - CONTROL!!!

nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-25-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
48. Here is the problem, having seen some of this crap in the flesh
you could make the case that the country is under attack by a foreign agent, aka the ground for federal armed forces under federal control

The Army was not deployed in Mexico just because the President wanted to... though Calderon is an idiot, but that is besides the point

They were deployed after fifteen years of worsening conditions that law enforcement could not control... no level of Law Enforcement...

There are many complex reasons for that. But having seen that mess when it began, in the flesh. I see the same already happening here.

To say that this is not scary would be to lie. But if this is not brought under control and it has precious little to do with drugs at this point, Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana are coming to middle america... fifteen years at most.
www.deistgames.com,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. And that's another place Holder has his head up his ass.
I just came from the thread where he declares war on the drug cartels:

("Holder vows "Cartels Will Be Destroyed")
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Like that's going to work. I know about the situation in Mexico and the US border situation. I've started several threads about it here. I believe a for the average American, a bigger threat isn't from Muslim terrorists, it's from Mexican violence, and from drug violence in general. The problem is our drug policy- it isn't that we don't have enough money poured into it, or enough manpower, or enough high tech. There will never be enough. It's like squeezing a balloon, it tightens one place, and expands somewhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
35. Excuse me, Mr. President, sir. What about fucking health care?
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 10:56 PM by MilesColtrane
How about you putting that political capital to work on something we actually elected you to change?

Hopefully the Democrats in Congress will be smart enough not to cut their own throats over this this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nevernose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
37. Say hello to a Republican majority for the next 20 years!
This is political suicide -- a dumb move.

If it were up to me, I'd ban most firearm ownership tomorrow. But I firmly believe that the "gun-grabbers" meme is why we lost so many elections since '94. That's a change that needs to come slowly, perhaps by starting with regulating weapons sold at gun shows. Americans love their guns even more than they love god or hate gays.

And from a technical standpoint, it's not all that effective anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
39. And next, Holder proposes the beating to death of all puppies and kittens...
Why do we go out of our way to come up with losing issues? We have the public on our side, we have an decent majority in both houses, we have a chance to replace a supreme, we can actually change some of the way things are done in this country, and we decide to hand this issue over? We have to let Obama know, this is suicide.

The fact that he even proposed this, shows how out of touch he is, the entire country ain't Manhanttan. This is looking like Clinton 2.0.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
40. On this one Holder does have his head up his butt
and what the hell are cop-killer bullets? Another false canard from the Brady bunch! Screw this - Holder is proving that the people out there buying up guns and ammo cause they are afraid of an Obama ban correct.

This Dem and gun owner for one will be writing the WH, Holder, and my represenatives tomorrow telling them how I feel.

Just when we get a Dem majority Holder wants to take us back to 1994!

And to Mexico - take care of your own friggin' nation! Maybe if you had cleaned up the political corruption in your country and gotten a large part of your population out of poverty you wouldn't have ruthless cartels now basically running your country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
41. I can see his point, who wants to be in the White House for eight years anyway.
I hope this is some kind of miscommunication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
43. Bad call. I believe that DC v. Heller stands for the proposition that
every American household should be required to own, possess and maintain two fully automatic assault weapons, with ammo, and be required to register the same with the state militia. However, the state can prohibit personal possession of shoulder fired rockets, e.g. RPG and LAW's. We'll leave those in the Armory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
44. what is the definition, exactly, of "assault weapons"?
Before we start the exchanges, let's define what it means. I have no idea. (well, a DU'er did define it for me about a year ago, but my memory is awful and i don't remember....)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. That's when you draw and point your weapon first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #46
62. oh, ok ... that makes my kitchen knife an assault weapon. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. Gezactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #62
217. fire axe....
That's how I roll.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
191. Short answer: A small- to intermediate-caliber civilian rifle with modern styling.
what is the definition, exactly, of "assault weapons"?

Short answer: A small- to intermediate-caliber civilian rifle with modern styling.

Longer answer: Any self-loading civilian rifle that uses a detachable magazine and has ANY of the following features:

--a handgrip that sticks out
--a screw-on muzzle brake (but not a pin-on brake), or muzzle threads at all
--a stock that adjusts for length or folds for storage
--a bayonet lug (even without a bayonet)
--a banned name (e.g., Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, etc.)

OR any self-loading civilian rifle or shotgun that has EVER been adopted by any Federal law enforcement agency, or the military, unless specifically exempted by the Attorney General. Shotguns with detachable magazines and pistols with forward-mounted magazines (e.g., Hammerli) would also be banned.

Most proposals also ban rifles and pistols holding over 10 rounds, and shotguns holding over 5 shells of ANY length.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #191
198. thanks, and a follow-up
What is it about some of the features that have put it on the "banned" list?

I understand why a self-loading rifle with a detachable magazine would make law enforcement nervous. But I don't understand the reasons for
- handgrip that sticks out,
- muzzle brake attachment types,
- adjustable/foldable rifle stock (i can imagine the former being useful for adjusting to the build of a person, and the latter for storage)
- bayonet lug with no bayonet?

I'm not at all experienced with firearms but would really like to understand what's going on.

thanks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #198
205. Because the gun-control lobby specifically wanted to ban AR-15 type rifles
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:50 PM by benEzra
and civilian AK lookalikes, and those features are the only significant ways in which an AR-15 or non-automatic civilian AK differ from a self-loading, detachable-magazine hunting rifle like a Remington 7400 or a Ruger Mini Thirty.

So they came up with a features list and defined an "assault weapon" as a civilian detachable-magazine rifle that had an arbitrary number of features (the 1994 Feinstein law allowed one listed feature per rifle, and banned new rifles with two or more). They did come up with some rather creative post facto justifications for banning features (such as the idea that a protruding handgrip optimizes the rifle for firing from the hip, or that an adjustable stock would make a rifle easier to conceal on the person) in order to justify the features list, but the original reason was to try to figure out a statuatory way to distinguish modern-looking rifles from traditional-looking rifles.

Of course, this didn't ban AR's and AK's at all, since the only feature difficult to remove is the protruding handgrip (because of the way the receiver is shaped); manufacturers switched to smooth muzzles (or pin-on brakes, since muzzle threads were the listed feature) and deleted bayonet lugs so the protruding handgrip would be the only listed feature. Here's my ban-era civilian AK (2002 model) with altered areas circled:



and of course the hysteria surrounding them drove sales through the roof.

Later "expanded" AWB proposals (e.g., H.R.1022 et seq) would reduce the number of allowed "evil features" to zero, so that new-production rifles can't look so much like AK's. Of course, this doesn't really work either, because you can always refit a civilian AK with a straight 19th-century-style stock and move the trigger guard slightly to the rear:



and have an AK that is absolutely identical in every definable way to a Ruger or Remington (which functionally it already is). So some of the newer proposals also ban rifles by design heritage, i.e. if a civilian rifle is derived from a police or military design, it is an "assault weapon," regardless of features or function.


One final image, of my Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle (that I owned from 1989 to 2006-ish):



Same rifle, 3 different stocks. With the first and second stocks, it was listed by name in the 1994 Feinstein AWB as "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" (zero and one listed feature, respectively), but putting the third stock on the rifle would have been illegal since it would have resulted in two listed features (protruding handgrip and a folding stock). The California AWB bans it with the second stock, but not the first stock. S.1431/H.R.2038/H.R.1022 et seq would ban it with the first stock, by name. So you can see the arbitrary aspect; it depends on who is writing the legislation and what they like and dislike, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #205
224. doesn't make sense
Thanks for taking the time to answer, Ben-Ezra.

I sometimes wonder if lawmakers really understand what they're saying, or if they're simply getting caught up in a bunch of hysterical misunderstandings (on both sides!) I don't really see anything outrageous about those features (the ones i asked about, that you described) to justify them being labeled as assault weapons.

I guess asking for a thoughtful analytical study to justify why certain features are a threat to public safety would be ... too much? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puppyjive Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
49. No brain, no pain
We can ban the sale of toys that have lead in them and harmed a few children, but we can't ban the sale of assault weapons that have killed thousands of Americans? Are you people out of your minds? Do you know anyone who has survived a gunman's attack in a school or a post office? Well I do. There is a place for assault weapons and it's not in American homes. How many of you can't pay your credit card bills, but by God, you still have your assault weapons. I guess if you can have your assault weapons, then I should be able to keep an armored tank, fully loaded, in my driveway. It's my right to bear arms. When is the insanity going to stop? If you gotta play with assault weapons, may I suggest you sign up for the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. What is an "assault weapon?"
Define the term, and I'll consider the rest of your arguments against the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #53
63. sigh! I've been waiting for someone to answer that question too.
Until we see the actual bill, we should reserve judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. We've seen the bill. It was written in 1992. It's the Bill Holder is talking about making permanent
"assault weapon" has already been defined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #66
139. No, it hasn't...
All we got was a laundry list of brand names and safety features. That's not a definition.

And Carolyn McCarthy's version of the ban would allow the AG to denote a gun as an "assault weapon" whenever he feels like it: "It's an assault weapon because I say it is!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #66
245. No, the old definition became moot when the AWB expired, and is not accepted among weapons experts
Edited on Sun Mar-01-09 08:50 AM by slackmaster
Nobody can be sure what any future definition might look like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanngrisnir3 Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #49
65. Except, of course, that nothing that you said made any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #49
116. I highly doubt assault weapons have killed thousands of Americans
unless deer gained citizenship when I wasn't looking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #49
120. Where's the proof that "assault weapons" have killed "thousands of americans?"
I want to see the statistics on that.

Besides that, peoples financial situation and gun ownership is none of your business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #49
221. Try to time your drugs. Pick one argument and try to stay on task.
Pay some fucking attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaticRex Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #49
226. Of course you can have a tank...
...and rocket launchers, AAA pieces, SAMs, anything you can find and afford. It's called the Second Amendment, and it makes no distinction. Just states "...to bear arms..." You don't have to like it, you simply have to accept it. Or, you could move to Britain. There, they removed guns from legal use years ago. Then they started taking all the other rights. Now, it's a Socialist republic, moving more away from the "republic" part by the day. As an added bonus, of course, only criminals have guns regularly. Cops can get at guns sometimes, but they must be specially trained and it takes more than some silly "obvious threat to life and property" in order to allow them to fire. Or move to Canada, eh? They love to have simpering Americans afraid to shoot or be shot at.

Thanks for the suggestion to join the military. Some of us have already served our country. Doesn't sound as if you would know anything about that, sadly. You might learn something about freedom if you did your duty.

P.S. Tanks are "armored" by definition. Careful or you'll be reported to the Department of Redundancy Bureau.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
50. Terrible idea at the wrong time. And our new President was on such a roll.
Eric Holder is a closet Republican. He is undermining our President at every fucking turn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. I can't imagine he would make statements like this without approval.
Edited on Wed Feb-25-09 11:59 PM by riverdeep
We know Obama does have a history with gun control. This is from the debate with Alan Keyes for the Illinois Senate:

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. -10/21/04


http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Co...

Let's not kid ourselves, it's a dangerous thing to do. I believe his natural tendency is towards gun control, and if we value being able to govern, we need to provide a very strong message on the error of this approach.

edit: clarity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Well, I don't know about the approval thing. Do you think he asked the Prez for approval
of his Americans are cowards about race comment?

Your quote from the debate illuminates the situation. It's just hard to believe that anyone who is playing such a smooth and savvy political game SO FAR would start making political fart noises with his armpits at this point. Or, I guess this could be his gentlemanly gesture to the Repubs to allow them to get back in the game after the ass-whuppin' he's been layin' on them for a month now.

You are right that we need to send the message on the error of this approach. So, off to write up my $.02 worth.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patriotvoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #54
95. There you go. Obama just defined "assualt weapon":
An assault weapon is any weapon that has "only one purpose, to kill people." Unfortunately, the purpose based argument is unhelpful, misleading, and fundamentally inadequate for basing legislation upon.

A gun's purpose is not a trait inherent in the weapon, but inherent in the person wielding the gun. Depending upon the circumstance, the gun's purpose could be:
1. Display
2. Target practice
3. Self defense
4. Offense aka "Assault"

There never will be a specific definition of "assault weapon", because all weapons may be used for assault. It is an extremely slippery slope that will have extremely negative political consequences. No politician -- Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, et al. -- is afforded safe-haven on this issue. George Bush -- hardly a liberal -- was voted into office on a platform that appealed to gun owners. When he turned around and slapped them in the face, he was summarily crushed at the polls.

Do that again at your -- and our -- own peril, Mr. Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
51. Geez.. Obama's a very intelligent man but come on..
Can't he see that this is a BIG losing issue for the democratic party?? This is an issue that rethugs easily easily win votes on, and its still holds true at this moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
52. I am NOT a gun owner, but is Obama FUCKING STUPID????
Seriously. After he was elected I knew some "gun nuts" who were warning that Obama would "ban assault weapons, just like Clinton did".

I said, "No way - he's never going to do that - he's TOO SMART."

Well, guess who looks like the idiot now.

It was fun while it lasted. Obama is a fucking idiot in my eyes now, seriously. The last thing he should do right now is ban assault weapons.

Again, I am NOT a gun owner - I couldn't give a shit about guns. This is about not feeding fuel to the fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
57. Good. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
58. WooHoo!
:woohoo: :applause:

And while we're at it...

Melt down the f*ckin' handguns and use the metal to build a monument to human vice and stupidity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #58
118. So woman in high crime areas can longer conceal carry for their own protection?
Way to take the pro-rapist position.

So gays can no longer protect themselves from gangs of thugs with baseball bats?

And I suppose to many home invaders are getting shot nowadays and some of those are teens.

I guess that is what you mean when you say think of the children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #118
194. thats basically the way Feinstein and Schumer want it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LunaticRex Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #58
228. So, you've clearly never had a break in...
If you had, who would protect your family? Not me, I only have enough ammo to protect my family. You're on your own, pal. Good luck. Hey, let us know if it hurts when you get killed, will you? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
67. Well, if costing lots of votes while having zero impact on crime is the goal of politics,
this is a pretty smart move. If the goal is something else, then :wtf:...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ed76638 Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
68. The ban should've never been allowed to expire
And should the Rethugs regain power over this, then America deserves to fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. You'll find that a great many of your fellow democrats disagree with you on this. nt
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 03:22 AM by Mr. Hyde
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #68
105. It expired because in the TEN YEARS that it was in effect, no justification for it materialized
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:56 AM by slackmaster
If there had been an obvious increase in public safety that could have been attributed to the AW ban, it could have been renewed easily. Even George W. Bush said he'd sign it (for whatever that's worth).

It was a complete failure, and deserved to expire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midwestern Democrat Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
69. Unbelievably stupid. Let's hope the congressional Democrats have
enough sense to break with Obama and smother this proposal in its crib - it needs to be killed now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #69
76.  Chuck Scummer is behind this too
Obvious they don't give a fuck about Health insurance for the elderly. And they will most assuredly suffer large losses in Congress if they insist on bringing this nonsense up at this time.

Shit like this will piss off the 700,000 deer hunters in my state

Our Ex-Gov Repuke Thompson was elected by wide margins to 16 years as gov because of crap like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
71. Oy, can we put this one off till the second term?
But since the cat is out of the bag, its probably moot anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #71
130. I'm not so sure: Americans have very short memories, you know
By the time Obama's second term comes around, Americans will have forgotten all about Gitmo, official torture and murder, extraordinary renditions, Abu Graib, illegal wiretapping, America's pariah status among the community of nations, the depression, the housing crisis, the staggering deficit spending, the officially-encouraged outsourcing of American jobs, the devastation of New Orleans, government corruption, the manipulation of the media, the massive tax breaks for the uberrich and the unprecedented widening of the chasm between rich and poor, and all of the other joys that Republican ideas have conferred upon us over the last eight years. If Americans truly are willing to support that apocalyptic vision for their country rather than see their country move even the tiniest measure closer to the standard of gun control uniformly embraced by the modern, developed world, well, I think they ought to have to come out and admit that in the broad light of day, while the memory of what they're choosing to support rather than having to give up a few extra rounds in their magazines is still fresh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
72. I'm not surprised given Obama's record of gun-control. Will AHSA's Ray Schoenke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
78. what a stupid idea...
The gun community has been saying that they would do this, and I was saying "wait and see"... and there it is.

All this does is cost the dems votes. I really don't understand why they pursue it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. Damn ! A LOT of rural dems gave Obama and the benefit of the doubt

Seriously the gun rights organizations have been playing up any gun control measure introduced like HR45 that they could use to drum up members and raise money.

Regardless of whether it's introduced he's already given the gun lobby, and by extension the GOP a great fundraising issue and tool to take back a few seats.


Why is it that Democratic presidents cause their party in congress to "walk the plank" and lose their ability to advance the Democratic economic agenda over guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
79. Holder wants to help do what?
IIRC the guys that shot up the streets of LA during that wild bank robbery attempt a number of years back brought those automatic weapons into the US (illegally) from Mexico.

??

This is just more passing of gas by another political idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #79
85. "automatic weapons" are covered by NFA enacted in 1934. AWB is for semiautomatic firearms. b/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #85
89. The passage of the 1934 Federal Firearms Act
Probably had more to do with the political hacks of the day being spooked by the Bonus March of 1932 than it ever had to do with a bunch of gangsters shooting at each other. This type of proposed legislation has always been about keeping the taxpayers in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #89
91. Agree. That's why we got more gun control in '68.
Vietnam, civil rights protests got 'em nervous again. Gotta keep that pesky hoi polloi in line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedstDem Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
81. And The Right Wingers Come Roaring Back
Sad to throw it all away.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
82. This is flame bait. The article is about Holder speaking to stemming
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 06:56 AM by geckosfeet
the flow of arms and ammunition to Mexico. It is about gun dealers breaking the law, and justice strengthening the laws that would regulate these sales and reduce the reach of Mexican drug cartels.
Mexican drug cartels pose a national security threat

Heavily armed cartels are gangsters. They will reach out farther and farther. They will reach into the US and without a second thought kill you or your families or your neighbors to get what they want. They will use violence and murder to clear a path for and protect their businesses.

If you think that you can outgun them you are wrong.

US gun dealers selling them firearms and ammunition is against the law. If you have a problem with an assault weapons ban, talk to the arms dealers who are supplying the cartels.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #82
86. Holder said "reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons", i.e. AWB. What part of that don't
you understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #82
103. Is there, or is there not, a proposed change to U.S. law?
:shrug:

I'm confused now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #103
202. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #103
210. Yes.
"reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons"

That would be something like this:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Senator McCarthy introduces this one every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eryemil Donating Member (958 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
83. The American obsession with firearms is almost pathological
It's like something between fetish and paranoid OCD.

Very fascinating to observe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. It wasn't that way, until gun control began.
Something about the federal government attempting to gradually disarm the populace when the Constitution guarantees the RKBA got people a little spooked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #83
88. SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.
That means self-defense is a personal responsibility.

Handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense and the choice of over 825,000 sworn law-enforcement officers for personal protection.

It is reasonable that law-abiding citizens take seriously their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #83
90. there are good reasons why citizens should have the right to bear arms
it's not really a fetish. It's a survival strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #83
108. That's for sure
Doesn't Holder know there are more important things to worry about right now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
87. STUPID IDEA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camera obscura Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
94. Dumb, dumb, dumb idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
96. This is extremely stupid and disappointing - The old AW ban was a complete failure
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:43 AM by slackmaster
It did nothing to improve public safety.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

Pandering to Mexican authorities who have an internal crime problem is not a sound basis for US internal policy. Let Mexico clean its own house.

PREDICTION: There will be more firearms sold to US civilians in 2009 than in any previous year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
97. Of all the important work that desperately needs to be done
I fail to see the benefit in picking this fight at this time.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the intent, even a 'win' on this will be little more than a Pyrrhic victory.

Why? I expected more political acumen than this. Surely SOMEONE must have suggested that this could be political suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
102. I very much lean pro-gun control, but
Unless they name specific weapons they want to ban, I'm with you on this.
Hey, why don't we instead try to figure out how to ban assault weapons amongst the Mexican drug cartels? :think:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #102
122. And lets get the Mexicans to actually check people at the borders
I've walked into Mexico twice. No one ever said a word to me. It's shocking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wartrace Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
113. That didn't take long despite those who claimed he would be "too busy".
I still recall last fall all the posters here ridiculing the people participating in the run on guns. I guess those "idiots" were right after all? Personally I thought they were idiots due to the fact they hadn't done it sooner & were overpaying for the stuff they were buying. I have all the guns I will ever need & even if it turns me into a criminal I WILL NOT register them nor will I "turn them in". Banning guns is a clear violation of the second amendment and I will not recognize this law as constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
126. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
129. Political suicide.
And political fratricide. This will hurt many on the left in 2010 & 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paradox Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #129
131. i agree 100%
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 10:58 AM by paradox

This will hurt us next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #129
158. Don't worry. Pelosi put an end to it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #158
166. We can certainly hope so
I'm waiting for a little behind-the-scenes fencing among Democrats on the Hill, myself. I don't think we're out of the woods yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #166
178. I agree
It's not possible that someone does the legwork on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
132. God, this is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
135. Yep - there goes 2010, and 2012.
Fucking people don't understand how people really DO cling to the idea of guns.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #135
144. Emaul and Scummer are clueless in the country
People around here have lots of guns

Those 2 yokels are from the big cities where shit like this still happens every day

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Kitty Genovese: Would New York Still Turn Away?

''For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.'' - The New York Times, March 27, 1964 So began a story that shook this city's soul. Except for one man who called the police after the woman was already dead, none of the 38 lifted a hand for Catherine Genovese, Kitty to the neighborhood.

Apathy had taken on a human face and that face belonged to Kitty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #144
146. When criminals attack and seconds count, police are only minutes away. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #146
150. That's right all you have to do is keep the bad guys busy until the law arrives.
Ballon tricks, hand puppets, group therapy......


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #144
149. Yep.
Yo, Saigon68, Howarya??

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
138. Obama wants us to hold him accountable in his own words (YouTube)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Mojo Risin Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
147. Terrible Judgement
Will save no lives and divide America exactly the way he doesn't want done.

Criminals, please turn in your assault weapons.

Sorry Prez, dumb move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
152. Takin way are GUNS teh help FURRINURS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #152
154. No, it just helps repubs, just like it did in 1994.
You know, when the Third Way DLC types first fell for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, after being played by the repubs on the issue like a fiddle, and handed Congress to the repubs on a silver platter in November 1994.

Doesn't anyone remember that the "Dems'll-take-yer-gunz" meme was a bad thing? Why are so many gun-404 Dems so eager to repeat the 1994 debacle, by fighting to ban the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States?


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
169. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #169
173. I seem to remember him saying "I'm not going to take away your rifle." n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
170. I love gun threads...
I love gun threads-- righteous indignation, intractable opinions held onto more tightly than religious dogma, the ever-repeating, eight bar refrain "do you know the definitions of...?", the poetic give and take between two groups of fundies so extreme it can make the Taliban blush like a schoolgirl, the Holier-Than-Thou crowd facing off against the Righteous Martyrs, the emotionally wounded and the anecdotally innocent...

...all coming together as if by Divine Providence, allowing us to bear witness to Three Stooges v. The Keystone Cops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #170
184. Almost as much fun as debating abortion or evolution on a conservative forum
Two of my favorite pastimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuckessee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
172. Obama & Holder are sowing the seeds of the soon-to-be Republican Revolution of 2010.
Expect to lose control of both Congress and the Senate if the Prez & Atty General are successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
platanoman Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
176. Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-...
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat no when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now, Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. I think its clear the Bush administration didnt do that.

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who dont want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holders remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hills request for comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abq_Sarah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #176
179. I imagine she's pissed at being blindsided by this
She'll put her finger into the air to determine which way the wind is blowing on this before she commits to going after this now or waiting until 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
183. I disagree with this
Who gives a shit about Mexico. Debating this issue does nothing but help the Repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
189. yeesh...talk about the wrong idea at the wrong time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
193. The ban had a big problem
There were loopholes that got around the ban anyway: gun manufacturers could make small cosmetic changes to get around the law. There might be a way to have a ban that makes more sense - but right now focus on closing the gun show loophole, banning of cop-killer bullets, and repealing hinderences to collecting data on gun purcahases that were used in crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #193
195. what loophole? what bullets?
You tell me what the loophole is. My state allows in-state face-to-face sales. I believe the majority of states do. When an individual lists his rifle in the paper and sells it to the guy across town who calls, federal law doesn't require a background check. If I take my rifle to a gunshow to find a buyer, and I'm not a dealer, the law as it applies to me doesn't change just because I'm at a gunshow. Been that way for as long as there have been gunshows (before WWII at least).

Ans what is a cop-killer bullet? Teflon tipped bullets were banned long ago. Import chinese steel core ammo was banned long ago. Pretty much any deer rifle ammo will penetrate body armor. So what kind of bullet are we talking about?

Do you know what you're talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #195
196. Yes, I do
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 06:52 PM by mvd
What you said were things used only to distract from the problems. Further argument would be useless because your mind would not change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #196
201. didn't answer the question(s) n/t
explain how there's a loophole

identify the 'cop-killer' bullets
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #201
208. It's not the topic anyway, but I'll do some - not that it will change your opinion
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:30 PM by mvd
cop killer bullets: steel core or ammunition specifically designed to defeat body armor. It's not a final solution, but our police officers deserve protections

the loophole: we must require background checks and records of sale at gun shows

That is all. You got your explanation, and I'm done on this topic. There are more appropriate threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #208
223. Gun dealers DO run background checks at gun shows
only private individuals who are NOT licensed FFL dealers can take a personally owned gun to a gun show and sell it without needing to run a background check. That's your horrific 'loophole'. And you better believe the BATFE is always on the lookout for non-FFL individuals who show up at the gunshow to sell something a little too regularly (running a firearms business without an FFL is prison time).

BenEzra alreasy answered the 'cop-killer bullet' baloney.

It's the Constitution. You can't pick and choose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #193
209. "Cop-Killer Bullets" were already banned back in _1986_.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 09:03 PM by benEzra
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR03132:|TOM:/bss/d099query.html

The ban was extended to cover all rifle ammunition that
matters (e.g., up through .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO) by
a BATFE administrative decision in 1994.  That ban is still
in effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #193
216. Ignorant
this issue is shuck and jive for morons. Look good feel good legislation for those to stupid to address root cause. Hopefully the people who actually die in gun violence, minorities and the poor realize that this is pure bullshit. It is not random white people in Greenwich, CT getting killed.

But I guess this is actually easier than fixing problems, like stupid drug law, and mental health care.

Here is a hint folks any rifle will blow right through most bullet proof vests. That makes any rifle a "cop killer".

Want to loose votes, push this shit.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrinmaster Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
197. What a dumbass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
207. Saying It And Doing It Are Two Different Things.

I don't think you Gun Nuts have much to worry about until the economy is somewhat recovered, and that's a ways down the road, I'm afraid. Gun control is definitely a Good Times proposition.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
230. What exactly does one do with the guns that were once banned?
Are they for hunting or do people just like to collect them? Just curious. I have never owned a gun, let alone touched one because of an incident when I was in high school. A friend of mine was playing around with his brother's gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. He died instantly. Needless to say, I have never really been interested in guns since then. However, bringing back the ban does not sound like a very good idea if it costs us a Dem majority. I was for the ban back in the day but heck I was 17 and not really thinking this would cost Dems seats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #230
232. They were never "banned" (popular misconception), they just couldn't have
adjustable stocks, threaded muzzles, or bayonet lugs if manufactured between 1994 and 2004, unless the protruding handgrip was eliminated (post-1994 rifles were limited to one "evil feature" only).

As to uses, they dominate competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in the United States. They are functionally ordinary civilian rifles (non automatic, 1 shot per trigger pull) but generally use smaller calibers than traditional hunting style rifles and so are more pleasant to shoot due to less recoil.

Some target-shooting pics in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I personally shoot competitively with a SAR-1 (non-automatic civilian AK derivative), in IPSC/USPSA style competition.

They also make excellent home-defense firearms (if you choose to own a gun for that purpose), as the smaller calibers make them less likely to penetrate exterior walls than full-power rifles would be. The .223 Remington/5.56mm rifles are particularly good for that purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #232
234. Thanks. I guess I am just not the type to be into target practice
or even have one in my home. I just feel very uncomfortable around them but that does not mean I need to force anyone else to fit what I feel, to each their own. I also don't think limiting the usage of these guns is really going to stop any violence in the United States, I always thought that most crime was committed using handguns, not assault rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #234
238. You're correct; rifles of any type are only involved in about 3% of U.S. murders.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

About twice as many people are murdered annually using shoes and bare hands as are murdered using any type of rifle. The big issue is illegally possessed handguns, as you mention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
231. OH NOES! The Libruls are gonna take away our 2nd Amendment rights!!!!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #231
233. No, it looks like Pelosi and Reid are putting the brakes on this, hard.
I think most of the leadership now realizes that fighting to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in America isn't politically expedient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #233
242. The most popular civilian rifles are assault rifles? News to me. I would've thought...
they'd be the 22 shotgun and things like that....used for hunting and sport shooting.

Assault weapons aren't really used for anything but killing people and collecting, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-02-09 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #242
246. "Assault weapon" is a term of demonization used to refer to the most popular civilian rifles
Edited on Mon Mar-02-09 05:52 AM by benEzra
used for sport shooting in this country. The AR-15 platform (non-automatic centerfire .22) dominates competitive and recreational target shooting, for example, and is the most popular defensive carbine in U.S. homes. Altogether, more Americans own "assault weapons," as defined by H.R.1022 et seq, than hunt.

You appear to be confusing "assault weapons" (small- and intermediate-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling) with restricted NFA Title 2/Class III military weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
235. Idiotic...
... will accomplish Zero other than losing us more votes and validating the gun shop hysteria of the last few months.

I cannot BELIEVE Obama is this stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
236. They'd like to, but it won't happen
The votes aren't there. Many Dems in congress oppose this. It is not 1994 anymore, The opinions have changed much since that failure of a crime bill back then, which did nothing to prevent crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #236
239. Actually the crime bill was successful in other parts but the
assault weapons ban did little to reduce crime. Adding more cops and yes, even more prisons led to an overall decrease in crime. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnd...

Whether or not we should be imprisoning so many young African American males without dealing with the root causes of the crimes they commit is a good question. But the ban on assault weapons definitely made little effect on crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #236
241. Well putting more people in jail (Which the crime bill did) does reduce crime.
I mean it is a math question...

But you are right the assult weapons ban did nothing but help Republicans get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
240. Personally I'd prefer to have an RPG tp take out a deer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC