BIG MISTAKE....Obama said "ban" when talking about guns... He just proved the NRA right..ON LIVE TV
This WILL cost him many many, votes here....
= new reply since forum marked as read
Duh....
You also don't get to shove lies in my mouth. Go take walk and leave your caps lock button alone... 
I don't undermine the President one bit. Those like you who take anachronistic positions on gun-control hurt the Democratic party as a whole. Your truth is not THE truth thankfully. Your truth = 
Have a nice day. 
Translation: You don't comprehend what is written in very plain language without distorting it to fit your narrow world view. I support the Democratic party as a whole which is bigger and more important than one individual. The President should be focusing on that and shouldn't risk anything on worthless, ineffective legislation like the AWB proved to be, everyone who calls themselves a Democrat should share that focus. You don't. 
I stated the AWB was "worthless and ineffective" legislation. Nothing about the President in that. You are too predictable and transparent to get away with spins like that. Simply too obvious...
...need to read what is their and not what you imagine is there. Huge difference but you'll catch on. Someday. Specifically stated the AWB was worthless and ineffective legislation which is absolutely was in the 10 years it existed. I didn't say anything about the President's position in that context. You just keep on failing...
And the only reason the only firearms dealer in DC has to be crammed into the police headquarters is because DC has zoning laws that de facto outlaw any other location. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their purile hearts; it's to keep the city from being sued into oblivion.
But I'm pretty sure you knew all this.....
Because that is certainly what you have been trying to imply with all this drivel.
...few tirades
That we as liberals always tout our reason as the core of our beliefs that give them strength. Welcoming debates on the issues. Yet on the one issue, gun control, where our party has an emotional and unreasoned position we're told,"shhhh you can't discuss that because it'll make us look bad". It makes the Democrats look bad because the party is on the wrong side of this issue. When you have a bad plank in your platform you don't censor all speech regarding it YOU CANGE THAT PART OF YOUR PLATFORM! Apparently hypocrisy knows no political affiliation. 
They LOOK more mean? Is that it?
Mean looking AKMS. 7.62 X 39. Fires one round each time the trigger is pulled.
While this 30-06 hunting rifle actually is much more powerful, (7.62 X 63) , fires
just as fast, (one round each time the trigger is pulled)
has much farther range, and much higher muzzle velocity and destructive force.
Yet the assault weapons ban would ban the first and keep the second.
In reality, the assault weapons ban does NOTHING to prevent crime.
This WILL cost him votes.
teN percent of Americans support NO restrictions on assualt weapons. I'd be more than happy with the support of 90 percent of voters.
No change among gun nuts, gains among women. 
This time lower your distortion field first...
You parrot the Brady/VPC/MAIG ignorance line. 
All talk and no walk on this topic with you. You don't put up money, you don't write letters, you are precisely the type of anti-gunner that is losing your cause. Keep it up the good (non) work...
You have made plenty of false assumptions on many posters in this group. I know vastly more about this topic than you can even comprehend. You technical ignorance alone on the topic proves that. Did I state anywhere that the Brady Campaign was the entire gun control movement? Nope. In fact I stated Brady Campaign/VPC/MAIG earlier which proves that I didn't consider them having a monopoly on the stupidity that is the anti-gun movement. So predictable...
Really?
Women overall support loose restrictions on gun ownership less then men along the data points 18%, 23%, 27%, 16%, 16%, 24%, 17% - now please get out your graphing paper and ruler, chart that and then draw the trend line. Gun control still plays way better among men than women. We already know this election that the President is going to lose white men by a substantial margin, the question is whether he makes substantial gains among women - according to this poll in 2010 62% of women put gun control ahead of gun rights. Are you really willing to blow off 62% women? The long term numbers don't appear great but gun control still has traction with women and minority communities.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCKING stupid thing to say, and an unfortunate blemish on an otherwise awesome debate performance.
The real NRA types who are single-issue voters about this issue already all vote Republican down the line anyway.
Plus, it probably helps him with women.
Stupid white men are a lost cause.
Like I stated earlier with you, all talk and no walk
And all Romney could do was sit there and sputter on, "B-b-but I got anti-gun and pro-gun people together!"
Together to do what?
Sign an assault weapons ban.
I wish President Obama had said that!
First Amendment. Gotta love it. 
They don't speak for the whole party. I vehemently disagree with the renewal of the AWB, it did absolutely nothing the last time except help us lose the Congress to the dark side, it will do nothing again. It won't drop the crime rate, it won't make the streets safer, it's just a feel good bullshit position that will lose us support from rural Dems.
Tell me, what's the difference between this "Assault weapon"
And this "Assault weapon"?
Answer, None. They're both the exact same weapon, Ruger Mini 14's.
Expiration of the ban
Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were fewer available."[2] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.[3]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[4] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."
Effect on crimeThe United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]
That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[10]
Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[11] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[12] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, it determined that since the law was enacted, "assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."
Getting ready to head out to Busch Stadium to watch the Cardinals finish off the Giants and win the NLCS.
You have a good day and will probably talk later tonight or tomorrow.
Because it would simply be done with the same gun, except one of the cosmetic features would be removed so it would not be an "assault weapon".
If I was to gun somebody down with this gun:
I would have killed somebody with a "regular" rifle.
If I was to gun somebody down with THIS gun:
I,also, would have killed somebody with a "regular" rifle.
If I was to gun somebody down with THIS gun, though:
Well, now I'm part of the 1.6% that was done with an "assault weapon".
The problem is, though, that it's the same gun with different stocks screwed onto it:
Likewise, this is an "assault weapon":
But this isn't:
Can you really tell me that the Colorado shooting would have been different if Sideshow Bob had used the bottom AR-15 instead of the top one?
