Pro "permanent AWB ban" policy removed from change.gov! WOO HOO! More "change" I can support!

Hopefully it will remain gone - permanently!

I was sincerely worried that the earlier verbiage that had been posted at change.gov. represented a narrow and upopular minority view within the Democratic Party that had somehow become ascendant within the nascent Obama administration. However, the vigilance of Second Amendment activists is paying off, and I am grateful that people have been paying attention. Those making sure that a more mainstream libertarian Democratic voice gets heard in the upcoming discussion of Second Amendment policies are in the right here, both politically and Constitutionally I believe.

I have been working on a piece outlining why the post-2008 election Democratic majority is the ideal time and circumstance to renew a discussion of Second Amendment policies among Democrats, but it is not nearly time to jump to any conclusions, especially the past failed policies that led to serious defeats from 1994 to 2004 at the least. I would appreciate you adding your voice to this discussion when I post it here in the Gungeon.


-app

All pro-RKBA Democrats, as well as those with a reasoned deisagreement, are welcome to add their voices here too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x190436

-app

Hi App Farmer!

Likewise, I have also been working on a piece to submit to change.gov, concerning a method previously discussed here in the gungeon about how to achieve background checks on all firearm transfers and still preserve the anonymity of firearm ownership.

I'd like to see Obama not be afraid to stand up to your kind.

Meaning what katandmoon?

Like in N.R.A.? Don't you think it is time you got over your hatred for millions of Americans and try to do something constructive?

The ones who voted for him?

Sup.

of restricting the ownership and purchase of private property now part of the Democratic ideal? I certainly hope not!

It's about time the party consider taking a "pro-choice" stance on gun-rights.

The Constitution guaranteed to the citizens the right to arms for service in the Militia (A1,S8, C16). The 2nd amendment further re-iterates and secures that right, and makes it explicitly personal. The arms secured certainly include those that would be most effective for use by the people in the vital roles required in securing our freedoms, for self-defense, for sport, and for all lawful purpose.

katandmoon,

The present consensus on the Second Amendment is that it protects small arms that only target one object or enemy at a time: thus pistols, rifles (including the semi-automatic, so-called 'assault weapons), and shotguns, but not fully-automatic weapons, missiles, or explosives. This is a consensus and compromise that I can live with. If you can live with that consensus too, then we might work together as Democrats on a whole host of other more pressing issues (economy, health care, reproductive freedom, etc.). Are you game to build such a coalition with pro-2nd Amendment Democrats or not?

-app

Huge home made device demonstrated in forest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV86hPBoIYc&feature=related


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide


More at: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tatp


It is not the possession of any device or material you need to worry about - worry about intent, if you must worry about anything.


EDIT: added Wiki

What existed then bears NO relation to the automatic weapons of death and destruction you gun lovers value over human life.

Are you confused about the subject? The "Assault weapons" ban deals with banning semi-auto rifles/shotguns with scary cosmetic features, NOT automatic weapons.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's right, hammers. They are a fairly common murder weapon. Takes about two seconds. IIRC, whole families have been murdered in their sleep using a hammer. They're actually fairly dangerous to use, too. I injured myself three times this weekend with one. The best thing is they are not protected by the Constitution. Fair game.

under Federal law, and nobody is talking about repealing those restrictions.

You've been had. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is about the most popular NON-automatic civilian guns, NOT automatic weapons.

radio or television. In fact these forms of communication bear no resemblence to the town gatherings, or printing press essays that the founding fathers knew when they wrote the constitution. Clearly the 1st amendment should only apply to things they would have known about, and for those others, well there should be no rights.

Same logic, just as absurd.

Out of curiosity, do you know the legal definition for assault weapons? I've found that most pro-AWB folk are woefully ignorant and what the bill actually entails. They seem to react emotionally to the name, rather than logically to the content.

If someone had the intent, they could certainly use one of these to delete someone else.

If you can be trusted with a single shot rifle, than you can be trusted with a 20 shot self-loading rifle.

If you cannot be trusted with with a 20 shot self-loading rifle, you cannot be trusted with a single shot rifle.

My guess is you don't trust anyone with any kind of firearm, unless they work for the government, right?

Not very Democratic to infringe on ANY right, even those you choose not to enjoy.

I couldn't find any repubs.

David

The ban should never have been enacted in the 90's. These are legitimate firearms used primarily by responsible people. They are a used in a very small fraction of crimes. No bending over that i see.

... and everybody knows the old news that the policy is still in the agenda.


Aaaargh. Was there not a choice of half a dozen current threads about this same boring tired old thing?

But it's obviously not a boring issue or gun owners / 2nd-amendment-supporters wouldn't still be talking about it so much.

i would've been happier to get involved with it a bit sooner but had taken a long break from posting here (though not reading here).. i still think this matters, and i don't understand how people can not see an "assault weapons" ban as a subversion of their rights. This stuff matters... i like all the amendments, especially the 1st, 4th, and 2nd.

extremist left wing policies. Could someone define a assault weapon? Another thing that has a lot of moderates fired up already is stopping the drilling on Federal lands again.

on edit: Controlling the far left is going to be Obama's biggest challenge the next couple years or we will lose Congress just as we did in 1994.

could't control its far looney right.

Quick run for your bunkers.

I'll tell when its safe to come back out.

This could be great for Democrats, Obama, and all Americans.


If Obama actually came out and said, "no new federal gun bans" I might cry with joy.




eta: I see from app_farmer_rb's thread what was said. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x190436

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. "

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Time to write more letters in support of RKBA.

Are you viewing a cached copy?

The only thing I see at that link is "The page you requested is not available right now."

Everything I turn up through Google suggests that all the agendas were removed several days ago.
e.g.,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/10/obama_agenda_temporarily_off_c.html

This is the new link:

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/


Edit ... never mind ... always check the dates and beware of dredging ...

in the last week to cause me to drop to my knees and begin sobbing in relief...

This - just - might - do - it. :party:

The military teaches that just because the enemy can't see you behind cover, doesn't mean they can't shoot through it.

What the missing policy statement needs to be replaced with is a promise not to enact more useless laws. Short of that, celebration may be premature.

Imagine that, a candidate that, post election, appears to be honoring all of our rights, and getting ready to move on a bunch of issues that have been frustrating me.

Tickle me pink.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

It can happen.

I'm not too optimistic about that.

If he gets re elected he will have little to loose during his second term by bringing back the AWB. And yeah, based on his history and his words I would expect him to try to bring it back if he can.

(1) Some 15,000,000 civilians now own firearms in the class of semi-auto carbines (AKs, ARs, SKS, etc.)
(2) The semi-auto carbine is the biggest selling center-fire rifle in the U.S.(waiting lists, now)
(3) Many semi-auto carbines are being designed as hunting weapons, which will degrade the gun-controllers ability to classify this firearm as a non-hunting weapon and therefore not what they want to ban.

The Holy Grail of the gun-control movement, the AWB, is fading away into the distance. Only MSM (the only effective component within the gun-control "movement,") will keep this issue alive until they are repeatedly confronted about their poor use of terms and miss-use of data.

I posted this in response farther up the board, but it may need emphasizing.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda

Assuming that is the current policy statement -- this is what it says about two thirds of the way down the page, under "Crime and Law Enforcement" (with my emphasis):

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

False news, I'm afraid.

It took about 5 seconds to find that from the now-blank page linked in this thread.



Edit ... never mind ... always check the dates and beware of dredging ...

Someone from the Obama camp showed some stones and put it back up.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Those must be the same type of "stones" that the DLC showed in 1994...the ones in the head, that displace functional brain tissue.

Only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, Obama needs all the political capital he can bring to bear on economic issues and health care, and some staffer/advisor thinks trying to ban the MOST POPULAR RIFLES IN THE NATION is a wise move?

Which is more important, addressing the economic crisis and fixing health care, OR banning rifle handgrips that stick out? Because you cannot do both, as the DLC'ers found out the hard way in 1994.



----------------------

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership