When will Congress make its first serious push for another semi-auto ban, if at all?

This is regardless if the proposed ban passes or fails. I'm just looking for the first real attempt to ban or restrict civilian ownership of rifles considered to be "non-sporting."

Considering the recent spike in gun sales, I think a lot of gun owners are trying to make their voices heard via the marketplace, with the economy being such a precarious issue at this point in time.

I don't like some of the recent price-gouging that has resulted. A bare-bones AK that would have cost you $400 in October can easily run $800 now, even in places like Texas.

I don't follow that logic.

I'm not saying a semi-auto ban is or isn't the way to go, but the fact is the majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws. So if it pisses off gun owners, let them be pissed.

The problem that those who advocate more restrictive gun laws is not prevailing public opinion, it's simply a failure of marketing. They have allowed the gunnuts to falsely allege that the Democrats are going after their hunting rifles. The results have been even more gunnut laws like concealed carry and make my day, as if all we need to protect us from the gunnuts are more gunnuts.

The gun control lobby's attempts at correcting the record are pathetic and the result has been the exact opposite of their goals. I say they should go on the offensive and start telling the stories of all the thousands of kids that are killed each year because the NRA won't tolerate common sense initiatives.

You are aware the AWB banned weapons based on looks right.





The top one was legal under the AWB.
The bottom one was illegal under the AWB.
The "pistol" grip on the 2nd rifle was one two many "scary looking" items that made it illegal.

Same caliber.
Same rate of fire
Same capacity
Same effective range
Same operating mechanism.

One illegal. The other legal.

The dems lost control of Congress over that piece of shit of a law and people are ready to go for round 2.

You are aware the AWB banned weapons based on looks right.

What does that have to do with semi-auto being "cosmetic"?

You are aware that semi-auto concerns the gun's function and not appearance, right?

Where did you get the idea that Congress was ever considering a ban to ban ALL semi-autos.

You are aware that would be a ban on ALL pistols and 70% of rifles sold today.

Nobody in Congress is stupid enough to think such a ban on virtually all firearms would be held constitutional.

The democratic platform plank is to "revive the Assault Weapons Ban" not some "new ban on all semi-autos".
The AWB didn't ban weapons based on functionality.
The AWB banned weapon based on looks.

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

From change.gov
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.

So per both Democratic Party Platform and Obama transition website the only ban being proposed is the AWB. Which one last time bans weapons based on looks.

IF (which has never been proposed or has any chance of passing) Congress banned ALL semi-autos I would agree that wouldn't be a cosmetic. It also wouldn't be constitutional.

Where did you get the idea that Congress was ever considering a ban to ban ALL semi-autos.

I never suggested anything of the sort.

I just want to know why you think semi-auto = cosmetic. You appeared to have finally answered that question begrudgingly as you assume I advocated such a ban even though I clearly stated I didn't.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Never and always are a very long time.

And curios and relics, like some of the weapons in my collection.

If the 1994 AWB pissed off a lot of people, a ban on all semiautos, or even all semiautos that take detachable magazines would be a whole lot worse politically.

The litmus test will be if there is any "reason" that would make such a wide ban "worth it". It would be political suicide unless somehow this could become a one party state before such a ban was enacted.

The ban doesn't ban semi-automatics for being semi-automatic, is bans certain semi-automatics based on cosmetic features.

You'll be hearing from my lawyer!

If the majority of Americans favored suspension of habeas corpus, unrestricted snooping of your phone calls, or torturing American citizens to obtain confessions, I'm sure you'd stand up to them and tell them that the law is the law. Simple.

Congratulations!

I'm sure it will look good next to your Irony Cross.

Why the HELL do you think the gun issue has anything whatsoever to do with hunting?

That is the same egregious misunderstanding of gun-owner demographics that gave us the DLC's original "talk up hunting, promise to ban nonhunting guns" strategy.

The reason that is asinine is that only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter. 4 out of 5 are nonhunters. And of the 1 in 5 who do hunt, many also own the nonhunting guns you want to outlaw.

The "marketing" worked fine. Most everyone knew that deer rifles with 19th-century-styling were safe, as were skeet guns and bird guns. Problem was, most gun owners don't hunt and don't shoot skeet.

IT ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING OR HUNTING GUNS. It's primarily about modern looking rifles, and about defensive-style handguns.

just has a really hard time conjuring up the idea that somebody could really think that the "gun issue" is about ... well, whatever the gun militant brigade might be pretending it's about to conceal what it's really about.

Because I can provide hard data to the contrary...

Here's a hint: 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, U.S. Census Bureau. Hard numbers based on actual hunting license data.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf (2006)
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html (prior years)

According to the data, 12.5 million people over age 16 and 1.6 million under age 16 hunted in 2006, for a total of 14.1 million active hunters. And according to the Census Bureau, only 18.6 million adults hunted even once in that entire five-year period.

There are between 65 and 80 million gun owners in the United States, based on several studies from all across the pro/anti gun spectrum. The true number is probably closest to 80 million, but we'll use the low number of 65 million to humor the "gun owners equals hunters" perception for now.

What's 14.1 million divided by 65 million? For the mathematically challenged, that's 21.7%. If you take the 80 million number, it's 17.6%.

More Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt. FAR more Americans own semiautomatic pistols than hunt.

Someone who said "more than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts".

You're apparently a little confused.

The poster I was responding to, before your drive-by, claimed:



Which is, of course, completely wrong. Whether or not you agree or disagree with civilian ownership of nonhunting-style firearms, the fact is that the gun-owning community is primarily concerned about new bans on nonhunting firearms, because (1) they constitute the majority of firearms owned, (2) nonhunters constitute the majority of firearms owners, and (3) nonhunting guns are the ones the gun-control lobby wants to ban at the moment.

The debate is not, in fact, primarily about hunting or hunting weapons, and it has never been.

And the post of yours to which I very clearly and directly replied asked:

Why the HELL do you think the gun issue is about hunting?

That would be the question I addressed.

How did you get so confused in such a short space?


the fact is that the gun-owning community is primarily concerned about new bans on nonhunting firearms, because (1) they constitute the majority of firearms owned, (2) nonhunters constitute the majority of firearms owners, and (3) nonhunting guns are the ones the gun-control lobby wants to ban at the moment.

The actual fact is that gun militants are a lunatic right-wing fringe group, and basically nobody gives a crap what they think aside from the fact that they are backed by deep pockets, and money wins elections in the US. Viz. President-elect Obama, among others.

Some are fond of saying that George Bush beat Ann Richardson on guns. Back in that day, I crunched the numbers and determined that George outspent Ann 3:1 for every vote received.

Of course, all that money was just spent because the Republicans liked spending money, not because it influences elections at all ...



typo fixed

And we American Dem and indie gun owners should give a crap about what Canadian curmudgeons think about us because...?

Gun owners are an influential voting bloc not because of money (the entire U.S. gun industry is worth less than McDonald's, IIRC) but because there are so damn many of us, we tend to vote at higher rates than the general population, and because so many of us actually care about the issue.

The DLC would not have picked this particular fight in 1994 had they not been under the gun owner = hunter misconception, because most progressives in OUR country do not consider gun bans a high priority. They attacked nonhunting guns because they thought it would be a way to look "tough on crime" to law-and-order types, while the pandering about hunting would prevent a gun-owner backlash.

Problem was, "gun owner" and "hunter" aren't even close to synonymous in OUR country...

(the entire U.S. gun industry is worth less than McDonald's, IIRC)

Er, so? I was talking about the gun industry? Not so's I noticed.

There are deep pockets behind the gun militant brigade that have nothing to do with the gun industry, just as the brigade's various gun crusades have nothing to do with guns.

Just as Mark Steyn's "free speech" crusade has nothing to do with freedom or speech, and the anti-choice brigade's efforts to outlaw abortion have nothing to do with fetuses, and so on and on.

We all know it.

pushing/manipulating Dems into supporting new gun bans HELPS repubs immensely. Newt Gingrich very shrewdly played the House Dems into passing the 1994 Feinstein law, even though he could have killed it in conference committee, and rode the very predictable backlash into the Speaker's chair (Sen. Foley himself becoming the first sitting Speaker to lose reelection since the Civil War). Sucking Gore and Kerry into strong pro-AWB, "I only support hunting guns" messages in '00 and '04 hurt them. And leading the Obama administration to reanimate that particular zombie would help repubs in 2010, just as it did in '94.

Sure, there is a strong repub effort to woo gun owners by portraying themselves as the defenders of the Second Amendment against "those gun grabbing liberals" or whatever the meme du jour is. I suspect there's also a strong repub effort to get Dems to take radioactive stances on the issue.

I LIVE in a state that just went blue by a very narrow margin, in part because of the perception that Obama would not make new gun bans a priority. Turn the clock back to 1994, and you'll have 1994 results.

against the Dems. I don't understand why some are still pushing for this?

Any such ban will probably have more luck in the House than in the Senate. But I know that Biden, Emanuel, and a bunch of their colleagues will put tremendous pressure on Congress, even if Obama does not.

At least not as a block.

Oh sure I know a few vocal minority do and no doubt they will be joining the thread soon.

But the fact is, we don't need them to win.

...and yet Obama courted them. But he kept clear of a lot of gun owners on the campiagn trail.

All this talk about "We don't need ________ on our side" is a bit dicey.

If losing a bloc is necessary to pass important legislation, then it might be worthwhile. LBJ surrendering Southern whites to pass the Civil Rights Act is, I think, the ur-example. However, I don't think a cosmetic ban is really worth irritating anyone who owns a firearm. I mean, if anyone could point me to evidence that assault weapon bans do anything in the real world, then great, but as it stands it just looks like a way for gun-control advocates to pat themselves on the back.

I'm now 65, but I remember my (at the time) future FIL ranting about electing a Dem will permit the feds to go house to house and confiscate all our guns! He and his whole family were avid hunters, and I THINK the NRA started this BS years before that! People still believe that...even after all these years of it not happening. If Obama steps into this quagmire, all it will do is confirm to the gun owners that all Dems are against them.

Fear fuels membership.

I have to imagine membership is up since Nov 4th and that means $$$$

Gun sales are up substantially and every gunshop I have been in has NRA pamphlets.

An AWB II would simply confirm what NRA has been saying for years. The Dems will outlaw all guns starting with semi-auto rifles.
Now they have been saying that since the original AWB expired and have been wrong every year.
I know this because my father in law "explains it to me every couple months".

I don't think Obama will push for it BUT if it gets to his desk he won't veto it.
He likely is hoping it just goes away so he can concentrate on real work. Push comes to shove though Obama will sign it.

But that doesn't mean that we can't have reasonable restrictions on weapons of war and buy back programs.

Nobody is going to touch anyones hunting rifles and shotguns nor target pistols.

No military in the world uses the guns that were banned under the previous ban. Weapons of war are all select fire (machine guns), the guns previously banned were all semi automatic. You already KNEW that but I thought I would counter your attempt to mislead others.

The line was drawn correctly then, and there is no reason to change it.

The standard Marine sniper rifle is nothing but a hunting rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_rifle

A sniper rifle is a weapon of war and civilians shouldn't be allowed to own those by your reasoning.

And probably ten times as many Americans own defensive-style handguns as target pistols.

FWIW, many hunting weapons are closer to being "weapons of war" than AR-15's and such are. The U.S. military issue sniper rifle is the Remington Model 700 bolt-action, the Vietnam sniper rifle was the Winchester Model 70, most bolt guns are derived from the German Mauser infantry rifle, and the most popular deer caliber in America (.30-06 Springfield) was originally developed to kill human beings at extreme ranges.

Non-automatic civilian AR-15's and non-automatic civilian AK's, on the other hand, have never been used by any military on this planet.

than the "assault weapons" you seem to be fixated upon?

that the supreme court has determined the constitution protects...

those include the pistols that military/police use

The financial and health care crisis should come first, but this issue should be addressed soon.

Everyday that this goes unaddressed, people are dying.

The next AWB should be more than just a cosmetic ban though. The last one was way to easy for manufacturers and owners to evade. Owners continued to trade them and manufacturers just made small changes.

The next awb should end all trading in these weapons, provide for buyback programs, or if owners prefer a registration system be setup similar to what was done in the 1980's with fully automatic weapons. (whereby the registry is closed after a year or two, and all awb's are limited to police and military only unless they are on the registry)

Far more Americans have been killed by the criminal misuse of handguns than by rifles or shotguns of any kind.

As for registering automatic weapons, that's been done since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The 80's legislation you speak of halted all new sales of automatic weapons to civilians, just like the 1994 ban on semi-automatics. Google "Firearms Owners Protection Act" for more information.

You say that the next ban should be more than a cosmetic ban. What sort of functionality would you want a new ban to address?

the most common weapon used is a revolver.

RIFLES - a type of gun the OP focused on - are used in about 1% of gun homicides. Generally when they are used it is almost always hunting type rifles, not the AK/AR types (quite probably because they are far less powerful than a .30-06 etc). By far the most common handgun used is the good ol' .38 revolver.

So banning semi-autos is for........?

Its on the Democratic platform and I fully support it.

The improvements that I discussed are improvements I'd like to see.

Obama is pretty smart, with the next AWB ban, I don't expect that he'll repeats the mistakes that made the last AWB ineffective and ultimately expire.

What sort of change do you want to see in the new ban? Do you want all semi-automatic feeding machanisms restricted?

There is really no reason to need semi-automatic functionalty in a rifle anyway.

But yet they are not illegal. Lack of necessity is not grounds for illegality.

Ok that made me laugh.

Those dark-colored writing surfaces they used to have at the front of every classroom.

They make no mention about "need" governing the functionality of a particular gun.

Which is what an assault rifle ban would be based on.

With an effective AWB in place, people would still be entitled to own rifles, shotguns and handguns.

You seem to be arguing that banning is regulating which is pre-Heller thinking.
DC argued that under the DC handgun ban citizens still had the right to own rifles or shotguns.

The court disagreed:
Supreme Court of the United States (Heller vs DC) 2008

SCOTUS clearly indicates that BANNING an entire class of weapons, even if other classes are available is unconstitutional if the weapons are used lawfully and are in common use.

My prediction is Chicago will lose their handgun ban and as a result the courts will affirm that the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th and applies to all states.
It will take a long time (Heller took 6 years). After that a suit will be filed using incorporation of 2nd as precedent against CA for their ban on "assault weapons".

Back to a federal AWB (which is easier to win in court because no incorporation issues)

Two major criteria that SCOTUS indicated. In common use & lawful purpose.

COMMON USE:
If we use the terms of 1994 AWB then "assault rifles" are the most commonly sold class of rifles today. There are about 20 million "assault rifles" (per 1994 def) in lawful use.
If we use some new more expanded def then it becomes even MORE weapons thus even more "in common use".
If you are talking about semi-auto pistols then it is the overwhelming majority of weapons in the United States.

LAWFUL PURPOSE
All rifles (not just so called "assault" rifles) were used in <3% of all homicides and even less violent crimes (<1%).

So to get a ballpark number:
1.6 million violent crimes. Let's say 1% involved assault rifles (which is likely way to high because the # is LESS THAN 1% and that is ALL RIFLES) that is 16,000 assault rifles involved in violent crime.
Once again I only do this for sake of argument because since "assault rifles" are used in so few crimes the FBI has no stats other than <1%. Less than 1% could mean 1,600 or 160 or 16.

16,000/20,000,000 = 0.08%.
So 99.92% of assault rifles are used lawfully.

How exactly do you think the fed govt can prove that:
1) assault rifles are not in common usage (20 mil in cir)
2) assault rifles are not used for lawful purpose (99.92% used lawfully)
in order to pass constitutional scrutiny.

The truth is there is no way in hell they can. When they fail the law will be overtuned and any price (in terms of loss of support) paid for the law will be for nothing

If you define rifle as a class of weapon and fully-auto and semi-auto as subclasses, then I think you can see the issue.

We've already severely restricted full-auto weapons and the court seems to have no issue with this. If semi-auto's were subjected to the same restrictions as full-auto, there would be no constitutionality issue - at least not with the current conservative court.

AKs and ARs are common use, as they have become the most popular hunting and competitive shooting weapons platforms.

Starting with hunting, and being able to take down a wounded animal before they get out of range. Furthermore, most people don't "need" a car, or a TV, or internet access. That's not a compelling reason to allow it to be banned. I agree with the poster above: arguing that one should be able to ban something because it's not neccessary is apalling to the very notion of a free society. You don't need a reason for something to be legal, you need a reason for it to be illegal, and you need a damned good one at that. I've got no particular desire to own an AR-15, but no way in hell I'm going to call that a reason to ban them.

:hi:

It is too easy for inexperienced drivers to drive too fast with automatics and no able bodied person needs one. Only reason to want an automatic car is to facilitate getaways from drive-by shootings.

Betcha didn't think of that.

;-)

Notice the words "able bodied" in my post? :)

I understood what you meant.

What changes to the AWB are you suggesting? You don't specify what you'd support banning. How do you define "assault weapons"? If it's clip size, how do you avoid manufacturers reissuing the same models with smaller clips? I'm looking for an expansion on your views.

The 1994 AWB is a reasonable starting point.

Refine it to weapons capable of acceptable magazines more than 10 rounds and semi-automatic.

Remove the expiration date and loophole of "manufactured before 20xx" and we're well on track toward and effective law that will saves lives.

While that may snare a few non-assault weapons as well, that's a reasonable price to pay for the lives saved and frankly, if manufacturers are skirting that close to the edges, I really don't care if they get caught up.

lead to less crime than the same gun with a 10-round magazine? Are there a significant number of murders caused by bullets number 11 through 20?

You say "semi-auto" like it is a machine gun.
Semi-auto = 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet. Almost everything produced today is semi-auto.
Even .22 target pistols like a Ruger MK III are magazine fed semi-autos.

Saying semi-auto would be like saying "banning fuel injected cars since racecars are fuel injected" while not realizing you just banned every produced in the United States in last 20 years.

weapons capable of acceptable magazines more than 10 rounds
Weapons sold w/ magazine holding 9 or less rounds can accept 10+ round magazines.

Your interpretation would ban essentially every magazine fed pistol or rifle in existence.

I'm quite sure that Obama will employ people with expertise in firearms and writing legislation to make this work.

And besides, if we take 90% of the guns off the street, that still leaves millions in circulation. Plenty for the gun lovin folks to collect, hunt with and fondle.

I'm quite sure that Obama will employ people with expertise in firearms and writing legislation to make this work.
Firearm "experts" don't advocate banning guns. Gun banning "experts" like the ones employed by Clinton did an amazing job.

And besides, if we take 90% of the guns off the street, that still leaves millions in circulation. Plenty for the gun lovin folks to collect, hunt with and fondle.
And a guaranteed appeal to SCOTUS which will find any such federal action to be violation of the 2nd.

Lose Congress AND Accomplish Nothing. Now THAT is change the Republicans can believe in.

I pray Obama isn't stupid enough to fall for the whole "ban scary looking guns" crap again.

Why don't we just ban swimming pools instead? Good news is they aren't protected by the 2nd.

I'm looking for a definition. If you're talking about a 10 round magazine and semi-automatic, you're talking about weapons used in something like one percent of all violent crimes. In your opinion, why do they need to be banned?

A high powered weapon, high capacity weapon capable of being rapidly fired.

I'll leave it to the experts writing the legislation to write the nit and bits. I'm not particularly interested in the technical details and I've said, personally I'm fine with if some manufacturers get included because they skated too close to the lines.

I think California has done a good job with this and could be used a nationwide model

The machine gun registry is a very good example of how to control a particular class of weapon proliferation.

I think those two successes would serve as an excellent basis.

what would such a ban accomplish? Suppose you have a hunting rifle; the type used in about 1-in-100 gun crimes, and the type that has the most important (IMO) legitimate use. Suppose it is not semiautomatic, and must be reloaded after each shot. Clearly we shouldn't ban this gun; it's probably the least offensive gun imaginable.

Now suppose it has a five-round clip, but is still bolt-action. This allows the hunter to fire more than once without having to reload, but each shot is going to be spaced several seconds apart. There's obvious utility here. Is this gun significantly more dangerous? No, not really.

Now suppose it is semi-automatic, with a five-round clip. The hunter can now fire off about a shot per second while maintaining some degree of aim, and does not have to break his aim to operate the bolt-action mechanism between shots. I think this type of gun has obvious utility for hunters, as well. Is it more dangerous? Perhaps slightly, but not by much. A .38 revolver is still more useful for virtually any type of premeditated crime, and in a crime of passion, I don't think the extra few seconds saved between shots is going to save the target's life.

Now suppose it is semi-automatic, with a thirty-round clip. There is very little extra utility for hunters, save perhaps a bit of convenience. It's certainly more fun to shoot, but that's doesn't really figure into the equation either way. The question is: how much more dangerous is it? It's still not really useful for most gun crimes (it's a bit too unwieldy and conspicuous for a mugging, robbery, or most murders), but does have some value for people intending to commit multiple murders within seconds of one another (which are very, very few indeed). However, such crimes are also usually well planned in advance. Even in the face of the ban, a person intending to go on a shooting spree would be likely to acquire his gun from a seedy gun show, private dealer, or friend-of-a-friend looking to make a buck by selling his old gun. Gun bans are not effective at removing previously-manufactured guns from the market, after all.

When it comes down to it, rifles--all rifles, not just the scary kind with 20 round clips--are used in about 2% of violent crimes. Hands and feet are used in 12%.

The point I was trying to drive home is that there is no unambiguous, non-subjective definition of what constitutes an "assault rifle," primarily because it's more a marketing phrase than anything else. THAT is why the assault weapons ban was ineffective: you can't ban a gun for looking scary, and outlawing bayonet fixtures or barrel shrouds doesn't change the utility of a weapon.

The only functional difference between an AR-15 "assault rifle" and an antique M1 Garand of the kind that they gave GIs in World War II is that one has a 20 or 30 round clip and the other is 8 rounds. Suppose you banned all weapons with a clip larger than 10 rounds, as you proposed. That solves what? Most gun murders are committed with handguns, which already likely have a clip under 10 rounds, and the most commonly used kind is revolvers which have no clip at all.

So, as noted, the only scenario in which clip size becomes relevant in how dangerous a gun is is people running amok, and somehow I doubt that they're going to leave it to enough chance that it matters whether they've got a 10 round clip or a 30 round clip.

You hear people talk about how gee, the Virginia Tech guy could have been stopped if he'd had a revolver, but they forget that there's a million .45s and 9-round mags out there that aren't going away. Anybody who really wants to kill other people will.

Canada's got nearly as many guns per capita as we do, but they have a fraction of our gun deaths, and it's not because all of their guns are bolt-action antiques. Banning scary looking guns is a feel-good measure, no more or less. What we should be focusing on is doing what has a proven effect on reducing violent crime: more police officers on the streets and more efforts to clean up and rehabilitate our urban centers.

People are now selling rifles in California that look and function exactly the same as non-California versions, with the exception that you have to use a tool (e.g. the point of a bullet) to detach the magazine.

Magazine capacity for those is limited to 10 rounds if you are shooting in California, and the modification to require a tool to detach the magazine can be reversed in a few minutes.

Here is a Saiga AK-based .308 rifle for sale on Gunbroker, that is CA legal. It has no "AW" features at all, and no tool is needed to remove the magazine.



Here is an AR-15 variant loaded up with "AW" features, which is CA legal because a tool is needed to remove the magazine.



These "featureless" California-legal rifles take detachable magazines. They're ugly as sin but fully functional AR-15s.

since most "assault weapons" are at the extreme low end of the centerfire rifle power spectrum, and they fire no faster than most non-"assault weapons".

But it's a quixotic crusade to start with; rifles are consistently among the least misused of all firearms in this country.

You are trying to solve a non-existent problem - Hands and feet are used to kill more people than all rifles, including semi-autos:

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

2006 data:
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

See post #125

Not more than 2.91% of homicides with firearms, and actually less than that, since that number includes all rifles.

And your new law has it melted down into ball bearings. Think I might be annoyed?

That's why we don't retroactively ban things. It might be nice to retroactively ban vehicles that do not meet today's emissions and mileage standards, but it's not a terribly practical idea.

The government never owned these guys, so how can they buy them back?

That is such a stupid term.

No questions asked. No serial numbers checked. High-value, small, portable items. Gets around all the requirements such as pawn shops being required to hold a weapon for 30 days, and check the serial number for having been reported stolen.

Stupidest idea ever.

Someone cleans out their Grandfather's attic find "some gun" turns it in at buyback for $50 and it gets melted down.

Lot of times that "some gun" is classic from WWII or a family item going back to 1800s or something else with historical value. $300, $400, $1000 weapons being melted down (or going into LEO private collection) in return for $25 or $50 gift card.

The flipside is also true:

Friend of mine who worked in a gunshop. The owner advertised $20 trade-in value for any gun no matter the condition. He would take the jnnk guns (many times broken) and keep them in a bucket. When the "buyback" same into town he would turn them in to the police for $50 or $100 each.

...The owner advertised $20 trade-in value for any gun no matter the condition. He would take the jnnk guns (many times broken) and keep them in a bucket. When the "buyback" same into town he would turn them in to the police for $50 or $100 each.

That's pretty shrewd.

so that something that's actually needed and relevant can happen in our government.

I rather like the idea of rebuilding our energy infrastructure with "green" solar, wind, and hydro that can never be relocated overseas. We need a new manufacturing base in America, and if that involves new energy jobs, then so be it.

unless the guns in the ban are becoming a problem for crime, I don't see it happening

The guns covered by the '94 AWB weren't "a problem for crime" and yet the ban became law. What makes you so sure it won't happen again? We can wait and see what happens; then we will know. Hoping, thinking and believing won't make a difference to the actual future history - the only thing you can do is contact your member congress and communicate your views and future voting responses before the future becomes history.

Do they really want to piss away this huge majority so quickly?

I don't think Mark Begich, Ben Nelson and Max Baucus all have the same positions on gun control as John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein and Bill Clinton.

I'd seriously consider voting against Casey or my congressperson if they were stupid enough to vote for this stupid do nothing but ban cosmetic features law. Or any ban of this type!

The backlash would be extremely significant in November...

History has proven it time and time again....

Another doomed ban attempt will increase likelihood that Congressional control changes in the following election.

ALL rifles (not just so called "assault rifles", as opposed to "nice rifles") account for <3% of homicides and <2% of all violent crime (hands and feet are 12%).
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html


Note the 450 isn't assault rifles it is ALL rifles including bolt actions rifles.
Hands & Feet killed twice as many people.
Knives and other stabbie things killed 4x as many people.

FBI stopped tracking "assault weapons" because they were used in SO FEW crimes (<1% of murders).

Lastly there also is no guarantee that such a bill would pass Heller (DC vs Heller).
"non sporting" semi-auto rifles are the LEAST LIKELY class of firearms to be used in a crime and are in "COMMON USE" (2nd most popular class sold in 2007) both conditions indicated in Heller for unconstitutionality of a ban.

So imagine the stupidity if the do push it.
1) It passes.
2) Huge ammo for Reps
3) Repukes get control of Congress
4) THEN SCOTUS throws it out anyways.

Yay. For pointless bills.

Don't we have about 329840390849034893043840408 real things to worry about?

Everything's different now.

piss off a bunch of gun owners and their allies. What's the point with wasting political capital on pointless and easily worked-around bans on particular types of guns?

Really, I don't think the existence of the AR-15 is a particular threat to American society.

...

to responsible gun regulation and buybacks.

I'm strongly in favor of a nationwide database, of more stringent license requirements, of trigger locks and waiting periods, of serial numbers, etc., etc. Those all have at least some degree of logic behind them.

Banning a gun with a twenty-round clip while keeping the same gun with a fifteen-round clip legal? What's the point? Is the sixteenth bullet really that big a threat to society at large in a way the first fifteen are not?

public safety matters.

The Virginia Tech shooter had pistols with 10 and 19 rounds apiece- making any attempt to rush and disarm him when his clip ran out very difficult (if not suicidal).

But in the ned, you're probably right- as I mentioned, Americans prefer repeated mass shootings, high homicide rates and senseless accidents and suicides to any slight "infringements" on their "freedom" to crazy sort of semi-auto firearm that they want.

And that's unlikely to change- both as a cultural matter and as a practical matter.

Which more violence and more and more prisons.

Such a ban might indeed have an effect, but that's a very different question than the one the OP poses.

(And semiautomatics don't really have much of anything to do with homicides, accidents, or suicides. A .38 revolver is just as capable for all.)

Haven't had any mass shootings since.

A ban on handguns would do the most to stop gun crime, IMO, but is politically entirely unfeasible.

Otherwise how could they "buy them back"?

:shrug:

If you do, then you're deluding yourself. If you don't, then you're arguing based on thin air.

Not a Assault Weapon....

Reading is fundemental

He had a pistol
Not a Assault Weapon....
Reading is fundemental


Not the most unbiased wiki article I've ever seen, but it will do in a pinch.

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

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

... Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

... The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were also referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices." Depending on the locality, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

What depakid said that you replied to:

The Virginia Tech shooter had pistols with 10 and 19 rounds apiece- making any attempt to rush and disarm him when his clip ran out very difficult (if not suicidal).

Getting it at all?


The Canadian limit is five rounds, btw.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100390.html

Cho entered the building with 377 rounds
Cho still had most of the ammo on him when he decided to kill himself (203).

Cho had 2 weapons. He primary used the 9mm (all but 2 of the fatalities were from the 9mm).
He kept the .22 in his off hand all the time.

It wasn't the size of the magazine that made it difficult to "rush him" it is the fact that it is difficult to "rush someone" who is armed. Since he had 2 firearms and kept one loaded at all times he was always armed.

Cho wasn't panicky or rushed. Victims reported that he was deliberate, took aimed shots, and moved methodical.

A 10 round magazine simply mean he needed to make more magazine changes (protected w/ the .22).
He fired 174 rounds so had to make 9 magazine changes during the rampage.
With 10 round magazines he would have had to make 17 mag changes. Magazine change takes about 2-3 seconds so his rampage would have gone 30 seconds or so longer.

There is no evidence that a magazine limit would have saved lives EVEN in this extreme example.

I didn't think so.

You were saying his pistol was an "assault weapon" based on a defunct law that has nothing to do with anything anymore, because he had 15 or 17 round magazines, so the other poster pointed out that having ten round magazines would not have changed anything. Maybe your post didn't specifically say it would, but the sub-thread under discussion WAS about that.

This is a pistol



This is a(the first) Assault Weapon



A pistol with a 19rd mag is not an Assault Weapon, no matter what some anti-gun jack ass says.

Don't believe everything you see on the internet, you once gave me that advice remember???

I didn't make up fuck all.

Perhaps you've heard of those little things called "laws"? There are definitions in laws, and yes, legislators MAY make up whatever definitions they like. And that's exactly what the definition of "assault weapon" is -- a definition made up by legislators. Just like the definition of "benefit under a deferred profit sharing plan" and "“bituminous sands" in the section of the Income Tax Act of Canada I happen to have open in another window just now. And how about this one? --

“borrowed money” includes the proceeds to a taxpayer from the sale
of a post-dated bill drawn by the taxpayer on a bank;

Huh. Probably not how YOU would define "borrowed money", but you see, you don't matter.

Maybe someone here can help you out with the "assault weapon" definition some more. I'm busy just now.

Impressive.

Had he been restricted to less than 10 round MAGAZINES, he probably would have been just as effective in that sort of environment. You can go on a rampage with a revolver if you put a little effort into it, and you select victims you can be sure don't have weapons of their own.

We don't 'prefer' mass shootings. However, I will acknowledge there is something wrong with our society, before we even get to the subject of guns. Our murder rate is astonishingly high, before we even take guns into account. Our suicide rate with firearms is also extremely high. So yes, something is wrong here. Is it the availability of weapons that hold more than 5 or 8 or 10 rounds? Probably not.

She used her chin and knees a lot, and did quite a good job.

Lack of propriety, needed an edit.

looks like that firewall "to protect you" is going in. You gave them the power, they just rammed you with it.

It's a grand old thread.

grocery stores will run out of food and people would not be able to get to work :evilgrin:..

and Exxon would go broke

Its utter poppycock.

The gunnies will always find creative ways to own as much firepower as is legally possible, and don't even think of restricting THEIR right to buy as many guns as they can pack into their trailers even though that pistol they have on hidden carry can kill 15 people as fast as they can pull the trigger. So why are we even bothering discussing this? Oh, and I fully expect the gunnies to spray my reply with venom, so I shall have a hair-trigger on that little red X just to save myself future bullshit.


I am so sick of "gun rights". How about the rights of the want to be living?

It's not just a matter of gun rights. It's also a technology issue. The semi-automatic firearm has legally been in the hands of your fellow civilians longer than hybrid cars, laptop computers, color TV sets, snowmobiles, sulfa drugs, and even the humble tube of lipstick. And the Republic managed to endure. Imagine that.

No venom, here - just the basic facts. We are only seeking that which is rightfully ours.

(sigh) Yup, don't let me stand in the way of your right to buy truckloads of guns just becuse it is yor right. Oh, btw, I read the average hunter in this country hunts once every 2.3 years. Isn't one gun enough for that? Like a shotgun or rifle, not an AR15 or AK47 or Mac10?

Do you also (sigh) when someone wants to buy truckloads of unpopular, anti-authoritarian books because it is their right to do so?

If most people read only one book every couple of years, isn't one book enough for people to own?

The ideas contained in a book are far more powerful, and can lead to far more death and destruction, than a couple of guns in someone's trailer.

Tim McVeigh didn't kill anyone with a gun, but the ideas in the Turner Diaries contributed to him killing hundreds.

The 9/11 hijackers didn't kill anyone with guns, but the ideas sent out of fundamentalist madrassas in Saudi Arabia provided the impetus for them to kill thousands.

Did you have some sort of point?

The ideas contained in a book are far more powerful, and can lead to far more death and destruction, than a couple of guns in someone's trailer.

Mmmm. "Lead to".

Ideas can lead to death and destruction.
Firearms can lead to death and destruction.

Why, it's just the very same thing, isn't it???

I can't "disagree with" something that is no more than a deceitful web of words. It's the equivalent of trying to "answer" a loaded question.

Your statement is one giant poop of equivocation. That's all that needs to be said about it, and it's what I said.

It was the equivalent of:

The lawyer grilled the witness until he was nicely blackened on the outside.

Lead to. Weasel words. Carefully chosen. And a complete failure to suck anybody with a brain into the web.

If you lack either the ability or the character to make you point directly, don't bother posting in the first place. Life is too short to spend the countless hours you demand be spent carefully avoiding any direct statements of position that aren't solely semantic or related to yourself.



edit typo

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

Goodbye.

You aren't terribly good at defending your position in the face of mild criticism, are you?

For some people it is emotional or even driven by faith: "Guns = bad".

Period. It is difficult for them to understand how/why any would would disagree with such a "perfect concept".
It would be like telling a Christian that "God Hates" or telling a Vegan that "you enjoy torturing animals".

No everyone is like that but some are. If "guns = bad" is an emotional response you will never convince them.
All you can do is hope you can convince the majority is Americans.

It just scares the hell out of me when so-called "progressives" are so eager to limit a Constitutional right by what they think someone "needs."

Nuts to that, and nuts to the people without the intellectual honesty to actually defend their position.

The name "jody" springs to mind. Master of the "click", our jody. Never have seen one of his buddies pointing out the abject patheticness of his behaviour in that regard.

Hope springs eternal, eh?


... typos typos everywhere ...

I don't really care to be involved. Thanks.

Operating a right-handed bolt action rifle is awkward and inefficient for a southpaw.

A semiautomatic rifle removes a significant limitation that discriminates against lefties.

Now I have heard everything. :spray:

It's a physical trait that I did not choose and over which I have no control, like my gender, sexual orientation, and skin color.

More important, you haven't provided any good reason not to "allow" them in this thread or anywhere else I've seen.

of this 'right' to own whatever and how many you want of your beloved guns.

Clearly we disagree.

I'll keep my bolt-action rifles AND my semiautos, and fight any effort to restrict any of them.

If you want to regurgitate the racist, sexist, outdated ideas of Sigmund Freud, have at it.

I love justifying death, I really do.:eyes:

Keeping a bunch of curio and relic firearms clean and locked up in a big safe has no relationship to justifying death. None at all.

Thanks, that earns you a "click". Antiques, curios and relics aren't disputed here, and you comment about my "injury" was uncalled for.


Go to hell.

What kind of treatment do you expect when you accuse someone of "justifying death"?

:eyes:

I apologize for any personal offense you took at my remark.

I do own a handful of semiautomatic rifles. I started shooting them because I shoot left-handed due to an eye condition (lazy right eye). There is no way I could effectively hunt or participate in a target match using a right-handed bolt rifle. (Besides, most people in serious matches use AR-15 variants, M1 Garands, and M1As.)

I am quite serious about semiautomatic rifles providing functionality for people who shoot left-handed, whether or not that results from a disability like mine.

Why, the reason I'm not impressed with menz running in to rescue poor lady cashiers being assaulted by robbers BY SHOOTING THE ROBBERS REPEATEDLY AND KILLING THEM is that I harbour extreme resentment against all the people who didn't rescue me from a life-threatening assault.

I dunno who those people might be, and I certainly don't think they were yobs in Florida who weren't born at the time, but I'm sure that's correct, and the suggestion was offered merely out of solicitous concern for my well-being and not at all as an attempt to insult or discredit. And it certainly had nothing at all to do with me being a woman or anything like that.

It's been some time now that the mood here has shifted. I think they could see the writing on the wall back almost a year ago. The Democrats were going to be in power. 'Nuff to make any gun militant, uh, resentful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196259&mesg_id=196496

Now I feel sort of like a heel about it, except for the fact that he was treating me quite shabbily up to that point in the thread.

Whether he has a brain injury or not, I don't know. I do know that I don't appreciate being constantly mocked at every reply, and blatantly accused of justifying killings.

As if you can influence people by insulting them.

Such as a hundred year old, 20 shot revolver. You might be dismissive about 'curious, relics, and antiques', but laws based on magazine size, or POTENTIAL magazine size, rate of fire, etc, will not overlook such things just because something is 'old'. I own a nearly hundred year old Weapon Of War(TM), a relic by today's standards, given to me by my father, and it was used to wipe out the Nazi's. A museum piece you can pick up and fire. It's living history, and I intend to pass it on.

He's just baiting people into providing a rationale for putting them on Ignore.

My Ignore list is down to just one non-Tombstoned member.

You think I should turn it in because you don't like it???

You have lost your ever-loving mind.

If you don't like guns don't buy them.

I don't like retards therefore I don't hang around with them.

I don't like retards therefore I don't hang around with them.

Same here, and I also don't like hypocrites who dish out abuse but run away crying when you give it back.

n/t

I guess it comes from their grabbing fetish

YAY...its not like that precedent can be used to overturn other cases....like roe v wade or anything


Heller is the law and will be the law for time to come....for the court to overturn that decision would set a scary precedent for future

any utility anyone might derive from that substance or object, no matter how insignificant or unimpressive, ought be grounds enough for that substance or object to become or remain legal to possess and use.

semiautomatic rifles are particularly dangerous to society. Rifles in general are only used in 1% of gun crimes, and of those 1%, still fewer are semiautomatic--and of those, how many could not have been equally easily performed with a .38 revolver or a bolt-action rifle?

Sure, most gun owners don't need a large-magazine semiautomatic to go hunting. And, as I said earlier in the thread, most men don't need a vibrating cockring to have sex. But the mere fact that neither are necessary does not suggest that either ought be made illegal. Anyone who proposes a ban on anything ought to first prove that their ban would improve society to the extent that failing to pass such a ban would be irresponsible, and when it comes to "assault weapons" (and especially given the largely cosmetic nature of the last AWB) I don't think that case has been made.

for now. You guys have no need for mega-quantities of guns and ammo, but of course none of you are paranoid, it's your right.

Later.

That said, yes, gun owners have no need for large amounts of guns and boxes of ammunition. But in a free country, the government should not be telling people, "make your case for legality or I will ban this." Rather, it should be saying, "make your case for a ban or I will keep this legal."

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

So since they can ban a weed that doesn't cause death but pleasure, why shouldn't they have the right to ban weapons that cause death?

No blunt for you.


This isn't a free country, the laws are made by who has the most money, and right now the NRA has the most money. Some day this will change, and tens of thousands of lives will be saved.

considering it's far less lethal than alcohol (and no, I don't support an alcohol ban either).

It's no surprise to me that many of the zealots behind the "assault weapon" fraud also favor militaristic drug prohibition.

Just never heard of that "liberty" thang, have you?

I got that right, no denying it.

So who lives in Orwellia then?

If so, you just earned yourself another nickel.

You don't even recognize Orwell when you speak it?

Me, I left out the preposition, I now see.

You have always been at war *with* Eastasia.

Do look it up if need be. It was really scathingly brilliant of me.

They ban POT and its still around.

Same thing for guns,If they ban them people will still have them.

They banned alcohol, but the ban was repealed

They had a AWB and it expired.

If we pass another AWB, it too will be repealed.

Is giving control of House and Senate worth banning pistol grips and 30rd mags???

They are millions of mags out there, and they will be grandfathered along with the millions of rifles out there.

you can build a AK receiver out of a $15 flat, people will still build and ignore the laws.

Hell the first AWB wasnt even enforced, thousands of people had pre-ban stuff on post ban weapons.

Most of my buddies that are cops didn't even know what a AWN was, nor would they even enforce it..

I don't have to justify to you why or whether I *need* something until you first justify why I *shouldn't* be allowed to have something.

Seriously, your mindset of rights as a servant to needs scares me.

Why can't bloggers and reporters use Underwood typewriters and quill pens? Why would they demand the "right" to use computers, digital cameras, and the Internet, when those things have no other purpose than the production and distribution of child porn? :eyes:


FWIW, Charles Whitman murdered more people with a bolt-action rifle than both Columbine killers put together (and don't forget the JFK and MLK bolt-action murders). If non-bolt-actions were banned, the gun-control lobby would conveniently discover that bolt-action "sniper rifles" are twice as lethal as an AK-47, can shoot through 3/4 inch of steel plate or a whole stack of police body armor like it's tissue paper, and can kill people from half a mile or more away. And you'd be asking why evil bloodthirsty gun owners would insist on the "right" to own high-powered bolt-action repeaters instead of single-shots.


If you think a 15-round pistol can "kill 15 people as fast as you can pull the trigger", you either don't have much shooting experience, or are trying to snow those who don't. The worst U.S. mass shootings (VT, Luby's) involved slow, deliberate fire and relatively low-capacity firearms (all handguns).

So bigotry is ok when you do it, huh?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "serious".

It's probably a sure bet that gun grabbing sob sisters like Diane Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy already have a bill in the works and will waste little time in pushing for it.

With all the other issues to contend with, I really can't see them making any progress or having priority.

I'm optimistic that the wiser and more savvy Congress critters will take them behind closed doors and advise them to STFU and sit down.

Please wiretap my phone, send Homeland Security agents armed with assault rifles to drag my neighbors out into the street, and ban anything that looks like a gun!
You can build a moat around my house, while you're at it.

The 1994 AWB was based on appearance and did nothing to deter the already minuscule amount of crime committed with the banned rifles.

The reasons it was based on appearance are many
- no credible claim can be made regarding power- many common hunting rifles are of a caliber twice as powerful as the 'banned' weapons.
- nor can any claim be made for "semi-automatics" being any more dangerous- this is a 100+ year old technology used in everything from a colt 1911 handgun to today's most popular centerfire rifles.
-magazine capacity is a joke. They make this thing called duct tape. Using it, you can tape together two ten round magazines. I can release, flip, insert a new mag, and hit the bolt release in about 3 seconds. Any competent person can do this with practice.
-concealability is asinine. A legal rifle with a folding stock still has an overall length of 26" minumum, 18-20" when folded, with a 16" minimum barrel. A rifle with a telescoping stock gains or loses about 4" from fully open to fully closed. Someone bent on illegal use of a rifle will saw down the barrel and saw off the stock.

The inability of a poster in this thread to identify exactly what he/she would ban is a prime example of the thinking behind the '94 ban. It's not power, it's not capacity, it's not type of action.. so what's left? Scary looks- a barrel shroud, a 'thing that goes up', high capacity magazines, and a bayonet lug (when's the last time someone was killed with a bayonet???).

As soon as Obama wants a Republican Congress and Senate!!!

(1) Perhaps 15,000,000 U.S. civilians own the class of semi-auto carbine (mistakenly called an "assault weapon"); a number which exceed the number of licensed hunters in this country;
(2) The semi-auto carbine is the fastest selling rifle in the U.S. (save for the ubiquitous .22);
(3) The semi-auto carbine is rapidly becoming modified (chambered for larger rounds) so it will become the new hunting rifle.

(1) and (2) above point to a very large (and growing) constituency of voters who are well-aware of the issues involving gun-control, particularly as they pertain to semi-auto carbines (the so-called "assault weapons"). (3) above is just the latest evolution of obsolete military weapons to hunting/sport purposes. Once the firearm is painting in camo, has its stamped metal edges smoothed out and maybe a leaping deer embossed on the side, it will become increasingly difficult to "scare" the public using the old "black gun" imagery the gun-controllers have traded on for so long. It is ironic that gun-controllers/banners have intentionally confused the public by conflating full-auto assault rifles with semi-auto "assault-weapons" in order to make bans more palatable. Now, they must suffer the confusion of a "military-style" gun with a hunting rifle, the latter a firearm they claim not to want to ban.

As a certain reverend has said, the "chickens have come home to roost."

Chambered in .308



The invisible hand of the market swooped in and spanked their asses.

There are far more "assault weapons" in civilian hands and 99.5%+ are used lawfully and that will be hard to overcome politically

There are also 3 factors that make the situation even more difficult:
1) lack of control in information. We have the internet, blogs, talk radio, often times news channels will have on the show influental people who are raising awareness online. In 1994 the country bought the idea that "assault weapons" = machineguns. We know that isn't true. We know they are virtually never used in crime. We know they are no more dangerous that other weapon classes. We know they are in "common usage". It will be much hard to trick general public today.

2) The dems saw the damage the AWB did in 1994. Ironically the Democrats considers the AWB a "good thing" for the party in 1994. They thought it would strengthen their majorities and show public they can be tough on crime. Despite Clinton's high approval ratings at the time they lost control of Congress. Maybe that won't happen again. Maybe it will, but which Congressman wants to take that chance. The AWB only hurt last time. There is no benefit to stick their head in the guillotine and hope it works about better this time around.

3) Heller vs DC. Now Heller dealt with Handguns but the opinion of the court more commonly expressed a ban on a class of weapons IN COMMON USAGE and with a LAWFUL PURPOSE SUCH AS SELF DEFENSE can NOT be banned. Heller also changed public opinion. Many Americans who didn't own guns were brainwashed by anti-gun groups for last 20 years that the 2nd doesn't mean what it says it means. The % of the non gun owning public who believe the 2nd indicates a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT today is 60%. That is just NON gun owners. When you include all citizens (gun owners and non gun owners) the number jumps to over 80%.

So the increased usage of "assault weapons" combined with some changes to political landscape in 2008 vs 1994 make an AWB all but impossible.

enough to favor such a totally useless waste of effort.

mark

From: Flo Ron Paul 2012
Date: Jan 27, 2009 4:00 PM


From: "Eric Nordstrom" ..





PATRIOT NETWORK EMERGENCY ALERT 012709
---------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL AMERICANS - THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns?
Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no
problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and
Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture
a data base of all ammunition sales.

So they will know how much you
buy and what calibers.



http://ammunitionaccountability.
org/Legislation.
htm

Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the
ammunition is coded.



Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1,
2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .

05
cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at
least $2.

50 or more!

If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

All eyes are diverted on talk radio topics, bailouts, television
entertainments/news/propaganda, while state level legislatures are
placing the second amendment into a grave.



This legislation is currently IN COMMITTEE in 18 states: Alabama,
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Washington.



Send to every person in these united states!

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this
legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:

http://ammunitionaccountability.
org/Legislation.
htm

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in Government.

" - Thomas Jefferson

----------------------------------------------------------------
END OF MESSAGE - DISTRIBUTE AS REQUIRED
----------------------------------------------------------------

NOT ON THE PATRIOT EMERGENCY ALERT LIST?
Add yourself: http://nordstrom1.
com


2909 South George Drive, McConnell AFB, Kansas 67210