Assault Weapons Ban was HUGE MISTAKE by DEM's

Passing the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) was the biggest mistake the Democratic Party has ever made. The bill was so weak it did nothing to really curb gun violence and did not stop the sale of such weapons. All it did was cost the Democratic Party a huge blue collar voting block that may never return.

If the AWB had never been submitted or passed Al Gore would be President today and we would not have Republican control of both houses of congress.

Many people do not realize how powerful this issue is in smaller states and rural areas. It is huge and is the single issue that sways their electorate the most. Abortion is a big issue but gun rights trumps all.

I know of countless people who vote on this issue alone. There is no reasoning with these people. You read them the constitution, you can give them numerous examples that Democrats do not want your guns but it does not matter.

Some were mad about background checks but most could understand that to some extent but when the AWB was signed that was it. The democrats lost a huge portion of their base, probably forever.

Union members especially! I am a union member and I know this to be true.

The AWB was the biggest mistake the Democrats have ever done.

Then, they DESERVE four more years of this idiot.

As a former union worker, I have no sympathy or empathy for these clowns. None whatsoever.

The purpose is to keep AK47s off the street.

They make no distinction between a AK-47 and a shotgun. They see that as the first step to total gun ban. You can not reason with them on this issue.

If we DON'T advocate gun control, we lose some of the liberal base ie (women, african americans, urbanites), but if we come out for it we secure that voting block but jeopardize middle american, rural poor white voters.

because in thirty years they have done almost nothing for them. I work at SBC and I am in the CWA. just as many of my co-workers are repubs as dems. when the union hands out election lit everyone just throws it away.

I don't see your point. I've had an AK for 19 years. In fact,I bought it right after the movie Red Dawn came out.
It's fun to shoot, and spends the rest of it's time in the safe, not on the street. How does banning my AK keep a criminal from getting his, when he's not allowed to have one anyway?

The AWB had nothing to do with the Automat Kalishnikov Model of 1947 (AK47). Those are full-auto machine guns covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the FOPA of 1986. The cosmetically similar semi-auto (one bullet per trigger pull) guns were not even really covered too much, they were covered under the 1989 import ban. Sorry to break it to you, but you are wholly incorrect.

The AWB of 1994 banned newly manufactured rifles from having more than two of the following:

1. Pistol grip
2. bayonet/bipod lug
3. screw threads machined onto the barrel
4. an adjustable or foldable stock
5. the ability to accept detachable magazines
6. a flash reducer

Therefore, newly manufactured rifles were made that chose the pistol grip and the detachable magazine. The rifles were nearly indistinguishable from the pre-ban ones. just add a fixed stock (which costs less), delete the screw threads (saves money), eliminate the flash reducer which prevents fireballs from being ejected from the gun (save money) and delete the bayonet lug (save money). Basically, the ignorant congress-critters who were naive enough to vote for this thing made the rifles less expensive to manufacture.

If that is so, the biggest political misstep we made was civil rights. It was also our greatest achievement.

Civil rights was worht it had to be done and yes we gave up the south but then to give up the midwest and western states for a law that did nothing was just plan stupid.

Pushing that before Health Care was a huge error. He should have held it over the heads of Republicans who wanted it.

NAFTA it was a shame the Democrats caved completely to their business lobbyist.

Words can not begin to describe the damage these 'free trade' deals did to the US worker.

gotten universal healthcare in exchange for that debacle.

in my healthcare, that's between me and my doctor (and my insurance company).

"Universal healthcare?! I'd opt-out. I don't want Washington involved in my healthcare, that's between me and my doctor (and my insurance company)."

I got universal healthcare -- and my healthcare IS between me and my doctor (and no insurance company).

Your response makes as much sense as me saying "Public highways?! I'd opt out. I don't want Ottawa involved in my highways, that's between me and my snowtires (and the trolls at the tollbooths under every bridge telling me where I can drive and where I can't and how much I must pay for the privilege if they decide to let me pass)."

Of course, if I phrased it as "Public highways?! I'd opt out. I don't want Ottawa involved in my highways, it's up to me to decide where I'm going to go," I might fool somebody.

Public infrastructure is a legitimate function of government. My healthcare (or that of my neighbor) isn't.

"Public infrastructure is a legitimate function of government. My healthcare (or that of my neighbor) isn't."

Sez ... uh, you.

But that response is equally aplicable to any of your posts.

"Universal healthcare?! I'd opt-out. I don't want Washington involved in my healthcare, that's between me and my doctor (and my insurance company)."

How would Washington be involved?

How does it work with your insurance companies now?

Can/do insurance companies refuse to cover the cost of procedures or drugs that you require?

What's the monthly cost of your health insurance and what does it cover?

Universal healthcare would invariably have Federal involvement. I don't want them involved at all.

I pay the insurance company, they pay the doc.

I suppose it is within the realm of possibility, why do you ask?

My monthly cost is $300/month for me and my wife. It covers everything I can think of.

"My monthly cost is $300/month for me and my wife. It covers everything I can think of."

Is that employment-based coverage? If so, is there contribution by the employer? If so, is that contribution not part of your wage package -- and therefore earned by you, and payable to you if it were not being paid to the insurer, and thus a cost to you?

If the coverage is employment-based, what happens if your employment terminates? If you change employers?

Are there deductibles? Co-pays? If you or your wife had a "pre-existing condition", would it be covered? If you develop such a condition and subsequently change insurers (with a hiatus between coverages), will it be covered?

"I pay the insurance company, they pay the doc."

Do you have any idea what proportion of your premium payment goes to insurance company administrative expenses and profits, and what proportion of what your doc is paid goes to in-office insurance-related expenses?

Administrative expenses in the US health care system are approximately twice what they are in the Cdn system. There are no insurance company profits, and doctors do not have to discuss patient treatment with an insurer or deal with multiple insurers for billing purposes.


Just in case you wondered ...

There are no deductibles or co-pays under Canada's provincial health plans. Some provinces charge low premiums; for example, on BC's sliding scale, premiums range from $0 (for income under $16,000) to $108/month for a family of 3 or more (does not cover prescription drugs). Most provinces do not have universal pharmacare, but seniors pay nothing or a yearly max of maybe $100 for drugs, and there are various provisions for low-income people in all provinces.

The basic federal-provincial relationship is different in Canada from the federal-state relationship in the US; the federal government has more jurisdictions, e.g. over criminal law. Under its spending power, it can influence health care, which itself is a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government enacts minimum standards that the provinces must meet in order to receive funding, and provides some funding, the amount of which is a constant subject of dispute between provinces and the federal government. The actual administration of health services under the plan is handled solely by the provinces.

Given the differences between the federal structures of the two countries, I would think that the fed govt in the US would have even less involvement in health care insurance/delivery there. You didn't actually answer the question as to how "Washington" would be involved in your health care, let alone explain why you would object to such involvement.

It makes considerable sense, in terms of cost rationalization, to standardize the system. (And I can never understand why citizens of a country would not think that certain basic services should be equally available to all other citizens on equal terms -- which is not the case for private health insurance in the US at present, of course). This might be done by states opting in to a standardized system. But I don't really see any way that the US federal govt could just take over health care without state agreement. Of course, I also have never understood the dread and hatred of a federal govt that seems to be so dear to the hearts of so many USAmericans, but that's just by the bye.

NAFTA talk can get you in trouble down here.

because it simply wasn't as big a victory as civil rights. The bill was full of loopholes, and because of that was largely ineffective anyways, while still proving a great GOTV tool for the right.

America's weak gun regulation and enforcement is a far bigger danger to Americans as individuals or as a culture than the war on terror or the war on drugs. Way more Americans are killed by gun accidents than by Al Queada. And no one terrorizes Americans like criminals and wack jobs already over here with guns. The Al Queada tells it's operatives to make use of our weak gun laws. Tim McVeigh said he wished he would have used a gun instead of the bomb. The Beltway sniper actually made Americans modify their behaviour more than 9-11.

"America's weak gun regulation and enforcement is a far bigger danger to Americans as individuals or as a culture than the war on terror or the war on drugs."

Tell that to the million or so people incarcerated for drug arrests, and their families. Tell that to the tens of thousands of aids victims who acquired the disease through drug use. We have a higher per capita death rate from just heroin use, than all homicides put together. Do tell, where do you get the idea that gun laws are a far bigger danger than the war on drugs?????

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm

more americans killed by Al Queada in the last 5 years than by accidental shootings. Do i really need to look up links for this?

America's weak gun regulation and enforcement is a far bigger danger to Americans as individuals or as a culture than the war on terror or the war on drugs.

Of course, if not for the war on drugs, crime would be lower. This, of course, includes homicides, many of which involve people in the drug trade. Get the government out of telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies, and you'll see a decrease in crime. Alcohol prohibition is an excellent model for this.

Way more Americans are killed by gun accidents than by Al Queada.

And this has what, exactly, to do with the Assault Weapons Ban?

But to respond to your assertion, in 2002 (the latest year for which data was available) 762 people died as a result of "unintentional" use of firearms. See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05acc.pdf

The Al Queada tells it's operatives to make use of our weak gun laws.

It is illegal for non-resident aliens to purchase firearms of any sort. My reading of post-9/11 changes to BATF rules suggests it's illegal for a non-resident alien to even POSSESS a firearm in any sort, though I wonder if I'm reading that correctly (since that would have prevented the Biathlon events from taking place in SLC in 2002 and given that I watched them, I'm reasonably confident they took place.)

Do you propose to make it even more illegal?

The Beltway sniper actually made Americans modify their behaviour more than 9-11.

And the firearm in question was stolen. I don't know what kind of legislation we could pass that would prevent criminals from using stolen weapons--though, frankly, the consequences of that to Bullseye were ridiculously light. Any firearms dealer that has inventory problems of any sort should see their license placed in jeopardy. Criminal charges--charges that result in a good stretch in Federal PMITA prison--should be forthcoming in a case like Bullseye where literally hundreds of guns went missing.

I'd line up next to you, Bill, to see laws like that get passed and enforced, and I say that as someone who has a C&R FFL and would be subject to those laws.

I will feel sorry for policemen and other federal agents by then.

And you expect to fix it in the next week?

Come on. This can wait.

Unless repugs do some sort of ban the dem have lost this group forever.

To blame it ALL on the AWB is probably not fair. Dems weren't doing that well with these culture issue voters before the AWB (1994) anyhow. Before guns, it was gays or abortion. Take your pick.

than Bush...I don't consider him anywhere near my top pick of what a Democrat should be. Some type of welfare reform would have been good but the bill he signed was absolutely horrendous. NAFTA was one of the biggest mistakes this country ever made, and was signed by Clinton. He also deregulated telecommunications.

In fact, if Kerry gets elected and gets to set the Supreme Court for the next several decades, I could imagine myself voting on this issue alone. The rest of the Bill of Rights would be safe.

The 2nd Amend is just like the First to me. The gun-control people always ask what people need a assault weapon for? I could just as readily ask then what do you need free expression for: for movies, or novels, etc...? The First Amend was only ever intended to protect the press/speech, not the arts/expression - that argument could just as easily be made. I don't believe that though; thats a much too conservative view of The Bill of Rights. I think all Amendments should be interpreted liberally, including the Second.

The Arts don't mow people down.

I don't see the purpose of assault weapons, given that murder is a crime.

I know there's a range of opinions on the AWB on DU. Mine is that our culture is violent, fearful, and gun-crazy -- a bad mix I don't think our forefathers envisioned, and one that can easily overtake the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think we need the right to live in greater freedom from gun violence. Just my opinion.

"The Arts don't mow people down."
No, but cars and busses do. The only difference is that almost everyone uses a car or bus and they're not used to kill a thousand people every week in movies and on TV. Given the number of people killed every year by/in cars and busses, the hue and cry for their abolition would be defening were it not for the fact that EVERYONE wants one.

"I don't see the purpose of assault weapons, given that murder is a crime. "
I'm sure the Amish don't believe there's a valid purpose for cars, electricity, airplanes, etc. Just because you don't see a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one.

"I think we need the right to live in greater freedom from gun violence. Just my opinion."
Why is it that whenever someone wants something it automatically becomes a right? There's no such thing as a right to "safety" because there's no such thing as safety, period. We're all at varying degrees of risk from a multitude of things all the time. You stand a better chance of getting struck by lightening or (more to the point) getting mangled and burned beyond recognition in an automobile accident than you do of being shot with an AK-47. Yet you seem much more concerned about the AK-47.

I'm often amazed at the capacity of people to project their own experience onto the rest of the world. I realize that our experience shapes our opinions to some degree but my God, can't we at least recognize that there's more to the world that what we, ourselves, see and touch?

For those of us who have used "assault weapons" in the real world, the civilian look-alikes on the civilian market are a poor substitute. In fact, I can't think of any crimes commited with such a weapon that couldn't just as easily have benn committed with a different type of rifle or handgun. For instance, the kill ratio of the "beltway shooters" (I refuse to call them snipers because they don't merit the term) would have doubtless been higher if they'd used a common bolt-action hunting rifle instead of the AR-15.

But "assault rifles" look scary and it's easy to point to them and ask the uninitiated "what does anyone need with that?" They're a convenient target for legislation and when you're scrounging for donations, like politicians and advocacy groups are always doing, you have to be able to point to something and say "Look what we did!"

Finally, you're just not going to get rid of guns. I can make a simple one in very little time in my garage. With more time and machine tools, a skilled gunsmith can make a machine gun from scratch. How are you going to put that gene back in the bottle?

I'm sorry that you feel threatened by the existence of guns. It's just something you're going to have to get used to. Regardless of the legislation enacted, they aren't going away.

The Arts don't mow people down.
No, but cars and busses do. The only difference is that almost everyone uses a car or bus and they're not used to kill a thousand people every week in movies and on TV.

That's the ONLY difference between cars/buses and firearms??

Whew. I guess I really do need new specs. Or a new agenda.


Why is it that whenever someone wants something it automatically becomes a right? There's no such thing as a right to "safety" because there's no such thing as safety, period. We're all at varying degrees of risk from a multitude of things all the time. You stand a better chance of getting struck by lightening or (more to the point) getting mangled and burned beyond recognition in an automobile accident than you do of being shot with an AK-47. Yet you seem much more concerned about the AK-47.

Damn. Can I quote you -- maybe replacing "being shot with an AK-47" with something like "being attacked by an axe-wielding madman in your bedroom" -- next time somebody starts talking about wanting firearms?


I'm sorry that you feel threatened by the existence of guns.

And I guess I'll just have to keep on wiping the tears brought to my own eyes by your apparently unending stock of words to put in other people's mouths.

And you'll just have to keep guessing whether I'm sorry that you can't be straight, or amused that you won't be.

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

"Really, little gurl, I don't waste my time wondering about what goes on (or doesn't) inside your head."

Hell, no! Why waste time wondering what the truth is when you can invent something instead??


"Never the less, if you think I've incorrectly divined the meaning behind Sparkly's words then please enlighten me. Why don't YOU tell me what the other poster meant."

Gosh, for somebody who husbands, uh, her own time so conservatively, you sure do want to make liberal use of mine!


"Or are you unable to speak plainly without feigning superiority?"

C'mon, you can come up with a few more, uh, guesses than that, and better ones too, even, I'll wager.

"In fact, if Kerry gets elected and gets to set the Supreme Court for the next several decades..."

Don't be surprised if the Republicans obstruct our court nominees just like we have theirs. While I don't agree with a lot of their choices, this "my ideology at any cost" mentality is hurting the country and our political system. It diminishes our ability to reason with each other and reach consensus on anything.

The last election showed this nation pretty much split down the middle. I don’t expect this next one to go any smoother. The road we (Republicans AND Dems) are traveling down collectively is not a good one.


polarization = bad

... but I agree it is way up there.

I've been saying the same thing - all the AWB accomplished is to give another wedge issue to the Republicans.

As a law, it is just another one of a series of laws that sounds good to some people on paper but does damn near nothing to make the world safer.

The dopers and crooks who want these guns could care less about your pissy little ban, they are up for life if they are caught anyway.

I was once a "gun control" sort of person but I opened my eyes and looked around - the only meaningful gun control that could be enacted in this country would be wholesale confiscation, and that just isn't going to happen. Might as well get over it.

The dems can't be the party of the little guy if they refuse to treat guns as a rights issue. What we're seeing now is a division based on warm-fuzzy on the left, and harsh-independent on the right. I think we could get back some of the libertarian sorts by dropping some of the more divisive issues like AWB and quotas.

A career-ending move in several cases.

Do you really think you can talk some anti gun democrat into believing you?

at the stats on the last election. Most Democrats who ran for reelection on the anti-gun issue was not reelected. The same for those Republicans who ran on the anti-gun issue. Face the facts folks. Gun control is an exceptionally career ending move. Guns are here to stay like it or not.

Blue collar workers, when was the last time you went hunting with an AW.

I'm against banning guns but why is this such a big deal? If someone breaks in to your house, an Assault Rifle isn't going to help you more than a hand gun. On the contrary, its going to make quite a mess of things since the rounds would be harder to control.

An AW as defined by the now expired AWB?

The last five years actually.

Every deer season, I usually go into the woods my FAL or an AR. Seen others carrying AK's too.

BTW, I know AW's aren't mentioned in the constitution (probably because they weren't invented yet), but I've looked all over and can't find the word "hunt" anywhere.

I'm not sure what that means?

Harder to shoot accurately, or, more likely to control the amount of extraneous damage?

Most people find that their accuracy with a handgun takes a back seat to their capability with a long arm - even at moderate distances.

And as far over penetration goes - the FBI has done extensive testing on the .223 (or Military .556) and found that after passing through the typical "wall" (two pieces of of dry wall a few inches apart), the average 55 grain .223 FMJ round fired from an AR has less penetration potential than any pistol round over 9mm or any shotgun round except for wimpy trap loads fired through the same type of barrier.

Thanks to the availability of high capacity magazines and the ability to accurately place quick follow-up shots; the semi-automatic .223 makes an excellent home defense platform any way you look at it.

Assault rifles have nothing to do with this. They are full-auto machine guns covered under a law from 1934. If you meant "Assault weapons" as defined by the old AWB, their rounds are much easier to control than pistol rounds.

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

I have always been as anti gun as you can imagine, but I have been thinking about this all day, and have changed my mind.

The repukes have strangled us with this issue, I have looked into all of the laws in this country regarding gun control, and other than the Assault Weapons Ban, no other gun control legislation has ever really produced any results at all. Some of the mot contentious legislation regarding gun control is the 1986 ban on Machine Guns (I recently learned the difference, machine guns were already illegal brfore the Assault Weapons Ban), the gun nuts start gnashing thier teeth and foaming at the mouth over these things, but prior to thier banning in 1986 (and since) they were regulated by a piece of legislation passed in 1934, that required a person to get approval from thier local chief of police, and the ATF, as well as turn in finger prints and pictures of themselves before they could get a machine gun. Since those common sense rules were put into place only one of the thousands of these machine guns owned by civilians have ever been used in a crime (maybe two, but altogether that means that thier use in crime is nill).

It would seem to me that if Democrats were to make a move to give the gun nuts the right to own these machine guns back we would instantly get a brand new voting block in the hundreds of thousands if not millions (the vast majority of them would never even want to actually buy one, but these guys are very big on principle), that is rabidly loyal to the party that they feel supports thier right to own guns.

Machine guns were not banned in 1986. It is still legal to own one under the 1934 National Firearms Act. All that is required is the same $200 tax stamp and chief LEO signoff as before and if the chief LEO refuses to sign off you can still get around that. (Assuming you are not a fellon.) What was stopped in '86 was the importation of military style weapons and the release of new machine guns into private circulation. The result is that the market price of a machine gun has increased quite a bit.

You were correct, however, in that there has only been 1 legally transferred machine gun used in a crime. (Last time I checked, which was earlier this year.)

Note: On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

It works better if you actually change the attitudes and actions instead of trying to just sound like you mean it.

Using the term "Gun Nut" to describe those of us that own guns is kind of a perjorative way to get the ball rolling. It's kind of like calling pro choice people "Abortion Nuts". They're not and we're not, FWIW.

All that being said, it will be an uphill battle getting the gun control metality excised from the party mind set. But in the long run it's a viable idea, as long as we mean it and our "D" legislators start to vote like it.

Take away the celebration pictures of Schumer and Feinstein smiling after every gun control vote and you take away a big club we keep getting hit over the head with.

I think that picture of Kerry with both of them and Teddy, after the AWB renewal vote a couple of months ago, more than offset every campaign photo op with a 12 gauge and a dead goose for a lot of fence sitting gun owners.

All very well said.

The divisive issue was gay marriage. Bush mobilized the religious nut job base.

but I really think it was the aggressive push for the gay agenda that woke up the religious zealots.

Edited to add:

I think the origional point, thought, was that the AWB and similar legislative efforts (both successful and unsuccessful) have driven off a significant number of voters from the democratic party. What's more, they are no longer willing to even consider Dem issues.

... I wish our party would ditch the pro gun-control platform. We'd be way ahead of the game.

many times don't see eye to eye. I think our party HAS to get beyond this gun control stuff if we are to forge ahead. The U.N. will take care of that in good time. We shouldn't be wasting our efforts on it.