Renew the ban on assault weapons now!

That ban quietly expired and the Obama White House said it was not going to pursue it.

I think that the presence of these weapons at those meetings, including the ones with Obama, should shake the White House and Congress.

Assault weapons are not needed for "protection." They are what they are: assault.

Yes, I know, the White House wants to concentrate on health care reform. Or not. But we should all listen to the comments of the ones who think that it is a right to carry a weapon that can kill dozens in one "click."

This is not a video game. This is real. Perhaps we can get law enforcement people - not known to be supporters of Democrats - to testify.

It is not needed for one thing. For another, it would be a distraction like no other when all our focus needs to be on health care.

nt

Many are Dems. But having guns near a President does seem like it requires some kind of law.

Hunting, hand guns - sure. But why assault weapons? What do the owners of these weapons want? Oh, I see, to deflect the mob that will attack their fields and their property when we are at a deep depression and no food is available?

..."assault weapon" is an arbitrary, perjorative term, useful only in the political arena. Like "partial-birth abortion" or "death tax". It was dreamed up to generate a gut reaction in people. How's that "death panel" meme working out, anyway?


Second, what the private owners want is exactly what the government owners want: reliability, accuracy, and ergonomics. Military-derived guns generally have those characteristics, and those are also desirable in civilian guns as well. Who wants an uncomfortable, awkward gun that can't hit the broad side of a barn and whos firing and safety mechanism may or may not work when you need them to?

not to be reliable. Just ask the families of the VA Tech or the LA Fitness in PA.

They are typically small to intermediate caliber (half as powerful as hunting guns), which makes them gentler to shoot, with less recoil. The AR-15 is a centerfire .22.

F-class (long range) precision competition, 300 to 1200 yards:


http://www.f-classinfo.com/page11/page11.html


Camp Perry style target competition, restricted to iron sights only:




IPSC/USPSA carbine and 3-gun:




A little more here, if you're interested.

Re-instating it would make no difference in these events whatsoever.

what is AWB.

as listed in your OP. But reinstating it would not stop this activity.

When you get a minute, do a search on the "Ugly Gun Law" and you'll see why. The AWB was not specific enough to stop what you see happening right now.

I will look it up. However, if it was a bad low, then let's come with a better one. With input from law enforcement officers. They have seen assault weapons up close and personal, and are not known to be supporters of Democrats.

but in terms of its spirit, the ban was rather weak, especially because the modifications required to make an otherwise banned firearm legal (i.e. the nickname "Ugly Gun Law") were so simple, and did not markedly change the function at all. I'm not sure whether Law Enforcement had much genuine input into the last one. That's why the original ban is largely considered a joke, symbolic at best.

on purpose. It's to mollify the left and give the NRA what it wants at the same time. And the weapons/modifications/magazines already in circulation are always grandfathered in, so even if the banned weapons or mods do have some meaning, there are just too many out there for the effect to be felt.

So called "assault weapons" really semi auto rifles, are almost never used in crimes...

So no most cops never actually come up against them, even when they themselves have one while kicking in doors in no knock warrants at 4am...

Police SWAT came and they were shooting at each other. At some point, the cops ran to a gun store to get some mean weapons to be able to match the fire power that the robbers had.

And the officers didn't go to a gun store to get "mean weapons", they went to borrow some civilian rifles, because all the officers had were pistols and shotguns, and the felons were wearing body armor.

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

In fact, the only people that died were the robbers, once the police were able to arm themselves with something more penetrating than handguns and shotguns.


By the way, the gun store that the police borrowed the rifles from? Yeah, the owner was charged with violating California gun laws and closed down. Didn't do a background check or whatever.


Nice, huh?

:argh:

that my first response to your OP came off kinda snotty. I'm sorry about that, not sure what I was thinking!

Sometimes posts are really "hit and run." We all tend, on occasions, to hit the "send" button too fast.

Thank you for coming back.

You can't outlaw it if you can't define it...

In United States military parlance assault weapon is often found as part of a system name of weapons designed for and used in assault operations. Current examples include the SMAW and SRAW used to breach obstacles or destroy structures. Historical examples include the Bangalore torpedo, the APOBS, and even the flame thrower.<3> Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire, such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems. This definition differs from the current variety of legal definitions used in the United States of America.

And the ban from 1994 that was let to expire in 2004 (of course)

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons." There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to the law's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.

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

The civilian definition of an "assault weapon" is, under Federal law, a semi-automatic rifle with more than two cosmetic features from a list.

So if you only have 2 of those cosmetic features, it's not an "assault weapon".




State laws will differ, of course... look at California.

I ask for a definition, and I get an arbitrary list of brand names and safety features.

This is going to be easy.

highly inappropriate. But that is all it would take to spoil everything - a single shot. After you have banned assault weapons will you seek to ban single shot rifles too?

How about persuading people to quite the intimidation tactics and leave their weapons at home? Just because something is legal does not make it sensible. Just because you make something illegal, does not make it impossible.

It is the motivation to bring tools for intimidation to public rallies that scares me more than the tools themselves. Focusing on one type of tool and banning that does nothing to reduce motivation - calls for bans may actually provoke the crisis some bearers are expecting.

Now, if only the idiots displaying weapons at these rallies understood that they are shooting themselves in the foot...

You are aware that those rifles the men were carrying were semi-automatic right? That means they can't kill dozens in one "click" but MANY clicks. One trigger pull per bullet.

You can find information on how to convert an AR-15 to full auto. I have no way of knowing whether the bozo in Phoenix did so or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he did.

No big difference. A 30 round mag can be emptied in seconds even in semi-auto. And firing in semi-auto probably makes them even more accurate in shot placement.

I have the blueprints on my hard drive, actually.


Doesn't matter. You can't make a semi-auto into a full-auto without a fair amount of precision work.


Probably about the same amount of time it would take to, say, make a bomb.

under the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, which amended the Title 2 provisions of the National Firearms Act.

A post-1986 AR-15 (or any other civilian rifle) is specifically designed to be difficult to convert to full auto. Different receiver, different bolt carrier, different fire control parts. That issue was addressed decades ago.

The AR-15 is hardly a fringe gun; it is the most popular centerfire rifle in the United States, and dominates competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in this country; it is also the single most common defensive carbine in U.S. homes.

And that guy's AR-15 was probably legal under the AWB. The AWB would do very little in this instance to protect Obama.

My own preference would be for the Secret Service to extend the protection zone out to say a mile or so for anyone who wants to be near an Obama event with a gun.

Bushies isolated anyone wearing a t-shirt or carrying a sign they didn't like well away from Bush - I say do the same to these clowns.

would be tilting at windmills. AFAIK, the ban verbage has now been removed from the White House website, though I may be wrong.

That'll show-em!




Or, um, not.



Here'a a non-assault-weapon AR-15.






Removing the pistol grip made it, by definition, not an "assault weapon". It's still a semi-automatic rifle, fed from a detachable magazine... but now somehow it's okay.

But people who say this is what the founders intended regarding guns are as nuts as the town hall screamers.

Which, at the time, was a hand-cranked mechanical device.

...only of the institution referred to as "the press."

Of course, they called them "the press" because they used a printing press. Specifially, a hand-powered printing press for books, pamphets, and newspapers. The Founders could not envision the modern printing press, therefore it is not protected. Neither is non-printing-press outlets, such as radio, TV, or the Internet.

As I said, those who tell themselves that this is what the founders intended re guns are NUTS!

Or knive, swords, clubs, spears, laser pistols, Kill-O-Zap blasters, etc.


"Arms" refers to the institution of armed citizenry.

:shrug:

We're not static. Hopefully we can get closer to what the Foundered envisioned.


Damn, I wish they could have thought up Instant Runoff Voting. :-(

...goes beyond freedom of speech. nt

Definitions are fluid. It's the key to survival and growth, but it can be unpleasant to some. Or many.

:shrug:

Frankly, the whole "gun" issue is a convenient whipping boy for our other failures as a society. If the goal is to reduce crime and violence, then there are other, far better, far easier, far more effective ways to do it then a new AWB.


Legalizing pot, for example.

the practice of special interest groups putting their own profits and/or self-interests over the public good.

When police are outgunned by thugs on the street and Mexico is terrorized because of assault weapons coming out of the U.S., gun manufacturers and the NRA are the special interests at the heart of it.

When creeps like Limbaugh, Palin and the Faux News lineup try to whip people into violence, Republicans and the Rupert Murdochs of the world are the special interests gaining from the chaos.


I think an assault weapons ban is only common sense ~ as is the legalization of pot.

We have about 275 million of them, they have a couple million of them.

For that matter, the Mounties are out-gunned by Canadians.

However at the point of contact between the police and the bad guys, the police just about always have overwhelming force available. Unlike us, the police can and do rapidly focus their power to the point of conflict, achieving local overwhelming power to deal with the conflict.

"Thugs on the street" carry handguns, which puts them on par (in terms of equipment, at least) with the cops. All the other stuff is not on the street, it's in people's homes. So I don't worry about that particularly.

And the Mexican gun problem is unclear... 90% of the serial number the Mexican government submits to the ATF comes back as American-origin... but those numbers are only a small fraction of the guns captured. They don't submit all of them, they submit the ones they think the ATF can get a hit on.

The last time police line-of-duty shooting deaths was this low was 1956. The sky is not, in fact, falling, and outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out is absolutely irrelevant.



http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_endyear_FinalUpdate_Mar09_lores.pdf

Just like Democrats would have loved to the the Repubs pass a bill dismantling Medicare.

I thought you were just a grifter, not a killer.

:(

It might have even made more carry them there...

All that ban did was make manufacturers remove cosmetic add-ons like pistol grips and bayonets from the rifles, it never banned a gun or stopped a sale.

It was a very silly, and 100% ineffective law, passed only so the politicians could tout that they banned something to ignorant voters when in reality they did nothing.

Here's my 2002 model civilian AK (yes, ban-era) with a ban-era 20-round magazine ($5.99/ea during the "ban"):



Here's all the 1994 Feinstein idiocy did:

even if it WERE possible, which it's not.


No, they're the most popular target rifles in the United States, and more Americans lawfully own them than hunt; they dominate organized target competition in this country. I think you're confusing modern-looking civilian rifles with NFA Title 2 restricted military automatic weapons.


OK, now I know you're conflating the concepts. Civilian AR-15's and whatnot fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, will not fire again until the trigger is release and pulled a second time, and cannot easily be converted to full auto. This is already Federal law (National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986).


Testify to what? The evils of rifle handgrips that stick out?

All rifles combined, regardless of appearance, account for only 0.6% of violent crimes and 3% of murders in this country. I think you have been spun.

to do with it.

There simply is not majority support in either house of Congress for renewing the AWB.

That is the main reason it will pass.

Not fewer.

Hell no.

But we should all listen to the comments of the ones who think that it is a right to carry a weapon that can kill dozens in one "click."

Thanks for demonstrating that you have been taken in by the deception that the AW ban had anything to do with fully automatic weapons.

K&U

:kick:

1) By explanation in the thread above it will have very little impact but will get people crazy.

2) The NRA does have one point right - we should enforce existing gun control laws before adding more.


if you go to the gun forum you will see that DU gun owners advocate expanding the background check to gun shows and private transactios - this seems to be a more important improvement over the current system.

More important is that we work on really big legislation first; health care, equal rights, immigration reform, new energy economy and reducing CO2 before we do anything about guns.

There are simply too many people who are single issue voters when it comes to guns. You would like to see the AWB passed but it isn't your only issue.