NEWSWEEK: Team Obama Halts Talk of Assault Weapons Ban

Hot off the press:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now the second member of President Obama's cabinet to get shot down by the White House over the politically sensitive issue of assault weapons. After meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Clinton said that reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons—which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004—is one step this country could take to curb the flow of guns to Mexico's drug cartels. "These military-style weapons don't belong on anybody's street," Clinton told NBC. Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of "any plans" to push for such a ban—even though Obama had backed one during last year's campaign.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191414

dont give them any reason to see the Dems as gun grabbers

The number of crimes involving these weapons is incredibly low. Obama has limited political capital, and this issue deserves to be very low on the priority list.

I'm in favor of doing both, but they are not worth the political risk right now...

Bill Clinton's biggest mistake was passing the '94 AWB. It cost him congress.

The GOP is fractured and fighting amongst themselves right now. We do not need to give them a cause to rally around.

we just lost four cops in Oakland to a man with an assault rifle.

It's by definition a ban based on the look of a rifle, not its functions. It banned things like flash hiders and pistol grips, but you could swap out a few parts on a "banned" rifle and it would be legal to sell again. The only difference between an AR-15 and a deer hunting rifle is that the deer rifle typically has a smaller magazine for reasons of bulk, and the deer rifle fires a more powerful round. (Not that you can't hunt deer with an AR-15, but most people would consider it underpowered, and more suited to smaller things. Disclaimer: all this information is secondhand, since I don't hunt.)

...the only firearms that should be legal to own are ones optimized for hunting.

I've done all three.

They're "not the same" in the same way a sedan isn't the same as a coupe. Functionally, the two are identical. The only difference is that apparently in your opinion "acceptable" hunting rifles have a wooden stock, and "unacceptable" rifles are ones that don't.

Please explain in detail why "assault weapons" are more dangerous than regular rifles.

whether it was a AK look a like or an SKS (at least one publication has said it was an SKS)

and focuses on cosmetics. If it was an SKS, depending on variant, its not on the CA list.

Both guns were semi-automatics, i.e., one shot per trigger pull.



The original AWB was based on combinations of cosmetic or ergonomic features that a semi-automatic firearm (rifles, handguns, and shotguns) could have; only two such items from an artitrary list were permitted.


The only way to "put teeth" in a new AWB would be to simply ban semiautomatic rifles, an arbitrary and useless condition that would never pass constitutional or public muster.

If we're going to go down in flames in 2010, let's have it be for something worthwhile, like drug legalization or universal single-payer healthcare. Not a ban on egonomic rifles or whatever arbitrary definition of "assault weapon" the Attorney General decides to use.

It amazes me how you Gunnies think that above all else, guns are more important than fixing poverty, getting people health coverage, fixing the mess the Booshe misAdministration left us, and corporate dominance.

You all disgust me.

It would take an expenditure of effort, political capital, and most importantly GOOD WILL to ban guns. THAT would erode our capability to address the other issues you mention.

...more important than fixing poverty, getting people health coverage, fixing the mess the Bush Administration left us, and corporate dominance.


I want the Obama Administation to spend zero time, effort, or political capital on some new assault-weapons ban. I want that time, effort, and political capital spend on fixing poverty, getting people health coverage, fixing the mess that the Bush Administration left us, and corporation dominance.

Are we in agreement?

You worry about guns more than you worry about what I posted. And if you gunnies spent more time fixing the critical issues we face instead of worrying that someone, anyone, is going to take your precious guns, the country would be better off.

And don't think that you can threaten me because you are a mod. "Are we in agreement"

NO.

I generally agree with the opinions you express in your politically-orientated posts, such as regarding unionization and the domestic auto industry.

get better and safer.

The Oakland shooter should never have had a gun to begin with.

kind of items past.

and still keep our guns.

With your republican "regirgipoop"...

nothing, but nothing, mobilizes voters against dems more strongly or quicker.

feeds anyone, puts a soul to work, takes care of a solitary sick child, or gets us clean energy I can't even imagine.

AWB from the White House web site that has angered over 80 million gun owners."

See "Obama and Biden . . . support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

Until Obama makes such a statement, I will not believe he has changed his position.

I think he's just learning to face facts. With 65 House Democrats and at least nine Senate Democrats on the record as opposing a new gun ban, Obama surely realizes that he's got more important fish to fry, and he would rather not have anyone in his administration weakening the momentum on Capitol Hill, what with the Republicans demonstrating their inability to come up with a coherent economic plan.

responsibility for statements made by others about what he will or will not do.

"It all depends, on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

you mean.

That's the sort of politician who will back the sort of gun laws you favor.....

65 Democrats in house and 9 in the senate that will absoutely not support a new AWB.

Likely the number is larger. These are the only ones willing to take a side. Dozens more just want the issue to go away.

Likely with more law enforcement deaths before the issues can be discussed sensibly.

That wil happen- it's only a matter of when.

Over 90% of gun crimes use handguns...

...and any shotgun or "hunting rifle" is just as effective as an "assault weapon".

Here in my state of New York, in 2007 we had a total of 800 gun homicide. Guess how many used rifles? Of any kind. Twelve. The vast majority of crimes involving a gun always have and always will involve handguns, but that's not a sexy sounding issue, so people try to scare people about "assault weapons."

And so your point is...?

--imm

It was an SKS, one of the most common rifles in America..

No bayonet, no protruding pistol grip, no removable magazine. Fires the same ammo, though.


The 10-round magazine which has to be reloaded while still attached to the gun. You can't just drop out an empty magazine for a new one, nor can you buy a 30- or 75-round magazine and pop it in there.

There's no protuding pistol grip, which the Brady Campaign (falsely) claims allows the shooter to accurately spray bullets from the hip.

No bayonet mount, no flash supressor, no rifle-grenade launcher. Complies in every particular with the arbitrary standards set forward in the 1993 AWB.

...you can only achieve your political goals in the emotionly-charged atmosphere of panic and fear following a dozen mass shootings?

I see a high-profile parallel in recent American history...

of dysfunctional "business as usual."

Sometimes that's been popularly expressed as "a tipping point" -or more vernacularly as "the worm has finally turned."

Bush and the Republicans' worm turned with Hurricane Katrina. From that point on, the "old arguments" so to speak, lost their effects- and over the course of months, administration officials were widely perceived in characticture.

The tipping point for Australians on this set of issues came in 1996 in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

On another set of issues (dangerous dogs) the tipping point was here:

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to community concerns about recent attacks by pit bull terriers and related matters?

Mr BOB CARR: We were all horrified by the pictures of five-year old Jordan Wisby lying in hospital with his head bandaged—the victim of a vicious pit bull terrier attack last Friday. He and his brother were walking home from school in Illawong when a dog, which had already been declared dangerous by the Sutherland shire, bolted out of a window and attacked him.

The dog has been destroyed and the police are considering laying charges under the Companion Animals Act. Yesterday in another incident, two unregistered pit bulls escaped from their home in Homebush and turned on a 75 year-old man.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bligh will come to order.

Mr BOB CARR: Today, a stud operator in Appin, Mr Howard Blight, faces the agonising decision whether to destroy two thoroughbred foals that last month were badly mauled by two American pit bulls. Under New South Wales law, if a dog is declared dangerous, the owner must have the animal desexed, muzzle it in public, and keep it in a childproof enclosure. Owners face heavy penalties for breaching these rules or if their dog is involved in an attack.

If all else fails, councils have the power to seize and destroy animals. Owners of dangerous dogs can face fines of up to $22,000, two years gaol and disqualification from owning a dog for life. These are strong laws, but with pit bull terriers, it is clear that we need to go further. A pit bull is a killing machine on a leash. Too often someone ends up in an emergency ward after an encounter with one of these dogs, to say nothing of damage to stock in rural areas.

This week the Minister for Local Government will meet with local government representatives and rangers to discuss how laws can be strengthened to help councils better control dangerous dogs. The Minister will also take this issue to the Ministerial Council on Local Government where he will push for a national approach.

But New South Wales is not prepared to wait and that is why the Government will introduce legislation to ban the breeding of pit bulls and similar breeds. The ban will be based on successful laws in force in Queensland. Our new laws will make it an offence to breed, sell, give away or acquire those dogs: and the penalties will be severe. We want to see those dangerous creatures bred out of existence. The Government will also give councils the power to ban ownership of a restricted dog unless the owner has obtained council approval. The vast majority of dog owners do the right thing and are keen to always do the right thing, and most dog breeds are a benign addition to human happiness. However, there have been too many vicious, unprovoked attacks and pit bulls no longer have a place in this community.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20050503014

That is exactly what has happened to the gun control movement in the 1990's...Their inertia got shattered by the voter backlash......And rightly so...

Hell I LOVE shredding them in debate now, they are so predictable....

Have at it...

Your voice counts.

I am just getting to my snail mail from yesterday, and I just got a hand written letter from my Democratic Congressman....With a enclosed copy of the letter he and a few others sent to AG Holder last week..

I need to reply, and thank him, and his compatriots for their good work!!

I am sorry, you where saying something?!

Rock on.

Yeah, thanks a lot for Bush. Two terms, even.

You selfish gun lovers ensured the deaths of millions of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and New Orleans because you just couldn't have your precious, precious guns regulated.

At Least you acknowledge the FACT that our parties jihad against guns back in the 1990's had long reaching consequences for us until recently.

Do you call people who wish to use a constitutional right selfish?? What the fuck is up with that?!?!? Would you dare say that to a war protester??

What the hell, "guns not regulated" where the hell did that come from?? Evidently you have not purchased a gun recently, you would know that is clearly not the case, their are more than 20,000 pages of gun legislation on the books today??

You clearly do not know ANYTHING about which you speak...So please learn more about the subject at hand, because frankly, your post on this fine forum, is EMBARRASSING...

Requiring registration, and later on... confiscation and destruction.



Note that already the authorities are talking about those "unregistered pit bulls" doing all that damage. "If only people were required to register their pit bulls...".

Perhaps you guys need to artficially limith their running capacity. Pass a law limiting the length of the legs of all dogs to, say, ten inches. By amputation, if necessary. That would severly limit the ability of such "assault dogs", bred only to kill and maim, to do damage to the law-abiding public, would it not? After all, what civilized society allows assault dogs with unlimited leg length? What legitimate purpose is there for having an assault dog that can run twice as fast as a human?

The answer is: NONE!!! No assault dog needs legs of unlimited length to defend a person from an attacker, only to pursue a fleeing attacker and perform vigilante justice on it!





If people were sick and tired of civilian ownership of guns this would have occured twenty years ago when the homicide rate in America was twice what it is now.

Not that it would have done anything... saying that a significant motive for murder is gun ownership is ridiculous. A gun used to murder is a tool, a means to achieve an end. Committing a gun murder is not a motivation in and of itself.




Regardless, would you be supportive of a measure to do away with, say, the First Amendment? When people just get sick and tired of all that free speech and a dysfunctional free press and just say "Hey, let's start restricting it?" Or how about people getting tired of seeing criminals going free because the police fucked up on a search warrant or evidence custody and just say "Hey, we're going to break the inertia of dysfunctional 4th Amendment rights".

How about be bring back the cat-o-nine-tails and public whippings? Stocks? The rack? All that dysfunctional "cruel and unusual punishment" bullshit, right?



As to Port Arthur, well, contrats... you had no mass shootings for years before Port Arthur, and you haven't had any in the years since then. How's your nationwide homicide rate doing?

I'm tellin ya, law or no law, people aren't gonna give them up.

There really is no way to confirm:
- Actual gun owners
- Percentage of gun owners in the population
- Number of guns owned by civilians

Way to many are off the books, including by those who should not have them,

I am reminded of a time when there were some particularly brutal stabbings on the NYC subway. The mayor's reaction was to call for tighter gun regulations.

--imm

Be careful of what you wish for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3805914

Republican gun controllers pin their hopes of more killings...

I bet the country is really ready for rational discussion right now.

n/t

The Clinton Ban in my opinion made a hero out of Newt and cost Gore the election. I am not alone in this opinion. Do you think Obama is going to fail? Let him succeed first and then go for the guns. Renew the Clinton AWB now. Then what? Seriously, then what ? Do you think an Assault Weapon Ban now will bring people to their senses and then they will voluntarily start to turn in all weapons when they see the positive effect of an Assault Weapon Ban. Ask Sarah Brady what is needed to remove all guns from all people. That is the goal. Remove all guns from all people, right? Get some momentum first, then go for the guns.

then maybe any thought or consideration of an AWB (now or in the future), could be relegated to the trash barrel where it belongs.

....whose lives have been shattered by gun-bearing lunatics......

admired and revered by the non-gun owning DU'ers here. :sarcasm:

As for the other gun grabbing tool, she's the primary proponent in the House for an AWB and she doesn't even understand the legislation she authored...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

As for their "shattered" lives... if they're going to respond with a knee-jerk reaction to the incident(s), then the criticism from myself and others is fully warranted.

"Assault weapons" are NOT machine guns in any way shape or form. They are regular semi-automatic rifles: one trigger pull, one bullet, same as any more conventionally looking hunting rifle. Contrary to popular misconception (aided by very shoddy reporting) they are not fully automatic "machine guns," nor can they converted without absurd effort.

There ARE a handful of legal automatic weapons in circulation. Anyone can buy one--if you can pass the federal background check, wait many months, pay the fees, and afford it. A fully automatic M-16, like the kind used by military and the police, costs around $20,000.

On the other hand, drug cartels can import dirt-cheap full-auto AK-47s from South America into Mexico without ever involving the US.

I know.

:)

Name a single semi-auto rifle that SOLD TODAY that can be converted.

I'll pay you or donate $100 to a charity in your name if you can name A SINGLE SEMI AUTO (just a single one) that can be easily converted to full auto. Name model and manufacturer of a new semi auto sold legally in the United States that is not an NFA item. Simple.

Please don't post some bump gun junk. Converted as in pull trigger one and 3+_ rounds fire.

The BATFE considers ANY weapons easily converted to ALREADY BE FULL AUTO and any company selling such weapon is subject of up to $150,000 fine PER WEAPON and up to 10 years in prison.

So even if some company say Springfield Arms was stupid enough to make such a weapon they would be fined out of existence tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. If executives or engineers were found to be intentionally complicit (rather than just stupid or negligent) they would be looking at more time in prison than someone running a child sex industry.

If you've got the machining skills to convert a modern semi-auto, then you can more easily build one of the semi-famous homemade sub-machine pistols.

Of course, the number of people who actually do that is very low, because full-auto weapons aren't good choices for criminals in the US--pistols are by far their gun of preference.

A lot of people who don't know much about guns tend to listen to the media, which gets it wrong a LOT. Fact is that crimes using true automatic weapons are almost nonexistant, as are crimes involving semi-automatic military knockoffs like civilian AK clones, the AR-15, etcetera.

Something like 50% of all murders in the US are committed using handguns, while "assault weapons" account for 3%. Since we can't ban handguns, I keep telling people: if you're really serious about reducing gun deaths, get serious about reducing poverty.

I would argue that we should do some things in a certain order, and that pushing new policy toward responsible gun ownership (need to get away from just talking about "banning" things) should be further down the road a bit. Otherwise, its a poison pill that will become a wedge issue.

Ending prohibition is what got rid of Al Capone.

who died at Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Dylan Klebold used a TEC-9 9mm semiautomatic pistol in the Columbine shooting. The other guns used at Columbine were a sawed-off 12-gauge double-barreled shotgun, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and a 9mm carbine (a compact rifle that shoots pistol ammo). At Virginia Tech the shooter used two semiautomatic handguns.

The TEC-9 was included in the original Assault Weapons Ban (by name) because it had it's magazine separate from the grip. The grip was behind the trigger while the magazine was forward of it. This design worked well for the TEC-9's original purpose... a military-issue fully-automatic machine pistol, because the forward weight of the magazine would both help tame recoil and offer a second handgrip to deal with bursts of full-auto fire. However this design works like shit for a semi-automatic pistol. The magazine forward makes the gun difficult to conceal, awkward to aim, and slower to reload, and the shorter barrel length (compared to the gun's overall lenghth) robs the bullets of velocity.

In short, the TEC-9 looks scary but it in fact less effective than a regular pistol.

I saw on an episode on "Cops" once, the police are cruising around a neighborhood and one of the cops spots a guy with a funny bulge in his pants. Gets out to investigate, pats him down... and pulls out a TEC-9 from the guy's waistband. Or tries to... the protruding bits of the gun were caught in his clothing. The forward-located magazine sticking out poked the fabric enough to be visible from a moving police cruiser. If the guy had been packing a regular pistol the cop never would have seen it.

Poorly made as well. Just scary looking.

How would an "assault weapon" ban have prevented the deaths caused by handguns?

<3% of all homicides are caused by rifles (not just "assault rifles but ALL rifles").

passes AWB legislation and sends it to him for signature.

My guess is he will sign it.

He will work behind the scenes to prevent it or even call upon allies to put a poison pill ammendment into it (and ensure its failure).

However if push comes to shove and it is sitting on his desk tomorrow he will sign it.

We won a number of new seats this last time around. Taking on guns will reverse that and then some

The Feinsteins and Schummers of the Congress want an AWB.

There's a whole bunch of Dems that will vote against any new ban.

The Feinsteins and Schummers are just about all that is left of the 1994 gun bans..

Many other Democrats, that pushed for that legislation, LOST THEIR ASSES in the aftermath

No legalization or decriminalization of pot, or any other drug, whose illicit trade is funding the Mexican drug war. No control on the purchase or transport of the guns that are fueling the Mexican drug war.

Seems to me like the only response that Obama is contemplating is essentially telling Mexico too fucking bad, you're on your own. Oh, and if things get too hot on the border, we'll send in our military and make the Southwest into a free fire zone, and doing away with Posse Comitatis in the process.

I'm increasingly confident that the Obama administration doesn't want to waste time fighting a losing battle when there are so many more important issues to deal with.

4x4 doesn't mean you have sandpaper brakes.

Don't get me wrong. There are good gun laws. The AWB was not one of them - the very definition of what an "assault weapon" is turned into a political morass. Neither is magazine capacity caps - just dumb.

As for gun laws that work, I would suggest imposing extra prison time on criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a crime, continue to refine the Brady background check (the one part of the Brady Act that is still in effect and actually works) to remove loopholes, create a Federal law that bans interstate commerce in firearms that is intended to violate state gun laws (in other words, it's OK to bring your deer rifle with you on a hunting vacation, but if you go from Nevada to California with a trunk full of Kalashnikovs in violation of California's gun laws, you're looking at prison time. In other words, I believe gun laws should be mostly determined by local and state governments, not the Federal Government, though the feds can help in enforcing those state laws.)

was an ordinary hunting rifle by appearance including small capacity magazine. You can get a closer picture of it at the website.



http://www.wral.com/

I understand this SOB was also armed with a shotgun and handgun at least. One thing I notice is the jerks always go to a place where people are unarmed to carry out their rampages. Just once maybe they ought to go to a shooting range and fight it out!

:sarcasm:

Considerably more Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt, yet rifles of any type account for only 3% of U.S. murders.


FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2007, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon>

Alabama, 385 murders, 7 with rifles.
Colorado, 150 murders; 0 with rifles.
Louisiana, 577 murders; 31 with rifles.
Maryland, 553 murders; 9 with rifles.
Michigan, 672 murders; 29 with rifles.
New York, 800 murders, 12 with rifles.
North Carolina (my state), 555 murders, 17 with rifles.
Oregon, 72 murders, 2 with rifles.
South Carolina, 349 murders, 6 with rifles.
Texas, 1419 murders, 58 with rifles.
Washington, 170 murders, 5 with rifles.

See the trend?

but that still won't stop the NRA-fueled media machine from whipping their crazed minions into a fury... they will just find something different to hate obama for...