Banning assault weapons and restricting ammo

[LiberalFighter]

The argument for not doing so is that they will still get them.

Which is bullshit.

What is the counter to that? I know there is one.

[hack89]

1. A ban will be ignored

Look at CT and NY compliance rates. No red state will enforce it - there will be “sanctuary “ cities everywhere. They will get away with it like they do in CT and NY - in many states elected officials will be leading the opposition.

[rockfordfile]

34. Let them try. Not to do this is support for the mass murders

[hack89]

35. Who will stop them? Nt

[SHRED]

2. We outlawed Tommy machine guns

I believe in the 1930's?

In 20 years you couldn't get one.

It takes time but with a buyback program it could be sped up.

[hack89]

3. But there was widespread support for that

Not the case with assault weapons.

[SHRED]

4. There isn't?

Says who?

[hack89]

9. Support for AWB oscillates between 50-60 percent according to Gallup

Has been doing it for decades.

[world wide wally]

17. I will take 50-60% anytime.

[hack89]

19. Gun control will always die in the Senate

That’s what happens when Wyoming has as many votes as California.

[LonePirate]

22. We'll see about that once the Senate is blue again and the filibuster is axed.

[hack89]

23. It was blue during Sandy Hook remember?

Dem Senators from pro-gun states killed the AWB.

[LonePirate]

24. And the filibuster was still in place, hence the second half of my statement.

If we control the Senate and the filibuster is removed, we will pass gun reform despite any screaming from gundamentalists, be they at DU or anywhere else.

[hack89]

25. You still need 50 votes

Filibuster is irrelevant if you don’t have the votes in the first place. A blue Senate means electing pro-gun Dems. Which means no votes on an AWB.

[LonePirate]

26. I think you severely underestimate how much Dem support exists for gun reform including an AWB.

Pro gun Dems are effectively neutered in the party nowadays.

[hack89]

27. You look at the states where we have to win Senate seats

To get a blue Senate. They are pro-gun states. They may elect a Democrat but not if they run on a gun banning platform.

They are not progressive states. We are not talking progressive Democrats.

[LonePirate]

29. Any seats we flip in 2020 will be by Dems willing to vote for an AWB.

Even in states like AZ, GA, IA, ME, NC, and TX, any newly elected Dem Senator will support an AWB. They may not run on the issue but they will vote for it. You are out of touch with the mainstream Dem party and voters if you think a Dem Senator other than Manchin would vote against an AWB, especially since one was in place up until the W years.

[hack89]

30. That is some seriously magical thinking there.

gun control is not that big a priority to voters.

This is what happened after Sandy Hook:

On March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill, though it was not expected to clear the full Senate or the House.[32][33] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided to leave the proposed ban out of the broader gun control bill, saying that it was unlikely to win 40 votes in the 100-member chamber and that it would jeopardize more widely supported proposals.[34][35] On the morning of April 17, 2013, the bill failed on a vote of 40 to 60. It was supported by Democrat Reid and Republican Senator Mark Kirk, but 15 Democrats, one independent, and all the Republicans except Kirk voted against the ban.[34][

15 Dems voted no. And they paid no price for it. And things have not changed that much in six years.

[LonePirate]

33. You are seriously out of touch if you think there are not enough Dem votes for this.

When O'Rourke - by practically all assessments is a conservative moderate in the party - is calling for an AWB, then the rest of the party supports such a measure. You will not find two Dem votes in the Senate, let alone 15, to vote against it. And yes, times have changed dramatically in the six years since Sandy Hook. You might want to brush up on your knowledge of current events and party positions. Are you from a red state by chance? That's about the only reason you are so bearish on this, unless of course you are one of DU's resident unrestricted gun supporters. Walmart would not have taken the actions today if we were in a pro-gun environment.

[hack89]

36. I am from a blue state with strict gun laws

A state where an AWB gets rejected year after year. I am very much in touch with how Dem voters view gun bans.

[world wide wally]

32. Like it or not... Sometimes people grow up and things

DO change.

[world wide wally]

7. Only 90%

[hack89]

10. You are thinking UBCs

AWBs don’t have that level of support.

[Recursion]

5. Tommy guns actually fire faster than other guns

The problem with AWBs is that "assault" weapons don't actually fire faster than other weapons.

[Groundhawg]

15. Tommy guns aren't banned. Anyone with enough money and the background check can get as many as you

Want legally.

[aikoaiko]

18. We did not take away Tommy guns or other machine guns with the NFA in the 1930s

We required them to register them with the Federal Government in the 1930s.

People could still buy new machine guns as long as they registered them after that until 1986.

In 1968, the ATF declared an amnesty and reopened the registry to those he didn' register their machine guns.

It wasn't until 1986 that the public couldn't obtain new machine guns, but could still purchase and re-register already registered machine guns.

We have never confiscated or forced buybacks of legally owned machine guns. There has only been one shooting with a legally owned machine gun since the implementation of the NFA.

That's what is disconcerting about the current forced buyback effort. We acting in a more extreme manner than we have with machine guns. That doesn't make sense.

[spanone]

6. In that case we can't outlaw anything, cause someone will get them somehow

it's bullshit

[SHRED]

12. Shhh

The gunsplainers will read this.

[Wiseman32218]

14. Prohibition of Alcohol did not work, nor will one on guns,

[Kurt V.]

28. Alcohol is a staple. guns are luxury. :)

[spanone]

37. hopefully we can find out

[Recursion]

8. That's not the argument against banning assault weapons

The argument against banning "assault" weapons is that they are exactly the same as "non-assault" weapons; it's a made-up category based on stupid crap like having a bayonet lug or what shape the grip is.

The rifle Lanza used at Sandy Hook, for instance, wasn't an "assault weapon". If the more restrictive California definition were in force, it would have needed a somewhat different grip shape. It's just a silly law.

[Hoyt]

21. Banning semiautomatics with detachable mags will take care of that.

[Recursion]

38. And I'm a fan of that idea (nt)

[Amishman]

39. And that will not pass constitutional muster

Semi automatics definitely reach the common use criteria set by Heller and Miller SCOTUS rulings

A magazine capacity limit and buyback by itself has a way better chance of both passing and surviving, and accomplishes almost as much.

[BlueTsunami2018]

11. People will still get them but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder.

If we ban the assault rifles, people will still hide them, bury them or whatever but I’d rather have them hidden and buried than easily accessible. Ammo can be smuggled or even made but how many people actually have the means to do so? How many people who do have the means will risk distributing it with a heavy sentence hanging over them?

Just because you can’t eliminate these things completely doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make them much harder to obtain.

[SHRED]

13. Anyone caught with one

Goes to prison.

[Newest Reality]

16. Right.

Limiting availability should have a significant impact in several ways.

Right now, they can be openly transported and carried, (as we have seen). If the right restrictions were in place, that would end, so we wouldn't have them flaunted in public. If that were the case, the police would arrest the persona and confiscate the gun.

The same would apply to transporting them. It would make it more difficult and a traffic stop or other situations would expose that and again, arrest and confiscation.

A final point would be accessibility. Once they are prohibited, they won't be available commercially, which means less of them in circulation.

Once it moves to the kind of sub rosa and black market arena, it at least remains in a criminal context, which is fine with me.

Why would the black market and clandestine aspects negate that? You name it and people can get it, so it is about volume, to me. Oh, and a signal of less tolerance and social acceptance, which is a point we need to make.

[Hoyt]

20. Exactly. It will also significantly damage the gun industry that keeps pushing

the damn things like opioids.

[Kilgore]

31. We tried it in 1994 then repealed it

Was signed into law by Bill Clinton

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