Sen. Al Franken Raises Doubts About Support For Assault Weapons Ban
Source: TPM
Sen Al Franken (D-MN) on Wednesday indicated that he's undecided on an assault weapons ban, the Post-Bulletin of Rochester, Minn. reported.
Speaking at an event in Rochester, Franken pledged support for a number of provisions in the gun control package outlined by President Barack Obama at a news conference on Wednesday — including limiting high-capacity magazines and instituting stricter nationwide background checks — but the junior senator from Minnesota did not mention a ban on assault weapons.
When asked if Franken would back an assault weapons ban, Marc Kimball, a spokesman for the senator, couldn't say for sure.
"I guess I don't have an answer for you," Kimball said. "He's been listening to Minnesota, trying to be thoughtful on this and trying to get input from people from a wide spectrum of views."
-30-
Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/sen-al-franken-raises-doubts-about-support-for?ref=fpb
Link to full Post-Bulletin article:
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/politics/franken-undecided-on-assault-weapons-ban/article_b15db9ab-6909-571d-a7c6-124e38108dc8.html
UPDATE here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372143
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'm with ya, James. I know that this place has a lt of groupthink going on with respect to guns, but there are still some of us here who want to honor the spirit & letter of the Constitution, WHILE also improving public safety. Glad to hear that Senator Franken is willing to think these issues through as well.
I also agree that the the President's Executive Orders of yesterday raise no major red flags, tough the devil will be in the details & agency implementations.
-app
and it is a perfect small game rifle. Remember that the .223 round is adapted from the .222 Remington which is a very popular varmint round.
You are getting hung up on cosmetics - would you feel better if it looked like this?:
I not really pro nor con on guns, I said in an earlier post that I could care less if a new AWB ban were passed, although I think that's not doable in the congress at this time, it wouldn't affect me in the least.
If I had to get rid of my AR-15 I would for market value and go buy another rifle of similar caliber.
It seems to me that you have a real problem with people who own firearms, whether they're lawful or not.
Have a good day.
there are civilian semiautomatic rifles are being built right now.
Here is a good example:
I went to buy ammo last weekend and someone told me soon as I got through the door that Obama was going to put vapor packets in ammo boxes so the bullets go bad after a few months. 
.223 was through the roof. Over a dollar per bullet. It's ridiculous because because nobody is talking about outlawing the round that these rifles shoot.
The culture dictates what is popular more than practicality, and there is something very wrong with the culture for sure.
Or at least being prepared to. The caveat being that the person you're ready to kill is an attacker or intruder.
But the line between a "legitimate" semi-automatic rifle and an "assault weapon" semi-automatic rifle is arbitrary.
Some features that make a rifle an "assault weapon" are just the natural development of good ergonomic design. Pistol grips are easier on the wrist than traditional straight grips. And quick-adjusting buttstocks make the gun fit a variety of people (tall person vs. short), or clothing conditions (winter vs. summer).
But an AR-15 with a pistol grip and a quick-adjusting stock... that's an "assault weapon" in several states.
They make AR-15s optimized for hunting, as well as several other types of semi-automatic rifles. The AK-47 pattern, for example, is used by people that hunt deer and wild boar at close range, in timber or heavy brush.
The nice thing about the AR-15 design is that you can buy what's called an "upper" in different calibers. You can swap "uppers" for cartridge for is more suitable for deer or boar or whatever at a lower cost than buying a whole new rifle. Other rifles, you generally can't do that. You have to buy a new rifle, or have an old rifle permanently modified to a new cartridge.
> Self defense is about killing people
Nothing short of killing will do, eh? Pepper spray, tasers (non-lethal ones, anyway) aren't useful? Pretty bloodthirsty.
Remind me to stay a few dozen miles away from folks with your mindset.
If we're going to have a limit, it should be done after some kind of scientific study. For example, in all self-defense shootings where the intended victim did not shoot the gun empty, what is the average number of shots fired?
Then, once we have that number, we can say "okay, it should be 2x, or 3x, that number".
If the average number of shots fired in a situation where the victim did not run out of ammo is, say, 5 rounds ,then we can say "okay, if the average is 5, then a limit of 10 or 15 is statistically valid."
Or something like that.
Alternatively, we could have two separate limits: on long guns (rifles and shotguns) we can set a limit to, say 30 rounds, because despite the high-profile mass shootings, all rifles (not just ones fed from a detachable magazine) account for only 5% of murders. And remember, Virginia Tech's slaughter was done by handguns, and Sideshow Bob in Aurora used a shotgun and a pistol after his rifle jammed. Magazines that hold more are often complex and unreliable; Sideshow Bob's 100-round wonder-mag for his rifle jammed after less than 30 shots, and rather than clear the jam he simply switched guns.
There is a mechanical limitation here where only so many rounds can be stacked on a spring before feeding becomes a problem, so there's a practical overall length limit. The same length magazine that holds 30 rounds of .223 might only hold 20 rounds of .308 or 10 rounds of 12-gauge shotgun ammo. Trying to make it longer results in feeding problems and jams.
But, there are new kinds of stick magazines out there called "casket magazines" that are basically two staggered-column magazines in one housing. Listed capacities are 60 and 100 rounds. Now, of course this magazine will be as heavy as hell, and I don't know how reliable it is.
Or we could specify that the total column length of the cartridges can't be more than X inches high, and no more than two columns per magazine.
As for handguns, we could put a limit in based on what is usually the maximum number of rounds that fit into a full-sized handgun's standard magazine. Since handgun magazines are pretty much designed to fit flush to the bottom of the handgun's grip, this would make the maximum for a typical 9mm gun to be about 17 rounds. Again, with mechanical limitations, the fatter the cartridge the fewer can fit into the same column height.
Or we can do a handgun magazine limit based on column length like the long guns, above: no more than Y inches high, and no more than two columns.
A limit based on ammunition column length would put people in the position of have many smaller shots, or fewer larger ones. For example, an AR-15 is normally chambered to shoot .223 Remington ammunition. But by purchasing a separate upper receiver, you can quickly convert your AR-15 to shoot the much larger, but shorter-range .50 Beowulf. The same length magazine that holds 30 rounds of .223 only holds 10 rounds of .50 Beowulf, but the .50 Beowulf is much more powerful at close to medium ranges.
Arguably, the .50 Beowulf is a much more effective cartridge for self defense than the .223, so maybe it's a good thing.
listening to the people who sent him to Congress instead of the posters here on DU, most of whom probably aren't even in MN.
