Healthcare now, new AW ban next!!!!!! Go Obama!!!

[cabluedem]

I can't wait for the new permanent AW ban soon to come.

[bluestateguy]

1. You're kidding right?

:rofl:

[SteveM]

16. A little cognitive dissonance in the morning, he says?

[sharp_stick]

2. Ahh the paranoia

I feed off it, people so afraid of their neighbors it would be funny if it wasn't so fucking pathetic.

[Pavulon]

3. Wait for jesus to come back.. He will preach at MSG first

and the grateful dead will open up for him. Keep waitin... hold your breath..

[ColesCountyDem]

4. Don't bet your rent money on that.

It won't be happening any time soon, if ever....

[spin]

5. Please explain how another assault weapons ban ...

would accomplish anything beneficial. The last one was a total failure.

[krispos42]

6. Yeah, ban those protruding pistol grips.

That will obviously save FAR more people's lives than further health-care reform.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Hey pal, it's totally WORTH jeopardizing hard-won gains to chase an illusion!

Banning bayonet lugs and 30-round magazines will do much more for the American public than such silly things as
as "better health care for all".

[krispos42]

12. God forbid our guns be ergonomic, reliable, and accurate.

I want my guns to be designed by Golum while he's going through Ring withdrawal.

[tburnsten]

93. WHAT ABOUT THE SHOULDER THING THAT GOES UP!!!!

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


What a dolt.

[X_Digger]

7. poor poor cabluedem..

Here, have a baloon..


You never did respond to me _showing_ you how you really haven't even banned "assault weapons" in california..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=301410#301664

How ignorant do you think you look when you ask for something that you can't even do in your home state?

But hey.. go ahead and ask for another ban.. you know what that'll do, right?


http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

1988's CA "ban" did what? Doubled sales of AR-15's within 3 years. What did the 92 saber rattling that led to the 94 ban do? TRIPLED sales of AR-15s.

Go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot again.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

10. Thanks for the laugh!!

Here's a metaphor for you.



Lucy = Obama and his administration
Football = Promise to reauthorize the AWB
Charlie Brown = Gun-control advocates

[proteus_lives]

11. More gun control?

So you want Obama and the Democracts to be defeated and thrown out of office?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. That will certainly cost us some seats.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Why do you insist on forcing your fears on other people?

[Katya Mullethov]

15. Kick and recommend !

Great post !

[GreenStormCloud]

17. You are doomed to be disappointed.

Obama has no interest in spending huge amounts of political capital on a doomed effort for more gun control.

Forty states have shall-issue concealed carry laws. That is 80 Senators and a lot of representatives that are from gun-friendly states.

The effort to make the 1994 AWB permanent died quietly in committee from strong bipartisan nonsupport. It wasn't Bush that killed it. It never saw the floor of congress as lots of smart Democrats ran away from it. They remember that guns were a huge swing issue in the disaster of 1994.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Hey, how's that CA AWB goin for ya guys... ROFL

Left coast yuppies... :eyes: :rofl:

[cabluedem]

24. great! almost 200 gun owners prosecuted so far. bring your AW here so you too can go to prison.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[cabluedem]

63. We have states rights. You brag about NV so stay there with your guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

67. No. We are going to get the Thune amendment passed.

Then I can carry concealed when I visit CA, using my TX permit.

[cabluedem]

70. dream on pal.

[benEzra]

72. ...says the poster who wants a FEDERAL ban on modern looking rifles

even though the overwhelming majority of states have rejected such bans?

[Merchant Marine]

26. Does "Legal Configuration" mean anything to you?

How about "Off-List Lower"?
"Prince Bullet Button"?
"Raddlock?"
"Monsterman Grip"?
"U-15 Grip"?
"Grandfathered high capacity magazine"?

This thread should prove interesting to you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x303848

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. You're going to have to turn your volume up to 11...

His head's buried so far in the kommiefornian sand... he can't hear you. :rofl:

[cabluedem]

48. how does you are under arrest sound? don't bring your guns here if you don't like it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. Sorry to harsh your mellow, but the guns on MM's list are perfectly legal in California

I know, I know- that "factual accuracy" thing takes all the fun out of faith-based posting, but that's life in the big city.

Why don't you try having a nice cup of lavender-chamomile tea before posting? It's really quite soothing...

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. No BS, they *are* legal in California. Now go ahead and stamp your feet and hold your breath.

And when you are quite through pitching a nutty, they will still be perfectly legal in California.

And that's a Samuel Adams Noble Pils, thank you very much. Only a lout would chug a fine lager like that...

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

58. I'll take my Civil Rights anywhere I want, thanks. n/t

[Merchant Marine]

59. No, sorry, play again.

Maybe you should read your own state's laws, like California gun owners have to so they aren't dragged off to prison by a SWAT team.

Actually, look at this flowchart
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf


All you have to do to construct a "California Legal" Assault Weapon is the following...

1. Pick a brand of lower receiver not prohibited by name on the Rooberti-Ross list
2. Construct it to only have one (1) "evil" feature as defined by PC 12276.1 (a) OR build it with a mechanical "magazine lock" or "bullet button" that requires a tool or key to remove the magazine and slap as many evil features on it if you want.



All three of these rifles are California Legal and unregistered. Please try to prove me wrong, I await with bated breath.

[aikoaiko]

68. Thanks for the chart.

Living in a free state, I had no idea how many hoops one had to jump through to own a new AR or AK style rife.

So, if I followed the chart right, your rifles have magazines that are not readily detachable and only hold 10 rounds.

[Merchant Marine]

71. If you want a detachable magazine you have to have no pistol grip.

Though grandfathered hicaps are legal, and a lot of guy "pin" 30 round kits to 10 rounds and use the longer mag body as a pseudo forward grip, especially on AKs.

[Euromutt]

77. Do those ARs have "Bullet Buttons" installed?

Because with "non-detachable" magazines, you can do damn near anything you like, short of having more than 10 rounds in the mag.

[Merchant Marine]

79. The ARs definitely have Prince 50s. The block on the AK is unfamiliar to me.

On my VZ-58 the importer simply removed the mag catch lever, so I have to work it with a small tool.

Of course the benefit of a VZ-58 is that you can just feed it with stripper clips. I think of it as a more ergonomic SKS.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[gorfle]

20. A sure-fire way to put Democrats out of office.

As it is, the entire Republican base will be enraged by this health care reform bill. We'll be very lucky if the health care reform alone doesn't blow us out of the water.

If you think the last Assault Weapons Bill was monumental in removing Democrats from office in 1994, just combine another AWB with health care reform and see what happens in 2012.

We'll be very lucky if the health care reform alone doesn't blow us out of the water.

[cowman]

21. I think

we are going to get our asses handed to us this Nov. because of HCR. In my line of work I hear all the time how this POS bill is just that, a POS. That's #1 reason Harry Reid is losing here is because of HCR and the people of NV see him as shoving this piece of crap down our throats and here in NV, we are pretty independent and don't like being told what to do by the Feds

[cabluedem]

75. We are losing votes in our our party becuase gun control is a long standing plank we have ignored.

[Merchant Marine]

76. And who are they going to for their gun-control needs? The Republicans? :p

[cowman]

80. HaHaHaHa

your're delusional, send me some of what you've been smoking

[cabluedem]

82. When your guns are confiscated under the UN small arms treaty I will be laughing the last laugh!!!

[Merchant Marine]

83. Foreign treaties can't over-ride the constitution.

[cowman]

84. You really

should learn the U.S. Constitution, then you would know that it takes 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty, How many senators do you think would vote for a treaty like that? I suspect very very few if any, they would be voted out of office.

So why don't you hold your breath waiting for that to happen

[X_Digger]

85. And no treaty can override the constitution.

Not only because congress has to pass it, but it says right there in Article VI-"his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[benEzra]

22. ZOMG ASSAULT WEPPINS!!! BE AFRAID!!!!!

You never know what those handgrips that stick out might cause people to think or do...

[derby378]

23. You poor, crazy kid...

...but thanks for the chuckle!

[yodoobo]

27. Now will would be an ideal time to capitlize on the success

But I don't think Obama will.

Frankly I'm a disappointed that Obama hasn't followed through on his promises to reign in the gun mess. But I suppose he does have to prioritize.

7 years will go by quickly, but I'm confident that he will visit this issue.

[cowman]

28. You really

are wrong. If you think that Pres Obama is going anywhere near gun control you are crazy, even if he proposed new gun laws the congress would turn him down flat.

At the beginning of his presidency, Eric Holder suggested making the expired AWB permanent and Nancy Pelosi said he can make all the proposals he wanted but the congress were the ones who enacts the laws and she basically told him to fuck off.

The Dem's remember what happened in 1994 when the repubs took back the house mainly because of the AWB so don't hold your breath on any Fed gun control laws

And people like Sharesunited, Depakid, Calbluedem and others here are delusional if they think that the gun control movement, or should I say, non-movement, is going anywhere

[benEzra]

29. Why do you consider the legality of protruding rifle handgrips and magazines a "mess"?

Rifle crime is lower than it has ever been, and it's not like you're talking about banning rare and obscure firearms here. You're talking about banning the most popular rifles in the nation, because....why? Because the Brady Campaign says to be afraid of guns that don't look "traditional"?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Compare the "Rifles" column to total murders, edged weapons, and fists and feet. Many states have ZERO rifle murders in any given year, and the majority of states are in the single digits. In light of that, please explain why banning the most popular civilian rifle configurations should be a legislative priority.

[yodoobo]

30. It makes far more sense to ban the most popular ones

Than the ones that nobody owns.

The goal is to reduce the bloodshed caused by the easy availability.

Why would anything other than the most popular be targeted?

No gun ban legislation will be popular with the gun crowd anyway. They'll be just as unhappy with a law that takes 1,000 guns off the street as they would be with a law that takes 10 million guns off the street.

Therefore, it makes sense to go after the biggest target.

[Kurska]

31. So screw the party and our position in the polls.

Lets commit electoral suicide for your pet issue forgetting that we are a democracy and any of the grand efforts you're proposing could easily be repealed by the republican.

[yodoobo]

37. any law can be repelled

But that doesn't mean its not worth doing.

[Glassunion]

41. If it was worth doing.

Why was it allowed to sunset in the first place?

[yodoobo]

45. Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House

Same reason everything else was screwed up.

[cowman]

46. Bullshit

the citizens didn't want it and don't believe the polls from the Brady
Bunch and the VPC, even the Dems didn't want to renew it

[GreenStormCloud]

47. The AWB died a bipartisan death.

Democrats as well as Republicans ran away from it.

[cowman]

33. Once again

if you think that will happen, see Post #28

[high_and_mighty]

34. How about addressing the important part.

Rifles of any kind are hardly used in crimes. What is the point in banning certain semiautomatic rifle configurations? Besides Heller puts a big road block on any possible new federal bans.

[PavePusher]

35. Whoooo-o-o-shhhhh..... n/t

[Glassunion]

36. Your post makes no sense...

To quote BenEzra...
"Rifle crime is lower than it has ever been."
Yet you want to ban them simply because of popularity.

That is like banning the Toyota Corolla because of global warming. It is the most popular car in the world. Using your logic, it would make sense to ban them to protect the environment. Right?
Pay no attention to the facts surrounding the Corolla, like the fact that it is a higher mileage vehicle.
I mean the goal is to reduce the "emissions" caused by the easy availability. Right? Why would anything but the most popular be targeted? It makes sense to go after the biggest targets. Right?

Your point you seem to be conveying is that you want to ban rifles that are barely used to cause bloodshed to stop the bloodshed.
That makes no sense.

[cowman]

39. Since when

have the gun controllers made sense?

[Glassunion]

40. When? I'll tell you when.

They admit they are wrong.

On: "Allowing people to carry guns for protection will lead to more violence and injuries."
Predictions of a return to the Wild West were also made. But honest public servants who initially opposed the law have stepped forth to admit they were wrong. John B. Holmes, Harris County's district attorney, said that he thought the legislation presented "a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless." And this from Glen White, president of the Dallas Police Association: "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. . . . I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

[cowman]

43. I stand corrected

to bad most of the shrill voices won't admit their mistake like, oh I don't know, the Brady Bunch or the VPC

BTW thank you for defending me against Calbluedem on another post about a week and 1/2 ago

[Glassunion]

52. You did not need defending...

That post from calbluedem was rightfully deleted by the mods. I just pointed out the obvious and apparent.

Thank you.

[benEzra]

42. If anyone wonders how the gun-control lobby maneuvered itself into irrelevance...

this mentality pretty much sums it up. Trying to fight criminal violence by attacking the lawful and nonviolent makes no sense. Trying to stop bloodshed by banning things that aren't significantly involved in that bloodshed makes no sense.

Of course, moral crusades like the AWB, or Prohibition, or the edicts of the Taliban have very little to do with making sense. They are faith-based crusades disconnected from reality.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Direct hit!

Of course, moral crusades like the AWB, or Prohibition, or the edicts of the Taliban have very little to do with making sense. They are faith-based crusades disconnected from reality.

The Prohibition Party is still around. Founded in 1869. They even have a web page: http://www.prohibition.org/ Talk about faith-based. It is a complete union of Party and their understanding of the Bible.

[PavePusher]

50. The poster is not interested in either gun- or crime-control.

S/he is obviously interested only in banning guns. Period.

I'm suprised no-one else has seen that yet....

[cabluedem]

87. Banning guns reduces gun deaths. Look at France and England. Very little death by guns. No toddlers

shooting their brothers or sisters either.

Gun control is coming, whether you like it or not. Its a public heath problem that will be dealt
with sooner or later, just like other laws to protect innocent people are passed.

[X_Digger]

88. I've stepped in puddles..

..deeper than the though you put into posts like these.

Care to look at the crime rate in the UK pre-ban and post-ban? If there were some connection between restrictive gun laws and violent crime, you should be able to show a drop in crime after the ban, yes?

Please, do find those numbers.

[cowman]

90. I've got a song for you

calbluedem, it goes something like this:

Fairy tales can come true
They can happen to you

But this fairy tale of yours will never come true, SCOTUS is about to stick a fork in your gun grabbing dream and good riddence

[cabluedem]

91. not going to happen. states rights remember?

[cowman]

92. I seem to remember

that the SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land, you really should learn the U.S. Constitution

[Mike K]

94. But you fail to consider the important fact that -

- this is not France or England. It is the United States, which was born with a gun in its hands.

The toothpaste is out of the tube where guns in the hands of contemporary American citizens is concerned. There are between 200 million and 300 million guns abroad in the U.S. Nobody knows for sure just how many, but far less than half are registered. So nothing short of aggressive door-to-door searches and forceful confiscation would significantly reduce that number.

I believe President Obama and the majority of legislators know this and thus are not motivated to start making waves with little hope of achieving a productive effect.

[hex29a]

53. Do you believe the problem of divorce can be addressed by banning gay marriage?

It's the same kind of logic...

[Glassunion]

55. Actually...

Using his logic gay marriage is ok however it has a twist.

Since monogamy is the most poular form of marriage, it is monogamy that should be banned.
Polygamy, polygyny and polyandry are ok as they are far less common. So a gay marriage, under those circumstances are ok... I think? Wait, what were talking about?

[eqfan592]

56. Wait, huh what???

I thought we were talking about the NCAA Tournament....what are YOU guys talking about? I'M SO CONFUSED! :(

[Glassunion]

57. Yeah!!!

Stoopid Kansas...

How do you lose to a 9 seed?! Really!?

[yodoobo]

61. ?

!

[benEzra]

73. Ostensibly addressing a problem by banning something unrelated to the problem.

e.g., "criminals who can't legally own guns are shooting people right and left with pistols and revolvers, so hey, let's ban rifle handgrips that stick out, that'll fix it!"

[eqfan592]

54. That's completely insane reasoning...

...and you'd see that if you actually look at the stats. The weapons banned under the AWB were NEVER a major crime issue, nor have they become one since the sunset of the ban.

It was a failed program in every way, shape and form. You want to fight crime? Then we need to devote our energy towards the causes of crime, like poor education and poverty, and STOP wasting our time going after any particular implement a criminal may use at any given time!

You're asking us to continue chasing our tails around in circles. Your proposal has been and will continue to be flatly rejected.

[Katya Mullethov]

32. + 1 ------ !!!1!!1!

Shout it from the rooftops ! Please .

[jazzhound]

95. Spoken like someone with absolutely no knowledge of the issue.

Bad enough that you're too lazy to research the most basic facts relating to gun control. You insist on speaking in an authoritative tone from this position of complete ignorance.

As so many have pointed out, the gun control fight is over. Support for gun control has been steadily dropping as the number of gun owners has been steadily increasing........and you're not aware of this most basic fact? Citizens vote their own interests, and now that the number of gun owners has risen so sharply you can kiss your dream of a gun-free America goodbye. In the run-up to the election when poll numbers were boding well for an Obama presidency 65% of gun sales were to first time owners -- up from an average of 25%.
Does this tell you ANYTHING?!

The Brady Bunch has cried wolf way too many times, and the American public has figured this out.

[Taitertots]

44. They are popular and infrequently used in crime

So basically you want to piss off a great deal of democrats for a negligible decrease in crime.


Why don't we reform the prison system or increase police enforcement? You know something that actually has a chance of making people's lives better.

[east texas lib]

60. Slow day?

:boring:

[-..__...]

62. You go girl!

The day that happens not only will I switch my party vote... I'll actively campaign and work for anyone but the dumb ass Democrat
that would support any such legislation.

I'm not too concerned about it though... Obama, Congress, the anti-gun contingent can try anything that tickles their fancy.

If it passes... it passes.

We'll just take the matter straight to the Supreme Court. Guess who will win?

:smoke:

Your pipe dream aside... the Prez and current Congress aren't that stupid or suicidal (with the exception of a few elected 'living in the past' dinosaurs), to actually subscribe to your line of wishful thinking.

I seriously doubt it will ever come down to that. But... if that's what you want, you have my blessings and best of luck with your
head in the clouds endeavor.

:thumbsup:

[SsevenN]

69. I see two possibilities..

The OP is "trolling" for hyperbolic, tin-foil hat responses from us gun owners, and has failed.

The OP is extremley naive and is supporting a cause, that has also failed.

Either way there's a whole lot of fail in the OP. ;)

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[jazzhound]

78. I've copied and saved the address of this thread........

...........as a classic example of the arrogance, childishness, self-centeredness, ignorance and stupidity of some members of the gun control crowd. Who gives a damn that the Democrats would be committing political suicide by attempting another go at the so called
"assault weapons" ban. I WANT WHAT I WANT WHEN I WANT IT!! Talk about two-year-olds..................

[slackmaster]

81. The anti-choice crowd is still stuck on stupid

You people LOST this one. Get over it.

[ileus]

86. It could be in the healthcare bill....

[spin]

89. It could be but it isn't bcause gun owners made sure ...

Score one for the Gun Owners of America, a lobby group positioned well to the right of the National Rifle Association. Last month I described how this fringe group zeroed in on a health reform provision encouraging insurers to reward healthy habits and, by implication, to punish unhealthy ones like smoking and obesity. GOA got it into its head that if health reform were passed, the health and human services secretary would compel insurers to punish gun ownership as an unhealthy lifestyle. Although an adverse health impact (or threat of same) on man or beast is pretty much the whole point of owning a gun, nothing in the bill remotely suggested Congress wanted to wade into these politically treacherous shoals.

Nonetheless, to pacify GOA, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who represents the gun-loving state of Nevada) has inserted into his "manager's amendment" a section titled "Protecting 2nd Amendment Gun Rights." It states that no wellness program implemented under health reform may require disclosure or collection of any information relating to gun ownership. Since collecting information about gun ownership was the last thing health reformers wanted to do, this concession represents no particular sacrifice on the government's part.

But gun owners also won another provision forbidding private insurers participating in the bill's exchanges from charging higher premiums, or denying coverage, or denying wellness discounts on the basis of gun ownership. Unlike the previous section, this one doesn't place a restriction on what government may do. It places a restriction on what the private sector may choose to do on its own. It inhibits that most holy of right-wing sacred cows: free enteprise.
http://www.slate.com/id/2239294/#add-comment