Reviving the Assault-Weapons Ban.

[Occam Bandage]

[tekisui]

1. I was just going to post a poll, with one choice 'the third rail'.

[MADem]

2. As written, or with grandfathered provisions? nt

[Unsane]

3. When was the last time you were killed by an assault weapon?

c'mon

[Occam Bandage]

4. Twice last week. Totally sucked.

[grantcart]

7. my cousin happened to have the day off when his hospital was attacked

by a guy with an assault weapon.


The result was 2 Doctors dead, 2 nurses dead and 22 wounded, including all 4 members of this family http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950619&slug=2127198



http://www.kxly920.com/Global/story.asp?S=8368881

FAIRCHILD AFB -- Nearly 14 years ago a former airman opened fire at the Fairchild Air Force Base hospital killing five people and injuring dozens of others. The carnage could have been worse had Andy Brown not stepped in to stop the shooting rampage.

Many consider Brown a hero but the former Air Force security policeman says he was just doing his job to serve and protect the Fairchild community.

Since 1994 Brown has left the Air Force, got married and is raising a family but that June day when Mellberg opened fire at the hospital continues to race through Andy Brown's mind.

"I used to think about them almost every hour. It's a lot less now ... every day now," he said.

Andy Brown likely has the most vivid memories of the shooting spree at Fairchild Air Force Base on June 20th, 1994.

"Pretty vivid visions, I don't think that will ever go away," he said.

At the time it was described as a war zone. Former Airman Dean Mellberg, angry that he had just been discharged from the Air Force after a series of psychological evaluations found him unfit to serve.

Armed with a MAK-90 rifle, Mellberg went to the offices shared by the two doctors who had found him unfit for service - Major Thomas Brigham and Captain Alan London - and fired two bursts of gunfire at them, killing them both.





The real question is why anyone would want to own one of these weapons because they are not suitable for either home protection or hunting.

[ieoeja]

10. At an Air Force base? Are you seriously suggesting we ban assault weapons from our military? n/t

[grantcart]

13. He was attacked by a civilian who got the assault weapon off base.

He was discharged from the Air Force for mental instability went do California bought an assault weapon, bought the kit to make it fully automatic and then returned to the Air Force Base to kill the doctors and as many others as he could.

Had it been a civilian facility he would have killed hundreds before he was shot.

Consider that even at Air Force base that is brimmming with weaponry somebody can shoot 26 people before an armed guard (on a bycicle) can be mobilized to stop him.

We were lucky that he decided to attack a military installation because had it been a civilian one he could have gotten off hundreds of shots a minute.

[Egnever]

24. Why do people want to own lots of things?

I would also disagree that they are not suitable for home protection. Intimidation factor alone is something they are good for.


I am not a gun owner nor will i likely ever be however, I do want the right to get one if situations in this country change and I feel a need for one.

People do bad things with guns and more powerful ones cause more damage to be sure but that does not in my mind equate to depriving all people of your particular bad weapon of choice.

I understand the rational that we can save lives by banning things but in the end that leaves us all living in a rubber room being fed through a slot for hundreds of years. I'll pass on that. Life is dangerous and tragedy will happen. someone intent on doing harm will find a way to do it. Tim mcveigh killed lots of people with poop. Does that mean we should ban poop?

[ZombieHorde]

26. " because they are not suitable for either home protection or hunting."

My zombie movies aren't suitable for those activities as well.

[greguganus]

51. Ban zombie movies! n/t

[benEzra]

31. They are indeed suitable both for home protection and hunting,

and dominate competitive and recreational target shooting in the United States. I shoot IPSC/USPSA style carbine matches with my SAR-1, and if I ever take up deer hunting, it will be with that carbine.

[cliffordu]

41. Damn. Sorry about your cousin.

There's no accounting for crazy, grantcart.

[grantcart]

57. he wasn't wounded. His son was sick and he stayed home that day.

All of his colleagues including the doctor that replaced him were wounded.

One family that was visiting as patients had all four of its members severely wounded.

With other weapons readily available that are much better suited for home protection or hunting I am just amazed that some people will defend the right to sell weapons, whether or not they are technically 'automatic', that can discharge dozens of rounds a minute and multiple clips. The perspectives are so far apart that any discussion really is a waste of time.

[cliffordu]

58. No - I'm sorry that he had to be even THAT close to something like that....

I have no defense of my views on these things except to quote myself from another post:

"My whole thing is that murder is entertainment here in the USA. We fucking love it.

Video games, movies, the tee vee.....

To blame all this on guns is kinda disengenuous.

Maybe guns are just a symptom.

It's about making it morally unacceptable to take a life.

If it were truly morally unnacceptable to kill your family while they sleep, guns wouldn't matter one way or the other.

But I guess when imagination fails we can always ban plants that grow along the side of the road, or ban hardware who's original intention and justification lay forgotten in the past.

Like a concience. Or civic duty. Or thrift and honesty."

[cliffordu]

59. ...And I'm not calling you disengenuous...I was just quoting my other post....

(sorry)

:hi:

[iamthebandfanman]

48. shitty logic.

so i guess because ive never personally been killed by a tornado or an earthquake they dont exsist and it never happens either...

[anonymous171]

5. Terrible idea. It's a waste of political capital. nt

[jody]

6. Sad but many DUers think an "assault weapon" is an automatic firearm when in fact it's semiautomatic...

Their ignorance will lead to biased results for your poll.

[DevonRex]

25. I agree there needs to be more education on what the terms mean.

[Exilednight]

33. I would prefer a ban on all weapons ..........

People can argue it any way they want, but countries with complete, to near complete bans on guns have much lower violent crime per capita.

[cliffordu]

42. I believe if you took all the guns away tomorrow the death rate from homicide

in THIS country would hardly hiccup.

Fact is, we Americans just fucking love killing each other. We really do.

[iamthebandfanman]

50. youre right, we should just legalize murder

since people arent going to stop doing it.



...

sorry but this isnt like drugs, the case of 'people will do it anyway' really isnt a valid ration train of thought when talking about the subject of guns or human bloodlust...


its true and always will be true that guns dont kill people, people kill people... but that doesnt mean we gotta make it easier for them to do it.

[cliffordu]

53. Not what I was saying.

My whole thing is that murder is entertainment here in the USA. We fucking love it.

Video games, movies, the tee vee.....

To blame all this on guns is kinda disengenuous.

Maybe guns are just a symptom.

It's about making it morally unacceptable to take a life.

If it were truly morally unnacceptable to kill your family while they sleep, guns wouldn't matter one way or the other.

But I guess when imagination fails we can always ban plants that grow along the side of the road, or ban hardware who's original intention and justification lay forgotten in the past.

Like a concience. Or civic duty. Or thrift and honesty.

[Exilednight]

62. This is the same argument that repugs use against universal health care ...........

They refuse to accept the fact that it actually works in other countries - but facts are facts.

Outlaw guns and the death and violent crime rate will decline. It's been proven to work throughout the world. You think Japan doesn't watch the same movies, play the same video games, or listen to the same music?

In fact, I've played some Japanese video games that are so violent that it makes several games here in the United States look like a trip to Disney Land.

[cliffordu]

75. The homicide rate in Japan

(and all the other civilized countries you might mention) NEVER reached the levels we have always had.

Murder is how the west was won. We like it.

And it's a chickenshit argument to compare any stance I may have on this matter to repubs.

It's the ruse of those who run weak, incomplete and disengenuous "facts" to support thier arguments.

So, you run along now and come back when you have a stance that is at least consistent with reality.

[Exilednight]

76. "any stance I may have on this matter to repubs. "

If the shoe fits, freep around in it.

Do yourself a favor, check out a history book from the turn of the century and tell me who had a higher crime rate during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Here's a little hint, it wasn't the United States - yet they somehow managed to bring things under control.

I refuse to accept the argument that "it always has been and always will be". That's for people who cling to guns and religion.

[cliffordu]

81. We aren't talking about overall crime rates, little one.

We are talking about gun homicides. And banning firearms.

Why don't YOU get out your trusty history books and show me a country who has had all their firearms taken and then went on to sing kum-bye-ya and act as peaceful as the Danes.

A concrete example of the sociological transformation we KNOW will take place when the guns are all gone.

:rofl:

This isn't about guns at all. It's about the character of a nation that loves violence and murders one another over stupid shit like sexual indiscretion and lawn shears.

It's unfortunate, really. You seem to have a fine vocabulary and a rudimentary ability to write. Recycling psuedo-insults from the campaign and name calling would seem to be beneath you, but first impressions can be deceiving.

Buhbye!!

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Also it would be impossible to take all the guns away. Too many out there.

It would be like trying to get toothpaste back in the tube.

[iamthebandfanman]

49. why do u need more than a rifle or hand gun?

what the fuck kind of game are you huntin ?


i dont think the person was thinking of animals when they came up with the term 'assault weapon', last time i checked only people get 'assaulted'.

[slackmaster]

78. Assault weapons WERE rifles, handguns and shotguns with specific features

The category of AWs consisted of subsets of the three long-defined classes of firearms not regulated under the National Firearms Act.

[bluestateguy]

8. See this map?

You want to keep North Carolina and Virginia blue in 2012?

Leave it alone.

[Occam Bandage]

9. I'd add Ind., Colo, and Fla.

[FudaFuda]

18. Ohio and PA too, Especially Ohio. n/t

.

[Yukari Yakumo]

30. And...

If they want to make the effort, they could flip Montana blue.

But they can forget about that if they even try to push the AWB through.

[slackmaster]

80. I'd add Tennessee to that list - It's red and going to stay that way largely because of gun issues

It's Al Gore's home state, and he didn't even carry it in the 2000 election.

[fujiyama]

19. End up having some trouble in a few others as well

OH, NM, NV...We could go on.

Why start this up again? Obama outlined it pretty well the other day - Jobs, Health Care, Energy...Stick those issues, and we'll be OK.

Pelosi is smart and I think she likes being majority leader a hell of a lot better than MINORITY leader!

[Phoonzang]

11. Not a battle we need to be fighting right now. nt

[Parker CA]

12. This just doesn't make sense right now. Here's what I think.

Obama may never have intended to institute this ban at all. Such a ban coming right now seems very random and makes not a whole lot of sense to me. Why would he purposely derail his forward progress and momentum in hist first 100 days with such a hot-button issue that the GOP loves to preach about and which has the potential to be a sure loss if pursued?

A couple things to note. The WH has not made any public statement on this, rather, Holder is the person who brought it up, has put the issue into the public arena, and who stated that Obama has not yet decided on a firm ruling due to the amount of issues on his desk. That makes perfect sense, he doesn't need to meddle in this right now. But, if this is somewhat of a preemptive tactic to create a publicly perceived rift between the WH and Holder/Justice Dept. then it does makes sense.

Obama may benefit from having some distance, real or perceived between he and Holder when it comes to sensitive issues such as torture charges, previous administration crimes, and issues down the road where Obama will have a tough time playing the bad-cop and would greatly benefit from being able to remain at arm's length or further from the decision makers in these cases.

The fact that Pelosi was not consulted on such a big issue is a sign to me that this could be a tactic orchestrated amongst only a few behind the curtains. Holder can distance himself a bit from both Pelosi and the WH and move forward with any issue posing potental GOP backlash without entangling Obama and the Dem congress in the mess more than what will be absolutely necessary.

The timing of this is very suspect to me and makes zero sense, unless, like the GOP has done many times, the Obama administration is using some smoke and mirrors to achieve multiple goals at once, the largest, regarding public perception, being that Obama has truly measured the public temperature on this issue and decided to compromise and go against what the administration iniitially suggested it would do. This also puts Pelosi in a position of being able to publicly support a very controversial issue for the GOP and may stem some further commentary that she is tied to the hip of Obama in her decision making process.

[Paladin]

46. Well Said, Parker CA. The Whole Thing Just Doesn't Feel Right.

I think Mr. Holder had another shoot-from-the-lip (you should pardon the expression)moment. I can't imagine that the Obama administration wants to wade into the whole guns thing at this point, not when there are so many critical tasks to be accomplished.

That's not going to stop our resident gun obsessives from shrieking about this for the foreseeable future. Holder's statement is wish fulfillment for them---they can get back to seriously trashing the Democratic Party. 24/7.....

[slackmaster]

52. I think you nailed it, Parker CA

The "Trial Balloon" was one of Ronald Reagan's favorite strategies.

So was the "Sacrificial Lamb". Obama has already had a few of those too.

[grantcart]

14. Are you crazy?

We can only talk about these issues after some nut job grabs an automatic and shoots 26 people.

Yes it happened before (see example upthread).

But we are in the "it will never happen again stage".

Wait for a massive tragedy and then rerun the poll.

[slackmaster]

15. And if you do that, I'll be one of the first to point out the fact

That the AW ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons.

[grantcart]

21. Is the MAK 90 (also known as an AK 47) an "automatic weapon"

Can it be easily converted to an "automatic weapon" ?


Is there any legitimate reason anyone would need this for hunting or home protection?


Pictured here:



http://www.ak-47.us/MAK-90.php


I am curious because my family was involved in an incident where a MAK 90 was used to shoot 26 people. Afterward our Congressman who was a lifetime member of the NRA came out against allowing automatic weapons (or easily converted semi automatic - if we are quibling about definitions here). Despite that fact that he supported everything else the NRA stood for the NRA poured in millions of dollars in completely bogus ads (none of which had anything to do with guns) to narrowly defeat our congressman, Speaker of the House Tom Foley.

Details of the incident here: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950619&slug=2127198

[slackmaster]

23. No, it's semiautomatic and cannot be easily converted to automatic

The BATFE has a standard for that - Any firearm that can be converted to automatic by a gunsmith in under 8 hours can be considered automatic for regulatory purposes. They wouldn't allow it to be manufactured or imported.

Most people don't have any kind of gunsmithing or machine work skills.

Is there any legitimate reason anyone would need this for hunting or home protection?

Sure, why not?

[benEzra]

37. The pictured rifle is functionally identical to this small deer rifle:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5806&return=Y

That's a Ruger Mini Thirty, a lightweight hunting and utility carbine. Same caliber as the MAK-90 (7.62x39mm), about half as powerful as the more common .30-06 deer rifle. Same rate of fire (NON-automatic; one and only one shot per trigger pull). Same difficulty to convert to full auto (difficult). Same range of magazine capacities. Same effective range. Same accuracy. Same legitimate uses.

FWIW, I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC/USPSA) with a European carbine similar to the MAK-90 (a Romanian SAR-1):




My carbine in NC-legal hunting configuration (4x scope, 5-round hunting magazine):




Like the MAK-90 and the Mini Thirty (and every other U.S. legal NFA Title 1 rifle), my rifle is non-automatic and is made to be difficult to convert to fire automatically.

Neither a MAK-90 nor a SAR-1 is a real AK-47; they are non-automatic civilian-only derivatives, used by no military on this planet.

[cliffordu]

43. Grantcart -There's no accounting for crazy.

A motiviated nut will find a way to inflict his pain on as many people as possible.

Charles whitman killed 14 and wounded 32 others with a single shot rifle.

George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck into a Luby's Cafeteria and shot and killed 23 people, wounded another 20 and then committed suicide by shooting himself.

He used a pistol with large capacity magazines.....

[doc03]

38. Automatics were outlawed in 1934 I believe n/t

[RamboLiberal]

65. Charles Whitman killed 14 in 1966 with a hunting rifle

Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others as part of a shooting rampage on and around the campus of the University of Texas at Austin. Three were killed inside the University's tower and ten killed from the observation deck of the University's 32-story administrative building on August 1, 1966; one died a week later from her wounds. He did this shortly after murdering his wife and mother at their homes. He was eventually shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Houston McCoy.

Whitman rented a dolly from Austin Rental Company and cashed $250 worth of checks at the bank before returning to Davis' Hardware and purchasing an M1 Carbine, explaining that he wanted to go hunting for wild hogs. He also went to Sears and purchased a shotgun and a green rifle case. After sawing off the shotgun barrel while chatting with postman Chester Arrington, Whitman packed it together with a Remington 700 6 mm bolt-action hunting rifle with a 4x Leupold Scope, an M1 Carbine, a Remington 35 caliber pump rifle, three pistols, and various other equipment stowed between a wooden crate and his Marine footlocker. Before heading to the tower, he put khaki coveralls on over his shirt and jeans and under a green jacket. Once in the tower, he also donned a white sweatband.

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

The AWB was "feel-good" legislation that did very little to stop crime with guns or rampages by killers. While the AWB was in effect we had the Westside Middle School Shooting in Jonesboro, AR, the Columbine school shootings in CO, the North Hollywood Bank Shootout, and many other crimes.

[depakid]

16. People probably ought to separate the idea from the politics and the timing

[blueclown]

17. How about we discuss this proposed legislation based on its merits?

Rather than discuss it based on the political consequences?

This is not the 90s anymore, people. Times change.

[slackmaster]

20. OK, here's my opinion of its merits

The old ban did no good whatsoever. Since Holder didn't specify otherwise, I have to assume that is what he was talking about. It's pretty cut and dried what the actual results were:

1. It created widespread interest in the banned weapons. Many people are attracted to that which is forbidden.

2. It led to the development by gun manufacturers of weapons that complied with the letter of the ban, so could be sold without restriction. Numerous new models were put on the market, and many new companies were created to met the RISING demand for military-looking firearms.

3. It did not reduce violent crime in any measurable way.

4. It radicalized gun owners. They have taken it to the Web, and are very well tuned in to any talk of proposed legislation.

5. It caused NRA membership to peak at something close to 4 million.

All in all I'd call that a spectacular failure. There is no reason to believe that repeating it would have any better results.

[FudaFuda]

27. Also a catalyst for legal concealed carry

Pistol magazines were limited to 10 rounds, so manufacturers started making them only as big as necessary to hold the maximum 10. Result - tiny, easily concealed weapons.

In my opinion, that's a good thing. Most, if not all, states that have shall-issue CCW permits have seen a reduction in violent crime. But if you're opposed to CCW, then remember it was the 94 AWB that in large part made the CCW-craze happen.

[ieoeja]

29. Of course...

Most, if not all, states that do *not* have shall-issue CCW permits have seen a reduction in violent crime as well.

[cliffordu]

44. DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

Exactly.

[benEzra]

35. OK...

How about we discuss this proposed legislation based on its merits?

Rather than discuss it based on the political consequences?

This is not the 90s anymore, people. Times change.

You're right, it's no longer the '90s. And support for new gun bans is lower now than it was then, and modern-looking rifles are an order of magnitude more common now than they were then.

But let's look at the merits.

Only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle, and of those that do, rifle stock shape, muzzle style, etc. do not affect lethality. Even if you passed a ban so draconian that it would outlaw protruding handgrips, thumbhole stocks, etc. completely, you would not change a darn thing with regard to already-rare rifle violence.

FWIW, here's what the idiotic 1994 Feinstein law did:



Red circled changes are the only differences between this ban-era carbine (2002 model) and a pre-1994 or post-2004 carbine.

Tell me, were the temporary 1994 restrictions on muzzle accessories, adjustable stocks, etc. (on new rifles only), and raising the price on full-capacity magazines (for new handguns only), worth the health care crisis, the economic crisis, and the Iraq War? I say no. The merits simply are not there.

[RamboLiberal]

69. DU is pleasantly suprising the heck out of me

The AWB doesn't even have much support here, that tells me that Dems should stay away from this one for sure.

[slackmaster]

79. I'm encouraged by it too, RamboLiberal

15 years of fighting the ridiculous propaganda finally seems to be paying off.

[cherish44]

22. The right is already shaking with batshit crazy rage

Anything perceived as anti-gun right now will officially cause a nationwide code brown and make things even worse. To quote the Beatles, "Let It Be" I'll risk the minuscule chance of getting shot up by an assault weapon to keep Democratic control.

[ACTION BASTARD]

28. This is a useless talking point that Dems need to stop giving the 'Cons.

Leave our guns alone already.

[scrinmaster]

32. Stupid idea.

[Uzybone]

34. Personally I wouldn't mind if all guns were banned

but my personal wishes would be unconstitutional and I kind of understand why some people love the guns so forget about that. People have the right to have em so unless the constitution is amended they should be free to have them.

With the statement from Pelosi is seem to me that this is nothing but a trail balloon to placate some people on the left who want the ban, but nothing will be enacted on that front. On a political level, we should leave the AWB issue alone.


"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.


“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

[RamboLiberal]

66. Holder IMHO put his foot in his mouth even trotting this out

Then he made it worse by adding Mexico in to the equation. That's sure pouring gasoline on the fire.

"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4831751.shtml

I know I felt like pounding my head into my desk when I heard that. The RW gun owners are already out there buying up guns and ammo cause they are scared that Obama will ban their guns and ammo. Holder just gave them a full case of rhetorical ammo.

[democrattotheend]

36. Bad idea politically

I have mixed feelings about the ban as policy but politically I think it's a terrible idea to pick a fight on gun control. Most people support sensible gun control laws but the people who care enough to vote on the issue are the ones who don't.

[mvd]

73. I'd personally like a gunless society (won't happen here,) but are are many pro-gun Democrats

We have to be careful on this issue.

[doc03]

39. Do you people realize the threat of reinstituting

the AWB has already caused a buying frenzy for any gun that may be considered an assault weapon including any semi-automatic pistol. It is also the NRA's greatest recruiting tool for new members. Also many people are now regretting their vote for Obama since this issue has already come up. I am going to buy a Springfield XD myself before the gun grabbers outlaw them.

[cliffordu]

54. I looked at a Ruger .22 just yesterday.

Nothing to do with the ban, I'm thinking about getting one, that's all....heh.

[doc03]

61. Any gun dealer will tell you semi auto handguns and

any gun that could even remotely be considered an assault weapon are selling as fast as they get them in. I was telling people all along that Obama had no interest in taking their guns away. It appears that there certainly are some Democrats that are still dead set on taking away our rights. I just hope Obama is smart enough to nip this BS in the bud or 2010 will be a replay of 1994. I may even rejoin the NRA if he doesn't stop this BS.

[Baikonour]

40. The "assault-weapons ban" is one of the many republican myths they use against us.

When you actually ask most dems, they don't support the ban. Yet repukes act like we're going to go house to house collecting guns.

:crazy:

[doc03]

64. It is not a myth it was done before, every time

we get a foot in the door we have some on the loony left that start this shit. The gun dealers and NRA should thank us their gun sales and new NRA members we are the greatest money maker they have.

[RamboLiberal]

68. You betcha that Wayne LaPierre and a bunch of gun manufacturers

were wearing big grins when they heard this from Holder. He just helped recession-proof the gun industry.

[doc03]

70. A small dealer told me a couple days ago

he is selling 10 to 12 guns a day (mostly semi-auto pistols) in the last few weeks, he is enjoying the boom now but fears he will be put out of business soon. The sad thing is I think other than the gun issue he is a Democrat. I mentioned to him about a local guy strangling his wife and son then shooting himself. He said he blames the lack of health care not any gun. He said himself he pays over $2000 a month for health insurance. It's a Catch 22 for him, if a Democrat gets elected he loses his business if a Republican gets elected he won't ever get health care.

[old mark]

45. I am a lifelong Democrat, and I own several of what many here would

term "assault weapons." I enjoy shooting and just having them, and I find it ridiculous that anyone would vehemently object to my having them in my home, constitutional rights aside.
If you don't like or understand firearms and done want any around, by all means, don't buy any, but don't try to run my life for me.

My brother in law owns a Corvette, which I think is a ridiculous waste of money, but it is his money to waste, and not my business how he chooses to spend it.

mark

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

47. Not a gun fan but bullshit laws endanger our whole system

And the assault weapons ban is major league bullshit.

If I hear "semi-automatic" used one more time as a phrase of fear I'll shoot myself... except I don't have a gun.

[cliffordu]

55. I have a rubber band gun.....

[ccharles000]

56. A great idea.

[scrinmaster]

85. Can you explain why?

[deadlyaj]

60. from my cold dead hands

its a fail issue and dems need to stay away from it. Give no ammo to the right

[billyoc]

63. Bunk humping stupid.

[mvd]

67. Not a good idea at this time.

With Obama's attention on so many other things, his message might get lost in spin that makes him out to take away all guns. I also wouldn't bring back the ban as previously constructed.

[dcindian]

72. It is a fantastic Idea.

The right wing wackos already on their heals will lose focus and once again distance themselves from the typical American.

Making it easier to get this country back on track.


Hunter.

[benEzra]

77. Yeah, just like it did in 1994.

Oh, wait, it didn't.

Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies. 80% are nonhunters. And the most popular civilian rifles in America are the ones the fearmongers call "assault weapons."

Bad idea...

[Oldenuff]

74. No to the AWB.

nt

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

82. Bad idea. I'm not sure Obama would sign it anyway.

Gun control, unfortunately, is a losing issue for the dems. Any effort to impose more regulations on guns is quickly and effectively organized against by the NRA and the republic party. Rural, working class folks, who dems have had trouble attracting(this issue being a main reason), belong to and listen to the NRA. It's pretty much that simple.

With so many guns on the street already I think the best way to mitigate the problem is to seriously enforce and bump up the penalties for using a gun in a crime and possessing an illegal gun. If you use a gun in a crime, you basically go to jail for 20 - life. An AWB would probably effect the gun owners(rural hunters with rifles) who really aren't the problem.

[Jennicut]

83. I have mixed feelings on it. I don't like anything about guns

which is kind of ironic considering I live in CT where Samuel Colt first invented the revolver. I have had a person close to me die from the stupidity of playing around with a gun like its a toy. I dislike the level of love and obsession some people have for their "babies"- their guns. Kind of sick to have an obsession with something that's main function is to kill people or animals with. That is just how I feel. Of course, like others said Americans love their violence, real or made up. And I am not stupid and know that outside of the west and east coasts the rest of the country loves their guns. I really think Holder was just talking hypotheticals and Obama knows he has way more important things to do right now then waste political capital on something that is not popular with even many Dems. Not a good thing to take up right now imo.

[Numba6]

84. The party tacticians like Emmanuel, Begala, Carville, the Clintons, etc.

all blame the Brady Bill for losing Congress in 1994.

So I doubt if the powers-that-be in Congress are going to move very far on this issue.

Just sayin'