When will Congress make its first serious push for another semi-auto ban...

[asdf2231]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4770741

derby378  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-05-09 02:54 PM
Original message
Poll question: When will Congress make its first serious push for another semi-auto ban, if at all?
 This is regardless if the proposed ban passes or fails. I'm just looking for the first real attempt to ban or restrict civilian ownership of rifles considered to be "non-sporting."

Poll result (56 votes) 
Within Obama's first 100 days in office  (5 votes, 9%) Vote
Within a year  (1 votes, 2%) Vote
Before the mid-term elections in 2010  (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Sometime during Obama's first term  (2 votes, 4%) Vote
Sometime during Obama's second term, pending re-election  (1 votes, 2%) Vote
Unlikely to make it out of committee at all  (46 votes, 82%) Vote
Other (please share)  (1 votes, 2%)

smiley_glad_hands (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Another cosmetic ban is a waste of time and just pisses off legal gun owners. eom

MajorChode  (176 posts)      Tue Jan-06-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
61. How is a semi-auto ban "cosmetic"?
 I don't follow that logic.

I'm not saying a semi-auto ban is or isn't the way to go, but the fact is the majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws. So if it pisses off gun owners, let them be pissed.

The problem that those who advocate more restrictive gun laws is not prevailing public opinion, it's simply a failure of marketing. They have allowed the gunnuts to falsely allege that the Democrats are going after their hunting rifles. The results have been even more gunnut laws like concealed carry and make my day, as if all we need to protect us from the gunnuts are more gunnuts.

The gun control lobby's attempts at correcting the record are pathetic and the result has been the exact opposite of their goals. I say they should go on the offensive and start telling the stories of all the thousands of kids that are killed each year because the NRA won't tolerate common sense initiatives.

Statistical (524 posts)      Tue Jan-06-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. How is banning "scary looking guns" common sense regulation
 Edited on Tue Jan-06-09 01:14 AM by Statistical
You are aware the AWB banned weapons based on looks right.




The top one was legal under the AWB.
The bottom one was illegal under the AWB.
The "pistol" grip on the 2nd rifle was one two many "scary looking" items that made it illegal.

Same caliber.
Same rate of fire
Same capacity
Same effective range
Same operating mechanism.

One illegal. The other legal.

The dems lost control of Congress over that piece of shit of a law and people are ready to go for round 2.

MajorChode  (176 posts)      Tue Jan-06-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. Your point is?
 You are aware the AWB banned weapons based on looks right.

What does that have to do with semi-auto being "cosmetic"?

You are aware that semi-auto concerns the gun's function and not appearance, right?

 

derby378  (1000+ posts)        Tue Jan-06-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #61
68. "the majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws"
 If the majority of Americans favored suspension of habeas corpus, unrestricted snooping of your phone calls, or torturing American citizens to obtain confessions, I'm sure you'd stand up to them and tell them that the law is the law. Simple.

pending (504 posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. So? They don't vote Democratic anyway.
 At least not as a block.

Oh sure I know a few vocal minority do and no doubt they will be joining the thread soon.

But the fact is, we don't need them to win.

 

napi21  (1000+ posts)        Tue Jan-06-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
62. SOMEBODY must destroy the idea that all Dems want to take away your guns!
 I'm now 65, but I remember my (at the time) future FIL ranting about electing a Dem will permit the feds to go house to house and confiscate all our guns! He and his whole family were avid hunters, and I THINK the NRA started this BS years before that! People still believe that...even after all these years of it not happening. If Obama steps into this quagmire, all it will do is confirm to the gun owners that all Dems are against them.

pending (504 posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. Certainly hope so.
 Edited on Mon Jan-05-09 03:23 PM by pending
The financial and health care crisis should come first, but this issue should be addressed soon.

Everyday that this goes unaddressed, people are dying.

The next AWB should be more than just a cosmetic ban though. The last one was way to easy for manufacturers and owners to evade. Owners continued to trade them and manufacturers just made small changes.

The next awb should end all trading in these weapons, provide for buyback programs, or if owners prefer a registration system be setup similar to what was done in the 1980's with fully automatic weapons. (whereby the registry is closed after a year or two, and all awb's are limited to police and military only unless they are on the registry)

derby378  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-05-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. What is your justification for this, though?
 Far more Americans have been killed by the criminal misuse of handguns than by rifles or shotguns of any kind.

As for registering automatic weapons, that's been done since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The 80's legislation you speak of halted all new sales of automatic weapons to civilians, just like the 1994 ban on semi-automatics. Google "Firearms Owners Protection Act" for more information.

You say that the next ban should be more than a cosmetic ban. What sort of functionality would you want a new ban to address?

TheWraith  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. What exactly are you proposing banning, pray tell? nt

 

pending (504 posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Well its not my proposal. 
 Its on the Democratic platform and I fully support it.

The improvements that I discussed are improvements I'd like to see.

Obama is pretty smart, with the next AWB ban, I don't expect that he'll repeats the mistakes that made the last AWB ineffective and ultimately expire.

TheWraith  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Well, I'd like an answer. What are you supporting a ban on?
 What changes to the AWB are you suggesting? You don't specify what you'd support banning. How do you define "assault weapons"? If it's clip size, how do you avoid manufacturers reissuing the same models with smaller clips? I'm looking for an expansion on your views.

 

pending (504 posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. assault weaponry of course
 The 1994 AWB is a reasonable starting point.

Refine it to weapons capable of acceptable magazines more than 10 rounds and semi-automatic.

Remove the expiration date and loophole of "manufactured before 20xx" and we're well on track toward and effective law that will saves lives.

While that may snare a few non-assault weapons as well, that's a reasonable price to pay for the lives saved and frankly, if manufacturers are skirting that close to the edges, I really don't care if they get caught up.

pending (504 posts)      Mon Jan-05-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Rest assured, I'm not writing policy
 Edited on Mon Jan-05-09 07:27 PM by pending
I'm quite sure that Obama will employ people with expertise in firearms and writing legislation to make this work.

And besides, if we take 90% of the guns off the street, that still leaves millions in circulation. Plenty for the gun lovin folks to collect, hunt with and fondle.

 







 

[Tantal]

I hate Dummie threads like these. It makes me want to go load magazines.

[Bondai]

All I know is I will not comply with any registration law, period.

[JohnnyReb]

I hate Dummies threads like these. It make me want to go load magazines.

It makes me want to unload them......

[jukin]

NO WAY!!

Obama said he was for gun rights......and he wold never lie just to get elected.

[Airwolf]

They lie.they lie all the time. I wouldn't put it past them to start this in the first term at the least.

[BlueStateSaint]

They lie.they lie all the time. I wouldn't put it past them to start this in the first term at the least.

It might be late in the term, but it'll be in the term.

If enough gun owners are pissed about this, maybe President Palin can reverse it in 2013. 

Besides, even though the Dems wouldn't obey this, I thought the Heller decision put the onus onto the states for stuff like this.  I'm probably wrong.

[NHSparky]

Molon Labe, mother****ers.

[BlueStateSaint]

Molon Labe, mother****ers.

I would think that the proper ettiquite for this would be shooting at them, true, but doing it while smiling.  I've heard that one can get away with a whole buttload, if one has a smile on their face while doing it.

While I don't smoke (a thing), I would think that one could enlist the services (and "attentions") of tobacco smokers during this, as those would be the next in line to be "supressed."

[docstew]

Refine it to weapons capable of acceptable magazines more than 10 rounds and semi-automatic.

because it's the eleventh bullet that's the deadly one...  retard