Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

@maporsche,

Had any sort of a look at the FNAR??

Some good news coming out of the Senate/House regarding firearms. I'm pleased to see that Pelosi showed some sense.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/senate-votes-to.html?csp=34

Senate votes to ease D.C. gun access; Pelosi nixes assault-weapons ban

As part of its vote to grant the District of Columbia a vote in Congress, the Senate also approved giving the capital's residents far greater access to firearms, including semiautomatic weapons. The 62-36 vote comes eight months after the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the district's 32-year ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The measure now must be reconciled with the House.

The legislation's sponsor, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the district "has attempted to subvert what the Supreme Court did by putting very burdensome types of laws to make it more and more difficult for district residents to own a gun to be able to protect themselves in their own homes."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has fought for a ban on assault weapons, denounced the move.

"I believe it will lead to more weapons and more violence on the streets of the nation's capital. It will endanger the citizens of the district and government employees who work here, our elected officials and those who visit this great American capital," she said.

Feinstein called it a "first new step" by the pro-gun lobby "to remove all commonsense gun regulations" from the country. "How deep have we sunk in catering to these interests. For shame."

Today's vote came a day after Attorney General Eric Holder raised the possibility that the Obama administration would push to bring back the ban on assault weapons. But Feinstein's San Francisco neighbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shot down that notion today, The Hill reports.

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

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

No, I haven't. I'll take a look tonight.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Well good, if even Pelosi - a quite liberal member of the house - is against it, it seems very unlikely that action will move forward.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Today's vote came a day after Attorney General Eric Holder raised the possibility that the Obama administration would push to bring back the ban on assault weapons. But Feinstein's San Francisco neighbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shot down that notion today, The Hill reports.

Nancy Pelosi said that?

Probably waiting till Obama has a chance to pack the Supreme Court.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Today's vote came a day after Attorney General Eric Holder raised the possibility that the Obama administration would push to bring back the ban on assault weapons. But Feinstein's San Francisco neighbor, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shot down that notion today, The Hill reports.

Nancy Pelosi said that?

Probably waiting till Obama has a chance to pack the Supreme Court.

When do you think that's gonna happen? The old ones on the court are all liberals.

Bush, that ******* ******, put in Alito and Roberts, who will be there for the next 30 years...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bush, that ******* ******,...

made me laugh

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:
No, I'm not surprised. I'm disapointed.

I think Cyclops, George, and others must sure be surprised though. When I brought up these concerns before I voted for Obama I was pretty much called a idiot because there was no way Obama would do this, or take this political risk.

Well, I hate to say I told you (them) so.

I am surprised, as I didn't think he was going to do this. And I still don't think that it will come to fruition.

But unlike you I would be happy to see the ban pass. Why? Because people don't need ******* assault rifles, that's why. I support it the same way I support a grenade ban or a bazooka ban. It has no real application in modern life and can lead to considerable trouble.

Cycloptichorn

What does "need" have to do with this?

The only real difference between an assault weapon and a non-assault weapon is the pistol grip, flash suppressor, and in some cases a folding stock. Sell the exact same gun without those things and it is no longer considered an assault weapon.

Does the government have any compelling reason to ban such things? If not, people have the right to have them according to the strict scrutiny standard that the Supreme Court applied to the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

@NickFun,

NickFun wrote:

Someone please tell me what an AR15 can do that a standard hunting rifle can't? You can use a handgun at home and a rifle for hunting. Why do you need something that will pierce armor?

I should start out by pointing out the fact that an AR-15 would be LESS likely to pierce armor than a great many common hunting rifles.

But one reason for an ability to pierce armor is to defend yourself from criminals wearing body armor.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I am completely in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban (new or old).

It doesn't bother you that it violates people's constitutional rights?

ebrown p wrote:

One reason is the effect American weapons have on the drug war in Mexico (and Latin America in general).

It won't have any effect on that drug war.

ebrown p wrote:

Americans give drug dealers money in exchange for drugs. The dealers funnel this our money to the drug cartels. The drug cartels use this money to buy automatic weapons which are gladly supplied by American gun dealers.

The results-- murder and violence on both sides of the border. American gun dealers are making great profits exporting the tools needed by some of the worst people alive to spread terror and death-- both in the US and out.

No American gun dealer has ever sold an automatic weapon to a drug cartel.

And this assault weapons ban will not make it any more difficult for a gun dealer to sell automatic weapons to drug cartels than it already is.

1 Reply

@candide,

candide wrote:

Assault rifles are for mowing down people. We will need them to mow down all the fucked up people not for hunting.

The addition of a pistol grip to a gun doesn't transform the gun's purpose to "mowing down people" or make it unsuitable for hunting.

Most assault weapons would make lousy hunting weapons, but there are some exceptions that would be pretty good for hunting.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Extending slavery is a bad thing. Extending a ban on lethal assault weapons is a good thing. Perspective and common sense have to come into play at some point.

No, both are violations of fundamental rights, which is always a bad thing.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No American gun dealer has ever sold an automatic weapon to a drug cartel.

Bull. American gun dealers arm the drug cartels, the same way that American drug users finance them. Nearly all of the guns and money that keep the murderous cartels in business come from the US.

Quote:

The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the firepower that greeted them.

When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy store here called X-Caliber Guns.

Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges that he sold scores of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers who supplied a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa, fueling the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/15/ING9UR0IMO1.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
No American gun dealer has ever sold an automatic weapon to a drug cartel.

Bull.

Not really. You can't show a single instance of an American dealer selling an *automatic weapon* to drug cartels.

(Because there isn't such an instance.)

ebrown p wrote:

American gun dealers arm the drug cartels, the same way that American drug users finance them.

Not with automatic weapons.

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the firepower that greeted them.

When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy store here called X-Caliber Guns.

Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges that he sold scores of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers who supplied a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa, fueling the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/15/ING9UR0IMO1.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html

You said "automatic weapons" before.

These are articles about the sale of semi-auto guns.

0 Replies

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know