What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons?

[Beacool]

By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

[marshall]

1. Et tu, Jimmy?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-gunsapr27,0,5634133.story

Jimmy will make it happen!

[Beacool]

2. I don't think that the WH and Congress are interested in pursuing this issue at the moment.

Holder brought it up and so did Hillary later on while in Mexico. They were both disavowed by the WH. I read that Democrats in Congress don't want to confront the gun lobby.

"In answer to Helen Thomas’s question about reinstating the ban, Gibbs said, “Obviously, we, while we were overseas last week, were surprised and shocked at the news at what had happened in New York. … That’s one of the reasons that increased money to hire more police officers as in the Recovery Act. I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the president would — the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books.”

This new position is in direct contrast to an ABC News story in late February that Obama was seeking a new assault weapons ban. Last night on CBS News Attorney General Eric Holder said that he looks forward to working with the NRA, and would not endorse bringing back the assault weapons ban. Obama’s new position is bound to upset many anti-gun Democrats, because then candidate Obama campaigned strongly on reinstituting the assault weapons ban during the 2008 Democratic primaries."

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Assault-Weapons-Ban

More:

As firearms sale surge, Democrats drop assault weapons ban

As firearms sales in the United States hit new highs, the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are squelching talk of a renewal of the assault weapons ban passed by Congress that lapsed in 2004, saying they don’t want a distraction from their agenda and don’t have the votes in Congress.

Seven million people have applied for criminal background checks since November in an effort to buy guns, according to the FBI. That figure doesn’t include Virginia, whose gun shows don’t require any background checks.

The buying bonanza has stripped some stores almost bare of assault weapons and yielded a national ammunition shortage.

As gun sales blossom, Democrats’ interest in regulating gun sales appear to be waning, despite the recent spate of high-profile gun violence.

http://www.infowars.com/as-firearms-sales-surge-democrats-drop-assault-weapons-ban/

[msongs]

3. white racists rush the gun stores after Obama elected - stocking up in fear of a black president nt

[Beacool]

5. More like for fear of a Democratic president.

They would have done the same thing if Hillary had won. They always think that the Dems are after their precious guns.

:-(

[MercutioATC]

6. More like for fear of a President who's publicly stated that he wants to renew the AWB.

Obama may have made some noises to the contrary, but it's still listed as a priority on his own website.

[cliffordu]

9. I'm a dem and I think you're after my gun.

[iamthebandfanman]

26. nope, just your assault weapons.

feel free to keep ur pistol snuggled up close to you in bed at nite.

[slackmaster]

38. May I ask why?

What is your issue with people owning scary-looking but otherwise ordinary firearms?

[jberryhill]

49. Do I have another agreement here?

Here are two hats:





You agree with me that the law should not distinguish between the white pointy one and the black round one when I am going about in public, yes?

More violent crimes are committed by people wearing the black round one, but in some places it is illegal to travel in public wearing the white pointy one.

[cliffordu]

42. self delete

[Thothmes]

47. Backed up by a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party.

[Beacool]

58. Yes, as I stated on post #2

Congress is not interested in pursuing this issue at the moment. I read that the Dems. think that they are making inroads with the gun owners and don't want to lose their votes. Self interest, as usual.

:(

[slackmaster]

4. A majority of Americans, including President Carter, are misinformed on this issue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x189139

[VoR2012]

7. All Bark no Bite

Statistically assault weapons account for the smallest percentage of firearms deaths nationwide every year. According to the FBI's 2007 crime report assault weapons accounted for 1% or less of all homicides whereas bare hands accounted for approximately 6% of homicides. Trying to push an assault weapons ban at this point in time is simply a misappropriation of time and resources. The arguement that people don't need assault weapons is invalid as well because there are many things that Americans own that they don't need, such as cars that will do over 75mph or alcohol. Approximately 5000 more people in the US die in car accidents every year (many or most of which involve either alcohol, high speed, or both). Combine this with the fact that 55% of firearms deaths in the US in 2008 were suicides and banning any type of firearms seems fairly misguided. Do I need an AR15? No. Do I enjoy shooting it a considerable amount more than other types of guns? Yes. Does someone need a Mustang GT? No. Is it more fun than a Honda Civic to drive? That depends on who's driving.

There's a huge stigma surrounding "assault weapons" because they have a much more menacing look than a traditional sporting firearm. People need to educate themselves about these types of weapons before jumping to conclusions. The weapons covered in the Assault Weapons Ban of the 90's were not machine guns. They were semiautomatic, meaning that one pull of the trigger results in one round fired, not a constant stream. Weapons that do that are called fully automatic and are already covered in two pieces of legislation, the 1934 National Firearms Act (required registration and tax stamp for all full auto firearms) and the Hughes ammendment to the Gun Owners Rights Act of 1986 which prevented the manufacture or import of fully automatic firearms for civilian sale in the US. You have been educated, make your call.

[Aristus]

8. I smell pizza...

If the sole purpose of the Mustang or the Honda Civic was to kill people, you might have a point.

Enjoy your stay. I hope it is a brief one...

[VoR2012]

10. I have never killed anything with a gun, unless soda cans are alive

Quote: If the sole purpose of the Mustang or the Honda Civic was to kill people, you might have a point.


Sole purpose? Ever heard of compettition shooting? There are specific classes of shooting competitions for the AR-15 rifle. Were guns originally invented to kill? Yes, several hundred years ago. In today's world is that their only purpose? Absolutely not. I can say with 100% certainty that 99.9% of people who buy an AR-15 or AK-47 have no intention of killing a person with it.

An assault weapons ban would also have a significant negative impact on the economy. Rock River Arms, Stag Arms, Olympic Arms, LWC, Les Baer, Colt, Bushmaster, DPMS inc., and many other companies rely heavily on AR-15 sales to keep their companies running. Banning the sale of the AR-15 in the US would undoubtedly cost thousands of jobs

[Hanse]

11. Uh, wut?

The sole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of citizens to have guns that kill people.

[Hanse]

12. Uh, wut?

The sole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of citizens to have guns that kill people.

[VoR2012]

13. Valid argument?

When a gun pulls its own trigger I will concede defeat to the argument that guns kill people. You cannot absolve violent criminals of responsibility for their actions by saying "guns kill people".

[VoR2012]

14. Thanks for the ammo (pardon the pun)

Quote: If the sole purpose of the Mustang or the Honda Civic was to kill people, you might have a point.


If anything this makes my point more valid. Cars were never intended to kill people, yet they do, more people than guns do every year. People who own guns realize a gun's potential to kill and therefore are much more careful with guns than many people are with their cars. If even a person with the best of intentions can kill someone with a car but the overwhelming majority of firearms deaths require a human being with ill intent, you tell me, which is more deadly or dangerous?

Fact: US automobile ACCIDENT deaths in 2000 = 43,000
US ACCIDENTAL firearms deaths in 2000 = 600

[Mojorabbit]

15. Why do you hope it is a brief one

I agree with him. I am a female and I own so called assault firearms. I love target shooting with them. Polls on this board show almost half own firearms. It is a losing issue for the party.

[Aristus]

16. I was an M1A1 tank crewman in the Army. I've fired nearly every weapon the U.S.

Military fields. Including many that the NRA types can only dream of firing. I got it out of my system. I don't have some helpless, pathetic drive to show everyone how tough I am. "Look at me, everybody! I've got a gun! That makes me a real American!"

I've never owned a gun. Don't need one. My life is full enough, and rewarding enough without having to own one. Get a life, and you won't need a gun...

[Mojorabbit]

17. I lead a very full life

and I enjoy target shooting. I don't need a gun but I have a right to have one and I use that right.

[VoR2012]

20. Does there have to be a need?

Thankyou very much for your service to our country and I agree, I would love to get to shoot some of the firearms you had the opportunity to shoot (I'm not a member of the NRA though, for various reasons).

However, I resent you implying that, because I own an "assault weapon" and hope to by more, that I have no life. I have a very fulfilling life and the enjoyment that shooting my "evil assault weapon" brings me adds to that life. For me and many other firearms owners shooting tactical style firearms is more enjoyable. Shooting guns just doesn't release your endorphins, it does mine. That's no reason to ban "assault weapons".

There's a long list of things that Americans have and don't need that kill them, especially cigarrettes which contribute to the two greatest killers in the US every year: heart disease and lung cancer.

FACT: According to the CDC Heart disease and lung cancer killed a combined 811,308 people in the US in 2005
FACT: According to the CDC 30,694 deaths were related to firearms *in 2005.

Considering the trends from other years stayed the same and "assault weapons" accounted for about 1% of these deaths, don't you think that, if you want to save lives, there are far more important things you could be worrying about?

[Aristus]

24. Nobody ever took out a high school full of kids with a loaded cigarette.

If some loser walked into the building and shouted: "This is for making fun of me!" and whipped out a cigarette, they'd just laugh at him again and rightly so. I despise smoking, and won't allow people to do it in the same ZIP code as my lungs, but there's deadly, and then there's deadly...

Poor comparison.

I'm sure school-yard killers and tower snipers get an endorphin rush from their guns. That's what scares me.

[cwcwmack]

45. then it'll be a guy who's into

ball peen hammers or swords... or box cutters.

Or kerosene and fertilizer...

[benEzra]

64. No one ever did that with a rifle, either.

The worst school shootings have involved ordinary pistols or primarily traditional-looking shotguns, not rifles with modern styling. The worst rifle school shooting in U.S. history was in 1966, and the weapon was a bolt-action deer rifle in 6mm Remington. Only one rifle was even present at Columbine, and it was a low-capacity (10-round) pistol-caliber carbine.

All rifles combined account for less than 3% of U.S. murders. Those who paint small- and intermediate- caliber civilian rifles with protruding handgrips as the next best thing to the Hiroshima bomb are simply fearmongering; a .22 centerfire is a .22 centerfire, regardless of what the stock looks like or whether the receiver is aluminum or blued steel.

[iamthebandfanman]

28. i dunno if its about being tough

or just having the power of God to take someone or somethings life away.

i have a newsflash tho, its easy to kill someone. you dont need a gun for that.

creation is the hard part, not the destruction.

[jberryhill]

50. "creation is the hard part, not the destruction"

Hmmm... I have two sons and haven't killed anyone, but I'll take your word for it.

[benEzra]

59. The "sole purpose" of the most popular target rifles in America

is to "kill people"?

More Americans own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt (at least 20 million), yet rifles of any type account for only 3% of U.S. murders. Methinks you've been spun, and badly.

[benEzra]

66. What if someone made the (asinine) claim that the only purpose of a Civic is street racing?

That would be ludicrous, since 99.999% of Civics are used for lawful purposes, not street racing.

Why is that claim any less ludicrous when applied to the AR-15, the most popular civilian rifle in America, that dominates competitive and recreational target shooting in this country and yet is used in only a minuscule number of homicides compared to revolvers, pistols, and shotguns?

[iamthebandfanman]

27. no, theres a stigma

because assault weapons are typically only used to kill PEOPLE, hence why they 'look menacing'.


have a great day, and goodluck upping that post count.

[VoR2012]

33. A misplaced stigma

"Assault Weapons" are used on a daily basis for target shooting, compettition shooting, and even hunting. Do you see Columbine and Virginia Tech happening on a DAILY basis? They are not "typically only used to kill PEOPLE" You are talking about something which you know little to nothing about.

Honestly I don't give a rip about my post count, it obviously does not reflect how much knowledge a poster has on a subject as many here have evidenced, only how much time people spend spouting opinions as opposed to informing themselves.

[slackmaster]

40. I see you have never been to a competitive shooting match

The most popular rifle used in "service rifle" type matches is the AR-15.

I use mine for target shooting, and for teaching people firearm safety.

[benEzra]

65. Hardly. "Assault weapons" are the MOST POPULAR TARGET RIFLES IN THE NATION.

This "only used to kill people" BS is the most asinine claim about "assault weapons" that I've seen. You are talking about the dominant centerfire target rifles in the nation, and the most popular defensive carbines in U.S. homes. More Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, yet only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle whatsoever.

The top 3 calibers of rifle ammunition fired each year by U.S. competitive and recreational shooters are all "assault weapon" calibers: .223 Remington (5.56x45mm), .30 Russian Short (7.62x39mm), and .308 Winchester (7.62x51mm).

[RoadRage]

18. I don't really think it matters either way...

The problem that REALLY needs to be addressed is the mentality that causes someone to want to get an assault weapon and kill mass numbers of people in the first place.

The truth is that millions of these weapons have already been created - and any whack-job who wants one can get one from the internet, craigs list, or on the black market even if it is "illegal". Or, they just steal one if they can't buy one.

My husband & I have a hand gun (locked in a safe at all times..) so i'm not anti-gun by any means. I also don't think there is a logical reason to own an assault weapon.. but I don't think that making them illegal makes anything more "safe". It may make people feel more safe.. but that's what we bitched about with the Bush Administration and their BS "Terror Alert Color Guide" too.

I guess right now I feel there are bigger fish to fry. If not reinacting this ban gets 10% of gun owners who are currently republicans to look more seriously at the democratic issues that are a bigger prority - then that might be a good thing.

[Recursion]

19. What do you think "assault weapon" means? NT

[RoadRage]

25. A baseball bat, a sharp pencil, a kitchen knife...

all can be "assault" weapons. Like I said in my OP - i'd rather see money & focus be put twoards mental health care right now.. to try and fix the MENTALITY that leads to getting someone to pick up ANY type of weapon.. assault or otherwise to harm another human being.

Any whack-job who is in the military has access to these.. making it illegal for citizens from having them doesn't do much to prevent a Iraq War vet suffering from PTSD to come back from the war and go crazy... Spend the money & effort on fixing the mental problems - in my opinion that is money better spent.

[Recursion]

29. The military doesn't use assault weapons as defined in the AWB

Except for the 9mm and the 12-gauge, military weapons aren't available to civilians.

[VoR2012]

35. +1 Recursion

You are 100% correct. Most of the weapons covered in the AWB mimic the design but lack the function of military weapons.

[Aristus]

30. Gun enthusiasts always mention the deadly potential of baseball bats and kitchen knives.

But they never admit that these particular weapons are NEVER the weapon of choice for schoolyard mass murderers and tower snipers. For a few very simple reasons. With a kitchen knife, you have to get up close and personal to take out your target. That requires a level of courage these monsters don't possess. Add to that the greater likelihood that, that close, your target could grab your bat or your hatchet away with a "What're you planning on doing with this, asshole?"

Assault weapons are popular mass murder devices for very good reasons, if you're a mass murderer: high-velocity rounds, lightning-fast rate of fire, easy re-loading capability, and large-capacity magazines. Show me a baseball bat that has all those features, and I'll jump on the sports-equipment ban bandwagon.

[VoR2012]

32. Look past the stigma

Quote: but there's deadly, and then there's deadly...

... And I'm pretty sure I just pointed out with reliable evidence which is more deadly. A poor comparison it is not.

Quote: I'm sure school-yard killers and tower snipers get an endorphin rush from their guns. That's what scares me.

They probably do, and a lot of normal people who shoot guns get an endorphin rush from it too. It scares you because you don't uderstand it, just like homosexuals and gay marriage scare a lot of right wing christians. I'm all for gay marriage... as well as gun rights.

Quote: high-velocity rounds, lightning-fast rate of fire, easy re-loading capability, and large-capacity magazines

Wrong, wrong, wrong, right.

1) Assault style weapons often actually have a lower velocity than sporting arms because they frequently have the shortest barrel that current laws allow, meaning the forces from the expanding gasses have less time to act on the round, thereby decreasing velocity. Don't argue with me, I'm a physics nut. 2) Semiautomatic weapons fire no faster than any other semiautomatic firearm (one trigger pull results in one shot, not a stream), if you can move your finger at 600rpm (a low rate for a typical FULLY automatic firearm) you may have an argument. 3) "Assault rifles" and "assault pistols" reload the same way any weapon with a box magazine does, an "assault shotgun" reloads the same way any other shotgun does. 4) Yes, part of the '94 ban that coined the term "assault weapon" included limitations on magazine capacity. Check your facts please.

[TheWraith]

36. Actually, "assault weapons" are hardly EVER used for murder.

Murderers prefer pistols, mostly. Columbine was done with pistols; so was Virginia Tech, Binghamton, the Long Island Rail Road shootings, and most other actual and attempted mass murders. Rifles of any kind, not just scary looking rifles account for only 3% of murders, half as many as are committed with hands and feet. Rifles are overpowered, hard to conceal, and hard to use at close range, all things which make them hard to use for criminals.

[Irreverend IX]

46. And yet... the most prolific schoolyard killers didn't use "assault weapons."

The Virginia Tech shooter used two compact handguns to kill more people than any other mass shooter in US history. Charles Whitman used bolt-action rifles. The Pennsylvania police shooter used a shotgun to kill two of the officers; only one was killed with his semiauto AK. Handguns have been the weapon of choice for most of the mass shootings I can recall, as well as for the vast majority of criminals.

What's cowardly is allowing the media to get you so scared of dying in a mass shooting, a statistical near-impossibility, that you'll happily sign away your right to own effective self-defense tools.

[Aristus]

53. I'm not afraid of dying in a mass murder. I don't have to be to be outraged by the ease

with which these nuts get a hold of all the guns they want. The Virginia Tech killer had a documented record of mental illness, which probably would have prevented him from obtaining his guns if John Ashcroft had not thrown out all sensible rules for purchasing firearms; as if simply wanting the guns wasn't a pretty big indicator of mental illness. He didn't steal the guns from a law-abiding gun-owner. He didn't purchase them out of a car trunk from some 500-pound guy named Manny down a back alley. He didn't get them from a gun show, where the only background check is "Well, Cooter, he don't look Arabic or nothin'. I s'pose he's okay." He walked right into a gun store and laid his money down. Tell me that's how things should be in this country...

I don't live in fear. It's a terrible way to live. People who live in fear are people who buy guns. Lots of guns.

I'm not afraid of anything...

[VoR2012]

55. Which is why...

we need to enforece the gun laws that are on the books better. My idea would be having the ATF take a monthly inventory of gun owners stocks and records of FBI background checks (which are mandatory for all gun buyers). If the guns in stock don't match up right with the background checks that were run then an investigation should follow and the penalties should be HARSH. An assault weapons ban would not have stopped either Columbine or Virginia Tech, better enforcement of current laws might have.

And I don't live in fear, there's plenty worse things in life than death. I own and buy guns because I enjoy to shoot them. I want to buy lots of guns because there are lots of different types of guns, each with varying degrees or quality, handling, and performance. I know it's cliche but ever hear "variety is the spice of life"?

I personally think there's no point (other than mentioned above) in owning lots and lots of cars, but that's other people's perogative and I wouln't fault them on it.

[Aristus]

63. There's variety in collecting stamps. Or books. Or in a lot of things that you can't load

and shoot and use to take out a playground full of elementary school children. Every hear of a bank robbery hostage situation where the people were threatened with an album of rare stamps? Me either. "This just in: The killer cut his swath of destruction using a rare and valuable book stolen from a law-abiding book collector. Authorities are investigating the matter. Back to you, Tom."

I think the word "collecting" is just convenient cover for an absurd and exceptionally dangerous obsession.

Getting back to the bank hostage analogy for a moment, as a way of referencing the "nobody uses assault weapons to commit crimes" angle, no one has ever held up a bank with a 155mm artillery field piece either, (at least not in this country; if someone told me that it happens in places like Uganda or Paraguay, I wouldn't be surprised.) but there are few who would argue that people should be allowed to own these things.

[RoadRage]

61. First of all..

Don't EVER call me a gun "enthusiast".

Second.. i made my point above.. i really don't care much one way or the other on this.. but I think money & legislation is better spent dealing with the mentality that gets people to WANT to shoot up a schoolyard full of people instead of banning every tool they could possibly use to do so.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use any guns.. but he killed how many? Are we going to ban fertilizer & U-Haul trucks? No.. we're not.

SO, again - to my point.. let's try to make mental illness a focus in this country, instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet as a "deformity". That was my point.

[VoR2012]

41. +1

RoadRage is right, this is the most effective way to deal with gun violence. History has made clear that gun bans are ineffective at crubing gun violence and firearms related deaths. Both Columbine and the highly publicized North Hollywood shootout occurred while the '94 AWB was in effect. Also the North Holywood shootout involved weapons that were highly illeagle even before the '94 ban (full auto AK-47s and G3s using illeagle steel armor piercing rounds).

Gun laws are ineffective because someone planning to committ a murder doesn't really give a damn about a gun law because they're already planning to committ a far worse crime.

An important thing to note is that IN THEORY AWs are much more deadly and do have a far greater potential to kill, but IN PRACTICE AWs account for the smallest percentage of homicides in the US every year. I'm not making this up, anyone who thinks an AWB will reduce firearms deaths in the US should go do some research.

[RoadRage]

62. Thanks..

I live in Omaha, NE.. and we had that idiot walk into a mall in December, 2007 and he shot and killed 8 people I think. One of those killed was the mom of a girl I went to high-school with.

The guy stole his step-dads gun (he didn't live with him.. he went to his house when the dad was out of town). This guy was suicidal, higher then a kite, and depressed beyond reason because he'd just been fired and his girlfriend had dumped him.

My point is he decided he was going to do this.. his weapon of choice was just that - he would have found and used something else if he'd had too. He STOLE the gun.. he didn't go and buy it legally. Making it illegal to buy that gun would not have stopped this tragedy.

I don't like assualt weapons, but I just feel like we're totally going at the wrong angle on this.

[TheWraith]

22. All an "assault weapon" is is a scary looking rifle.

But one that functions no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. They're designed that way to borrow a solid, reliable design from weapons that have been battle tested by the military, just like a lot military guns are based on other military guns. One of the most common hunting rifles in the US is the SKS, which was a Russian-derivation of the American-made Garand rifle we sent our troops into World War II with. Semi-automatic guns are a detailed piece of engineering, and engineers are happy to borrow working designs if they can get away with it.

[VoR2012]

34. An excellent, well-informed post

It's good to see someone else in here has a shred of knowledge about firearms.

[jberryhill]

37. And this is a pointy hat:

Do you know that some states have laws against going around in public in a hat that looks like that?

Functionally, it is no different from this hat:



Which is the type of hat which I wear while engaging in outdoor sports in winter.

I agree with you. A hat is a hat, and that any two things which function the same way should not be distinguished in law, just because they look different.

[TheWraith]

39. So something should be banned because it's scary looking?

By that logic you could define all guns as scary looking and thus needing to be banned.

[jberryhill]

48. I am saying that it is not an argument to merely point out....

...that, yes, the law does distinguish things on the basis of appearance.

That is simply an observation, it is not an argument to say "the only difference between an 'assault rife' and another semi-auto rifle is appearance."

Yes, that is correct. Things are banned on the basis of appearance all of the time, and in contexts having nothing to do with guns.

It is illegal in several places to go about in public in a pointy white linen hat with eye holes, and perfectly legal to do so in a round woolen black hat with eye holes.

Most bank robbers who use hats, prefer the totally legal black woolen ones to assist them in bank robberies, even. I doubt a single bank has ever been robbed by someone wearing the white pointy one.

But, so what. The law makes distinctions where the public through its representatives have had the law make distinctions. I can point out many, many inane distinctions in the law. I could drink when I was 18. My sons have to wait until 21. Why? Who knows. Not for any reason, but merely because we have said, "And there, we draw a line".

I am not saying anything "should" be banned because of appearance, and I assume you are implicitly asserting that use of the white pointy hats should not be banned anywhere. Am I correct in that assumption?

[Paladin]

51. It Isn't The Gun Features That Are Scary......

....What's scary is the fact that some people don't think a rifle is worth buying unless it has features like a bayonet lug and a 30-round magazine. And the mindset that accompanies such military-styled weapons is disturbing; we're talking about guns designed to kill human beings, not game animals, and the unpleasant fantasies that go with such firearms. As always, there is abundant, daily proof of the foregoing in our very own DU Gun Dungeon......

[X_Digger]

52. ALL guns are based on..

.. a design / action used by a military somewhere / somewhen.

Bolt action hunting rifle? Springfield 03, Mauser 98. Remington 700? Used by Vietnam era USMC snipers. Pump action shotguns? Used by vets from Korea to Vietnam for close quarters.

Even the lowly breech action single shot shotgun was carried by US cavalry units.

You imagine some magical distinction between classifications of guns and what they're designed to do.

How do you reconcile this gun? "ooh, evil scary" or "hunting gun"?

[VoR2012]

54. thankyou for stereotyping me

I know exactly zero firearms owners who "don't think a rifle is worth buying unless it has a baypnet lug and a 30-round magazine". I own an "assault weapon" yet the next gun I plan to buy is either going to be a pump shotgun or a bolt action rifle. Actually I don't plan on buying another military style rifle until I have a few guns from other categories. And implying that because I own a "assault weapon" that I autommatically have a mindset that predisposes me to committ mass murder is simply ignorant. You saying what you just said in that post amounts to stereotyping and that sir/maam, is wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

21. What happened?

Hopefully forgotten and removed from the lexicon completely.

This is a worthless and losing issue that could give all the ground made in the west and south.

This is issue #1 that folks need to STFU about and admit defeat.

[depakid]

23. It'll not only come back up- but eventually become law- and a part of the culture

Why?

Because Kentuckian attitudes don't reflect common sense.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Oh come on now you probably agree with me way often than not

I also don't see where depakid has any monopoly on common sense. If you think this assault weapon bans are political winners or even make sense in and of themselves, then you're welcome to the opinion but not your own facts. The American people aren't that into it and many are hardcore against, including a large number of Democrats.

Gun control is an authoritarian issue, possibly a Democratic issue (wrongheadedly), but not a liberal one. If you folks are insistent on pushing this plank then you'll have to do it with opposition from left, right, and center.

This is a turkey and plays poorly outside of strong and traditional blue states. Why do you want President Palin?

[backwoodsbob]

43. so now all people from Kentucky don't have common sense?

good way to win a state.

I remember 10 years ago when Virginia was help up by some on our side as all that is wrong with the country and now that we are blue blue blue we are held up as all that is right with the *new south*

Push new gun laws on my state and watch how fast you flip it back to them.

[Elwood P Dowd]

57. Wrong! Obama is not an idiot.

Unlike you, he knows that pushing for more gun control would be a disaster for 2010 and 2012.

[cwcwmack]

44. stupidity.

and nonsense too... 1994 all over again if they push the AWB.

[Kaleva]

56. Can't agree as to what an assault weapon is.

Everyone can agree that a gun that fires multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger is a machine gun but there is great debate as to when a gun that fires one bullet with a single pull of the trigger is a legitimate hunting gun or an assault weapon.

[X_Digger]

60. Not only that..

But many of the 'assault weapons' are being used for hunting, or are being changed to be better general purpose hunting guns.


Remington R-25- multiple calibers for hunting larger game, based on the AR-10.



I used that gun last year to hunt javelinas in AZ.