Obama to try and permanently ban assault weapons (from his site)

[HitItHard]

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.i didnt know there were criminals that SHOULD have them lol They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons that belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.


straight from the horses mouth, folks.


also, i found this funny:

End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: As president, Barack Obama will support innovative local programs, such as the CeaseFire program in Chicago, that have been proven to work. Such programs implement a comprehensive public health approach that implements a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence. He will also double funding for federal afterschool programs and invest in 20 Promise Neighborhoods across the country to ensure that urban youth have meaningful opportunities to succeed.

isnt illinios like one of the worst states when it comes to gun violence? yea, its working all right! with a total gun ban too! way to go nobama!

[BigBen85]

in b4 Obama dick swingers trying to justify this.

[nutsy54]

Standard tactic: Use fear, emotion, and "evil" descriptions of weapons to make them sound all scary and nasty and bad. Next, throw in a bit of "Do it for the Children!" - while ignoring that disarmed citizens are more commonly known as "victims"

Then, when nobody notices the fine print in the legislation. . .Poof!, we lose every semi-automatic weapon (which is the majority of all handguns currently produced, for those who want to pretend that "semi-automatic" is somehow more scary and evil than a revolver).

He seriously talks about "commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners". . . While simultaneously supporting the DC and Chicago bans on handguns? Obviously to him, "common sense" means that every law abiding citizen should be disarmed. Like BigBen said, let's watch the supporters flock to his defense, while they ignore every vote, legislative action, and statement he's made on the subject of gun control in the past.

“While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable. . ."

Wouldn't we all have felt a lot better if his answer had actually been "a complete ban on handguns is Unconstitutional", instead of just saying it's something he couldn't get away with at the time?

He's headed to the White House, with anti-gun supporters controlling the House and Senate, and will probably select one or two new Supreme Court justices - Could his true agenda now be "politically practicable". . . ?

[Fidelis]

I read the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban bill and it doesn't ban all semi-autos, it bans semi-autos with detachable magazines that hold greater than five rounds. I don't think we need to ban those guns but at least it's not a complete ban of semi-autos.

Of course, they might try to pass a bill that would ban all semi-autos. Either way I think it's ridiculous.

edit: here is the bill I read http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

Actually, I was wrong, the ban doesn't ban all semi-autos that can accept 5+ round detachable magazines, it says that the ban cannot apply to semi-autos that cannot accept such magazines. This doesn't mean that the former is true in all cases.

Here is the definition for "semi-automatic assault weapon":

?(30) The term ?semiautomatic assault weapon? means--

?(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

?(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
?(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
?(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
?(iv) Colt AR-15;
?(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
?(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
?(vii) Steyr AUG;
?(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
?(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

?(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

?(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
?(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
?(iii) a bayonet mount;
?(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
?(v) a grenade launcher;

?(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

?(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
?(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
?(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
?(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
?(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

?(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

?(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
?(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
?(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
?(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.?.

[Thor.]

This will not end well for the nation. Most gun owners already hate Obama, this will help bring in the Civil War 2.

[TheJuicedchase]

I read the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban bill and it doesn't ban all semi-autos, it bans semi-autos with detachable magazines that hold greater than five rounds. I don't think we need to ban those guns but it's a far cry from banning all semi-autos.

LOL....ummmm that's almost all semi-autos. Definitely most handguns that would be used for personal protection.

[Duckenheimer]

[Steak_n_Taters]

I read the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban bill and it doesn't ban all semi-autos, it bans semi-autos with detachable magazines that hold greater than five rounds. I don't think we need to ban those guns but at least it's not a complete ban of semi-autos.

Of course, they might try to pass a bill that would ban all semi-autos. Either way I think it's ridiculous.

edit: here is the bill I read http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

That's something like 99.5% of all semi-autos.

[HitItHard]

what the hell is that from

[Fidelis]

LOL....ummmm that's almost all semi-autos. Definitely most handguns that would be used for personal protection.

See my edit

[Fidelis]

That's something like 99.5% of all semi-autos.

See my edit

[Duckenheimer]

what the hell is that from

Lol I dunno but I saw it and thought of "boot stamping on your face, for eternity"

And this is even better because it's a monkey.

[KhanPaulsen]

WTF?

[basement iron]

That's from one of the Faces Of Death videos.

Some of their footage was real, some was fake. The monkey footage was fake. Those are rubber/sponge, whatever, mallots.

The next scene shows them eating the monkeys brains. But again, fake.

They were reenacting what in some counties was a delicacy.

[KhanPaulsen]

That's from one of the Faces Of Death videos.

Some of their footage was real, some was fake. The monkey footage was fake. Those are rubber/sponge, whatever, mallots.

The next scene shows them eating the monkeys brains. But again, fake.

They were reenacting what in some counties was a delicacy.

It's oddly disturbing.

(The mallets are obviously fake)

[leafs43]

In before we told you so.


















































































We told you so.

[Boss_302]

Why would you need an assault rifle anyway? I understand pistols, but why would you need an m16?

[Steak_n_Taters]

Why would you need an assault rifle anyway? I understand pistols, but why would you need an m16?

This post highlights the problem with gun control and its advocates in the US.

[Duckenheimer]

Why would you need an assault rifle anyway? I understand pistols, but why would you need an m16?

I don't need an M16, and the government doesn't need to ban me from legally holding one.

Anyway, this bill is banning far more than assault rifles.

You're 16, go back to your coloring book and try not to go outside the lines.

Please keep this immature **** out. He was respectfully asking a question.

I read the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban bill and it doesn't ban all semi-autos, it bans semi-autos with detachable magazines that hold greater than five rounds.

Isn't that pretty much banning almost everything that people would want to defend themselves?

[all pro]

Why would you need an assault rifle anyway? I understand pistols, but why would you need an m16?

REREAD the bill. It bans every modern firearm. Assault rifle is a made up, loosely defined term. But more importantly, it's unconstitutional and therefor illegal. If my elected officials don't obey the law then why should I?

[DieselRobert1]

I talked to the owner of a gun store today about Armalite .50 cal special ordering, and asked him if I should hurry. He told me he didn't think the ban would be soon, but I made a good choice picking a .50 cal since it's you know, the twentieth century THOR"S HAMMER !

[Fidelis]

Isn't that pretty much banning almost everything that people would want to defend themselves?

Again, read my edit. I was wrong, it doesn't actually ban all semi-autos that can accept detachable mags holding more than 5 rounds. I was confused by the wording of the bill; the part I misconstrued actually states that NO semi-auto RIFLES capable of holding detachable magazines of 5 rounds or less can be considered semi-auto weapons. Then I posted the part of the bill where "semi-automatic weapon" is actually defined. The bill would not ban most semi-auto pistols.

[Fidelis]

REREAD the bill. It bans every modern firearm. Assault rifle is a made up, loosely defined term. But more importantly, it's unconstitutional and therefor illegal. If my elected officials don't obey the law then why should I?

YOU read the bill. I already posted the part that defines the meaning of "semi-automatic weapon" and it's a far cry from banning all modern firearms.

JUST TO CLARIFY MY POSITION, I don't think any assault weapons ban needs to be passed, but some of you guys are blowing the bill out of proportion. I did too, until I read the bill twice.

[Fidelis]

Reposting the bill since some people are missing it:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

?(30) The term ?semiautomatic assault weapon? means--

?(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

?(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
?(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
?(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
?(iv) Colt AR-15;
?(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
?(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
?(vii) Steyr AUG;
?(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
?(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

?(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

?(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
?(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
?(iii) a bayonet mount;
?(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
?(v) a grenade launcher;

?(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

?(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
?(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
?(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
?(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
?(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

?(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

?(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
?(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
?(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
?(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.?.

However, this bill may not be the version that Democrats try to pass, if they try to pass one. This is just the most recent incarnation of the assault weapons ban that I have found.

[revkins]

I feel sick after watching that.

[Duckenheimer]

He asked a question only 16 year olds and pussy liberals would ask.

Good for him. That's expressing curiosity to learn. It's immature, childish **** like unwarranted personal attacks that have no place here, not questions.

Again, read my edit. I was wrong, it doesn't actually ban all semi-autos that can accept detachable mags holding more than 5 rounds. I was confused by the wording of the bill; the part I misconstrued actually states that NO semi-auto RIFLES capable of holding detachable magazines of 5 rounds or less can be considered semi-auto weapons. Then I posted the part of the bill where "semi-automatic weapon" is actually defined. The bill would not ban most semi-auto pistols.

Fair enough, thanks for response. I still don't like this.

[nutsy54]

Why would you need an assault rifle anyway? I understand pistols, but why would you need an m16?

(a) Why does someone "need" a Lamborghini? Does that mean they should be Banned?

(b) The definition of "assault rifle" is often twisted around, so the Gun Haters end up banning far more than what everyone thinks or expects. They play on fear and emotion (Oooh! "Assault Rifle" sounds nasty, we better get rid of those!)

(c) Any and every ban is implemented with one purpose - To erode our rights, slowly enough that most people will sit back and accept each new step. Ban the scariest sounding/looking thing this year, then the next-scariest, and so on. This is an admitted tactic of the Gun Ban crowd.

[ZDub212]

I'm confused. Are assault weapons the number one weapon used in gun violence in this country?

Because if they're not...Obama shouldn't bother. Even if they are, it's questionable.

[Positive K]

the 2nd admt. means more than than just bearing arms, self defense , etc.
it was made so that the people would still have control against an occupying force or agasint an oppressive government. if obama one day decides to disband congress , and make all the armed force generals his co-vice presidents, and address's the nation that the u.s. is now a communist state, well then you know what time it is. crazy obserd scenerio but thats the basis
of the 2nd admt. power to the people.

[nutsy54]

I'm confused. Are assault weapons the number one weapon used in gun violence in this country?

Because if they're not...Obama shouldn't bother. Even if they are, it's questionable.

They're not even close, I'm sure someone with stats will pop in with the insanely low percentage of crimes that are actually committed with "evil" assault weapons. For the obvious reason: They're reasonably high-end and expensive. Not something Mr. Petty Criminal has the money or interest in obtaining.

Which further proves that this is all an excuse to take away as many rights as possible - whether or not the stated reason makes any sense. All they want is another inch closer to a total ban, and playing on people's emotion and ignorance of weapons is the best way to accomplish that

Edit with stats:
- "Assault Weapons" represent roughly 1.7% of all firearms owned nationwide
- They're used in 1% of all gun crimes, and 0.2% of all violent crimes.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html