Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban (PPR Version)
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
ABC News wrote:
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
"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," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."
In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.
The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.
"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."
Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will seek to reinstitute the assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.
"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," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."
In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.
The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.
"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."
I posted this already in news and current events because it is one, but with minimal commentary because I know that if I really cut loose on this one a huge flamewar will ensue, and PPR has that handy asbestos lining just for this sort of situation.
I'm mostly just plain disappointed in Obama, I really did think he was smarter than this. Seriously, "cop killer bullets"? I haven't heard that term since Lethal Weapon 3, and just like Danny Glover, the people that use that term have no idea what they are talking about. That's the charitable supposition, otherwise I have to conclude that they know full well that the whole idea of super-criminals running around with magazines full of armor piercing pistol bullets is a Hollywood fantasy, and that they are cynically exploiting the emotional reaction that calling something a "cop killer" is sure to engender. I could go into a long and technical discussion about what makes a bullet "armor piercing" and the reality of terminal ballistics, but unless someone really wants to go at it over the topic, I'll spare everyone the tedium.
As to "assault weapons", here we go again with the political misuse of language. A self-loading carbine, despite it's functionaly identical nature, doesn't sound nearly as menacing as an "assault weapon", I mean it's got the word "assault" right there in the name! As if I didn't have enough reasons to hate Hitler, he had to coin that term that's been misused by left wing politicians ever since. Never mind the fact that what the politicians call "assault weapons" are used in an infinitesimal fraction of crimes, they're scary looking and the average citizen doesn't know any better, so they are an easy target for the opportunistic political vulture. Even one time supporters of the first AWB reluctantly concede that it had no effect on violent crime, so why is this political albatross being trotted out now? Doesn't the Obama administration have more important things to be doing, like doing some economic CPR on the country?
Finally, who can forget that favorite political whipping boy, the "gun show loophole"? Can anyone here even explain what exactly this "loophole" is? I can, but I'm really curious if anyone else even knows what it's supposed to be. I will say that it's most likely a political smokescreen for a backdoor gun registration scheme, but that's all the hints you'll be getting out of me for now.
Needless to say, I and the other 70 million or so American gun owners will now be doing everything in our political power to derail any attempts to revive this misguided legislation from the early 90's, and if the Democrats have any hope at all of holding on their recent political gains they are going to have to pay attention to us. 8 years of Bush may have damaged the Republican party, but that certainly doesn't mean that firearms owners are going to give up their rights without a massive fight. This has been a loser of an issue for at least the last 10 years, hopefully the Dems haven't forgotten that hard learned lesson so easily.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
carturo222 wrote:
As much as I like the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment deserves to be repealed. It's nonsensical, indeed, suicidal to a nation, to keep such a regulation.
As much as I'm not a fan of fully automatic weapons, I would tend to disagree... The second Amendment was put into the constitution to create militias out of the common people (basically how the continental army formed during the American Revolution), but the idea of civilians bearing arms does retain its purposes in the modern world.
When the US invaded Iraq, an insurgency of extremists formed out of a rather small group of people (per unit population, anyway), but the majority was rather passive... even though the majority didn't want the US in their country, they still just played along.
Now, contrast that to if the United States were ever to be invaded. Every redneck, hillbilly, mobster, hunter, boy scout, repo man, and wide receiver in the nation would already know how to shoot some weapon (well, okay, maybe not wide receivers... they would just shoot themselves in the leg...), and any occupying force in the US would have a much more difficult job (possibly 2 orders of magnitude harder in difficulty) in occupying the nation than the US had in Iraq...
Of course, in most countries, widely available guns will often descend into violent political factionism rather quickly. However, the US, despite being one of the youngest nations in the world, has one of the oldest still-functioning governments
While I'm for gun controls (controls in registering guns, waiting lists, what have you, as well as those "gun locks" that sometimes show up), and support proper education in gun safety (so that dumb s**t teenagers don't go "oh hey lets fire a gun inside the house... obviously nobody will get hurt"), I am cleanly opposed to banning automatic weapons merely because it makes some people uneasy.
carturo222 wrote:
As much as I like the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment deserves to be repealed. It's nonsensical, indeed, suicidal to a nation, to keep such a regulation.
If it's suicidal, it's an awfully slow form, so far the patient has lasted 200+ years and we're still collectively breathing. I notice your location says Columbia, so perhaps this handy chart will of be of interest to you:
Murders per capita: (from Nationmaster)
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
Considering that most of the countries on the list have very restrictive or non-existent civilian firearms ownership, explain to me again why we should be taking advice from them on curbing crime?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Haliphron wrote:
carturo222 wrote:
As much as I like the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment deserves to be repealed. It's nonsensical, indeed, suicidal to a nation, to keep such a regulation.
Thats an incredibly ignorant, illogical, and just plaint st00pid thing to say carturo222.
OK, Haliphron, I gotta ask... what's the deal with you and the word 'stupid'? You seem to like this word an awful lot lately... I don't think this is valid criticism. For lack of a better word, it seems kinda stupid to me.
Is there a reason you need to toss this insult around so regularly?
It is at the end a matter of democracy: A democratic state can't allow anyone except himself to own any weapons. If the states allows anyone to execute potentially power via owing a weapon the state undermines its absolute monopole of legitimate power - the basis of all democratic states.
Dox47 wrote:
carturo222 wrote:
As much as I like the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment deserves to be repealed. It's nonsensical, indeed, suicidal to a nation, to keep such a regulation.
If it's suicidal, it's an awfully slow form, so far the patient has lasted 200+ years and we're still collectively breathing. I notice your location says Columbia, so perhaps this handy chart will of be of interest to you:
Murders per capita: (from Nationmaster)
[...]
Considering that most of the countries on the list have very restrictive or non-existent civilian firearms ownership, explain to me again why we should be taking advice from them on curbing crime?
This list is more a list of countries with a weak law enforcement. Other countries with very restrictive weapon laws (the UK, Germany) have much lower murder rates p.c. than the US.
For example, in Japan it is illegal for any civilian to possess weapons, and that country has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
Last edited by carturo222 on 27 Feb 2009, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dox47 wrote:
Murders per capita: (from Nationmaster)
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
....
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
Considering that most of the countries on the list have very restrictive or non-existent civilian firearms ownership, explain to me again why we should be taking advice from them on curbing crime?
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
....
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
Considering that most of the countries on the list have very restrictive or non-existent civilian firearms ownership, explain to me again why we should be taking advice from them on curbing crime?
You biased the data by looking at only one tail and ignoring the countries with the fewest murders. If you looked at the other tail, you would see that in fact, murder rates are lowest mostly in countries with few weapons.
Taken as a whole, there is little correlation between gun ownership and murder. Poverty and civil strife are the big predictors for the worldwide murder rate, and in stable western countries, untreated mental illness and unemployment are big factors.
Guns do not prevent murder, and they do not cause it.
ToadOfSteel wrote:
When the US invaded Iraq, an insurgency of extremists formed out of a rather small group of people (per unit population, anyway), but the majority was rather passive... even though the majority didn't want the US in their country, they still just played along.
Now, contrast that to if the United States were ever to be invaded. Every redneck, hillbilly, mobster, hunter, boy scout, repo man, and wide receiver in the nation would already know how to shoot some weapon (well, okay, maybe not wide receivers... they would just shoot themselves in the leg...), and any occupying force in the US would have a much more difficult job (possibly 2 orders of magnitude harder in difficulty) in occupying the nation than the US had in Iraq...
Now, contrast that to if the United States were ever to be invaded. Every redneck, hillbilly, mobster, hunter, boy scout, repo man, and wide receiver in the nation would already know how to shoot some weapon (well, okay, maybe not wide receivers... they would just shoot themselves in the leg...), and any occupying force in the US would have a much more difficult job (possibly 2 orders of magnitude harder in difficulty) in occupying the nation than the US had in Iraq...
Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iraq one of those countries where everyone and their dog has a kalashnikov?
_________________
* here for the nachos.
twoshots wrote:
ToadOfSteel wrote:
When the US invaded Iraq, an insurgency of extremists formed out of a rather small group of people (per unit population, anyway), but the majority was rather passive... even though the majority didn't want the US in their country, they still just played along.
Now, contrast that to if the United States were ever to be invaded. Every redneck, hillbilly, mobster, hunter, boy scout, repo man, and wide receiver in the nation would already know how to shoot some weapon (well, okay, maybe not wide receivers... they would just shoot themselves in the leg...), and any occupying force in the US would have a much more difficult job (possibly 2 orders of magnitude harder in difficulty) in occupying the nation than the US had in Iraq...
Now, contrast that to if the United States were ever to be invaded. Every redneck, hillbilly, mobster, hunter, boy scout, repo man, and wide receiver in the nation would already know how to shoot some weapon (well, okay, maybe not wide receivers... they would just shoot themselves in the leg...), and any occupying force in the US would have a much more difficult job (possibly 2 orders of magnitude harder in difficulty) in occupying the nation than the US had in Iraq...
Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iraq one of those countries where everyone and their dog has a kalashnikov?
Yes, but the vast majority use the "spray and pray" method, where they unload their entire magazines from their hip (read: they don't aim), and expect to hit their target by praying the bullets will. The US is full of people that spent a long portion of their lives (I've been shooting since I was 6) learning how to shoot well.
Honestly, I thought that Obama was smarter than trying to do this, at least not until 2010.
Last edited by DNForrest on 27 Feb 2009, 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire
Dussel wrote:
It is at the end a matter of democracy: A democratic state can't allow anyone except himself to own any weapons. If the states allows anyone to execute potentially power via owing a weapon the state undermines its absolute monopole of legitimate power - the basis of all democratic states.
As much as the government is trying to change it, the US is NOT a "Democratic State". We are a representative republic, and the single greates fear of the Founders of the US was "the absolute monopoly of 'legitimate power' by the State.
I like the way Pen & Teller - hardly a pair of "conservatives" - put it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL ... re=related
The whole thing is here. http://splodetv.com/bullshit-gun-laws
But what astounds me is how people who reject the idea of Prohibition by Government seem to blithely accept it when it comes to firearms.
Prohibition is prohibition.
To support a prohibition on small arms you must logically also support the government's "right" to prohibit anything, from Booze to drugs, to marriages to abortions to whatever.
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habanae Regum Est. When the Government has "absolute monopoly on the use of power" then the government is free to ban anything or kill anyone they want. History is replete with some really ugly examples of that.
And, FWIW, the premise behind the entire "Do if for Mexico" thing is crap too.
When an "investigative reporter" actually buys an actual Full Auto "assault weapon" - as are being used by the narcos in Mex - from ANY US gunshow, THEN and ONLY THEN will they have the beginnings of a talking point.
Mexico has squat all to do with it.
The Narcos and Federales aren't shooting at each other with Semi autos.
They are shooting at each other with guns that are available in the US only with the blessing and rectal exam of Unka ATF.
The Narcos are getting their guns from the Federales (either dead or corrupt) and the Federales are buying theirs on the World Arms Market (Governments and NGOS only, please...)
It's all just symbolisim over substance - and it needs to be exposed as such.
How can you "ban" somthing you can make more easily than you can make drugs or alcohol?
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml
Prohibition Failed, the "drug war", a power grab wrapped in doogooderisim, fails to achieve its objectives and an AWB will fail too - for the same reasons.
_________________
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habenae Regum Est.
I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.
True Liberty Expressed as Fiction: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn
monty wrote:
Guns do not prevent murder, and they do not cause it.
That's my whole point, I wasn't making the argument that having lots of guns lying around reduces the crime rate, but merely pointing out that there really isn't a causal relationship between civilian gun ownership and violent crime. I was also a little annoyed to be lectured on gun laws by someone who's country tops the list for violence, yet has strict controls on civilian gun ownership. Yes some countries with low rates of weapon ownership have low crime (Japan), while other countries with high rates of ownership have similarly low crime (Switzerland, Israel). The brouhaha is just unnecessary, especially with all the other economic troubles at the moment, just leave my guns alone and concentrate on fixing the damn country.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
