Obama Backs New Assault Weapon Ban

"Press Secretary Jay Carney added that Obama would back proposals to close the "gun show loophole," which allows people to buy weapons without background checks."

Thank goodness.

article says ban expired 8 years ago. comp_atkins

Are you somehow surprised? Considering that it was the deaths of 20 kindergartners that fueled this newfound push for gun laws it's hard for me to imagine any president not supporting legislation aimed at preventing tragedies like this in the future. A liberal president would support it due to being pro gun control, a conservative president would show public support due to being pro-life. And a middle of the road president would support it due to being a regular human being. Serraph105

That ban has NO chance of passing congress in its current form. It would force millions of people to pay $200 and go through what is essentially a booking process to get a Class III permit. It also requires that guns be turned over to the government upon the death of the original owner. The ban particularly targets various pistols and shotguns. From what I seen it seems like more of a closet handgun ban than anything.

"Press Secretary Jay Carney added that Obama would back proposals to close the "gun show loophole," which allows people to buy weapons without background checks."

Thank goodness.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]article says ban expired 8 years ago. WhiteKnight77

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

jimkabrhel

Focus on mental health care in the country. A common trend amongst people who commit mass shootings is anti-social behavior combined with mental illness. Bring back public mental health services and make those involved be mandated reporters. Several states do not currently use mental health records when they do brady act background checks. The federal government should step in and bring these states up to current expectations . Use pro-gun safety groups to promote the proper storage of firearms and use of gun locks and safes. Federal grants that allow Police Departments to post detailsintermittently at schools certainly wouldn't hurt either.

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"Press Secretary Jay Carney added that Obama would back proposals to close the "gun show loophole," which allows people to buy weapons without background checks."

Thank goodness.

dave123321

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"Press Secretary Jay Carney added that Obama would back proposals to close the "gun show loophole," which allows people to buy weapons without background checks."

Thank goodness.

sexyweapons

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

UnknownSniper65

Focus on mental health care in the country. A common trend amongst people who commit mass shootings is anti-social behavior combined with mental illness. Bring back public mental health services and make those involved be mandated reporters. Several states do not currently use mental health records when they do brady act background checks. The federal government should step in and bring these states up to current expectations . Use pro-gun safety groups to promote the proper storage of firearms and use of gun locks and safes. Federal grants that allow Police Departments to post detailsintermittently at schools certainly wouldn't hurt either.

A lot of common sense ideas. Thank you.

But I have a hard time believing that there will be support for public mental health service. No money for such a program would be approved by this Congress.

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"]nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

thegerg

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

Nuck81

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

Kamekazi_69

[citation needed]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

It's hilarious how bad that USA Today thing is. Under "number of affected guns" they picked the AR-15, which was used in the shooting, a gun nicknamed the "streetsweeper" which is not a common gun at all, and the Tec-9 which was famously used in 90s LA gang. If that doesn't scream frear mongering then I don't know what does.

Feinstein's gun laws are a joke and she's capitalizing under the deaths of kids to push her pointless agenda.

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] According the NRA it's "More Guns" Probably has something to do with NRA leaders having a controlling interest in Gun manufacturing.jimkabrhel

[citation needed]

I occurs to me, since I had to educate myself on what an assualt weapon is, that a good bit education would help with this situation, on all sides.

Unfortunately, both gun control activitst and pro-gun activists like the NRA only feed on emotions, and not information and common sense.

hooray for kneejerk reactions that determine the way 300+ million lives live! GOOOOOOOOOOOOO POLITICS!

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]article says ban expired 8 years ago. comp_atkins

It's just a matter of wording, the use of the term "assault" weapon in particular. It's a made-up, boogie man word. WhiteKnight77 is referring to the fully automatic weapons, which have been banned since 1986.

Stepping away from wording....the Clinton ban mentioned things like pistol grips, rails and magazine capacity... all superfluous and cosmetic. The end results was no reduction in violent crime. In fact, while the ban was in place, there were 28 mass school shootings with 156 fatalities. When the ban ended in 2004, there was, again, no effect on crime rates.

This new ban would be just as effective.

I think it's important to widen our focus. If we look at uniform FBI statistics, we see that crime rates are at an all time low. Why is no one reporting that? Using those stats, we can see that in population centers over 250k, crime rates are double the national average. Drilling down even further, you can pinpoint the neighnborhoods that are producing the highest amounts of crime. In those areas, things like poverty, drug use, poor education are high as well. We should look to see if these correlations are actually causes of crime? Let's even look past that and see if anything else is contributing.

Guns are just the easy thing to blame. Honestly, I don't think anti-gunners are looking for a real solution. They just want something that will make them feel all fuzzy and happy as quickly as possible and deal with reality whenever... then blame something else that's easy to point a finger at.

Guns laws re only here to protect the ruling class, lies and propaganda are used to brain wash the public, so they think its good for them because they are scared a bi polar man will go crazy at work and shoot everyone. OMG take away all the guns before the krazys get a hold of them!

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

nocoolnamejim

But who are you(or anyone) to dictate who needs something and who doesn't?

Innocent until proven guilty, right? The onus is on gun control advocates to justify why I shouldn't have an AK. I mean, why is a 762x39 round not ok, but a hunting rifle chambered in .308 permissible? Is it the magazine size? It takes half a second to change out a mag. Is it the pistol grip? I still don't understand that justification in the 94 assault weapon ban. Where are the studies and research to justify any type of restriction?

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

thegerg

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

VoodooHak

But who are you(or anyone) to dictate who needs something and who doesn't?

Innocent until proven guilty, right? The onus is on gun control advocates to justify why I shouldn't have an AK. I mean, why is a 762x39 round not ok, but a hunting rifle chambered in .308 permissible? Is it the magazine size? It takes half a second to change out a mag. Is it the pistol grip? I still don't understand that justification in the 94 assault weapon ban. Where are the studies and research to justify any type of restriction?

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

nocoolnamejim

Good thing we can't own assault rifles.

Also, you're now trying to classify guns as some are "more deadly" than others, this is and argument that people who are clueless about firearms try to argue all of the time. It's pointless and I think you would be shocked to know how many people in your community own those deadly "assault weapons" yet have never once used them for anything more than recreation.

Banning the sale them is pointless as it only would stop future gun owners and does nothing about 2nd hand trade, which is impossible to actually regulate.

The point is people are scared about something they don't understand. That's it. There is nothing else. You want to do something for the greater good then go after trying to find the reason behind why somebody would want to shoot up a school or commit a crime with a firearm. Don't knee jerk because you're clearly scared of something you know nothing about and are very quick to judge people on.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]article says ban expired 8 years ago. WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. Nuck81

And you're going to spend the bilions it would cost to regulate a 2nd hand market?

Sounds like the war on drugs all over again.

"Press Secretary Jay Carney added that Obama would back proposals to close the "gun show loophole," which allows people to buy weapons without background checks."

Thank goodness.

Aljosa23

NO, how will I get a chaingun with my multiple felonies and severe mental issues?!

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I'd like to hear what gun owners would suggest as a solution to mass shootings. Other than: "This kind of things just happens sometimes. Get your hands and laws off my guns."

Kamekazi_69

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Ban the guns that commit 3% of gun crimes. Yes that will solve it!

By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. This is just pointless and utilizing something that could have been committed by any firearm as a way to push a pointless agenda that won't change a thing.

Wasdie

Good thing we can't own assault rifles.

Also, you're now trying to classify guns as some are "more deadly" than others, this is and argument that people who are clueless about firearms try to argue all of the time. It's pointless and I think you would be shocked to know how many people in your community own those deadly "assault weapons" yet have never once used them for anything more than recreation.

Banning the sale them is pointless as it only would stop future gun owners and does nothing about 2nd hand trade, which is impossible to actually regulate.

The point is people are scared about something they don't understand. That's it. There is nothing else. You want to do something for the greater good then go after trying to find the reason behind why somebody would want to shoot up a school or commit a crime with a firearm. Don't knee jerk because you're clearly scared of something you know nothing about and are very quick to judge people on.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I think the logic is more along the lines of there not being any legitimate reasons for regular citizens to have assault rifles, so it's a good place to start that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Sure, they commit a small percentage of the overall gun crimes, but they tend to be the ones used most often in massacre type crimes where someone snaps and shoots up a school or what not. As soon as someone can come up with a legitimate reason why my next door neighbor would really need an AK-47 that doesn't involve a crazy paranoid fantasy about future government tyranny I may reconsider my viewpoint. nocoolnamejim

Good thing we can't own assault rifles.

Also, you're now trying to classify guns as some are "more deadly" than others, this is and argument that people who are clueless about firearms try to argue all of the time. It's pointless and I think you would be shocked to know how many people in your community own those deadly "assault weapons" yet have never once used them for anything more than recreation.

Banning the sale them is pointless as it only would stop future gun owners and does nothing about 2nd hand trade, which is impossible to actually regulate.

The point is people are scared about something they don't understand. That's it. There is nothing else. You want to do something for the greater good then go after trying to find the reason behind why somebody would want to shoot up a school or commit a crime with a firearm. Don't knee jerk because you're clearly scared of something you know nothing about and are very quick to judge people on.

It's really fun!

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

But who are you(or anyone) to dictate who needs something and who doesn't?

Innocent until proven guilty, right? The onus is on gun control advocates to justify why I shouldn't have an AK. I mean, why is a 762x39 round not ok, but a hunting rifle chambered in .308 permissible? Is it the magazine size? It takes half a second to change out a mag. Is it the pistol grip? I still don't understand that justification in the 94 assault weapon ban. Where are the studies and research to justify any type of restriction?

thegerg

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]By the way, Columbine happened during the assault rifle ban. Wasdie

And you're going to spend the bilions it would cost to regulate a 2nd hand market?

Sounds like the war on drugs all over again.

Which is the bigger crime against freedom and liberty?

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I think the logic is more along the lines of there not being any legitimate reasons for regular citizens to have assault rifles, so it's a good place to start that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Sure, they commit a small percentage of the overall gun crimes, but they tend to be the ones used most often in massacre type crimes where someone snaps and shoots up a school or what not. As soon as someone can come up with a legitimate reason why my next door neighbor would really need an AK-47 that doesn't involve a crazy paranoid fantasy about future government tyranny I may reconsider my viewpoint. nocoolnamejim

That wasn't an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of selective fire, which the AR-15 used in that massacre was not capable of. That gun was your standard semi-automatic rifle. Just because it looked like an M4 doesn't make it an assault rifle. Even with a 5 round mag the damage would have been pretty significant.

You just go to show that you know nothing about guns yet you are really quick to want to ban them out of fear.Assault rifles have been illegal since 1934 and will probably always stay that way.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] The Assault Weapons ban were party to party gun transactions could happen with no restriction? That's pretty poor justification. The Assault Weapons ban was Halfassed before. Hopefully this time they do it right.Nuck81

And you're going to spend the bilions it would cost to regulate a 2nd hand market?

Sounds like the war on drugs all over again.

Yes that's exaclty what I want and is what is logical...

(note the sacrasm)

I didn't hear any reason in any of that post for why an "assault weapon" is needed for recreational reasons. nocoolnamejim

Because an "assault weapon" is no more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle that doesn't look like a military firearm.

You're using a political term that means nothing. I'm not going to bother humoring you if you don't even know what the hell you're talking about and you're going to just spit out political jargon that has no meaning.