Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Page 1 of 6 [ 87 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Feb 2009, 6:45 pm

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."

I'm going to post this article here because it's newsworthy, but I'm also going to post it in PPR with my own more in depth commentary, to save the mods the trouble of moving it there when it inevitably gets heated (they can thank me later).

I'm just curious about what the heck the Obama people are thinking, don't they have enough on their collective plate without inflaming 10's of millions of American gun owners who just vowed to never vote for them or their policies again? I voted for this guy (Obama) myself because I thought that the Republicans needed a wake up call about what they were doing to the country, and I thought that he was smart enough to avoid such a political loser of an issue during an economic crisis. Teach me to give people the benefit of the doubt...

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

whitetiger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,702
Location: Oregon

26 Feb 2009, 6:59 pm

Wait.. you just read all the really good reasons in the article for banning assault weapons (and who wants/needs them anyway for hunting or self defense,) and you are going to slam Obama and wish you hadn't voted for him?

I'm confused. I don't want to start a political flame war here, but I will state my point of view that of all things to get upset over, this is not one of them. The state of the economy is far more important.

hartzofspace
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Apr 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,138
Location: On the Road Less Traveled

26 Feb 2009, 7:27 pm

I'm confused, too. It looks like the ability to access weapons so freely needs to be curtailed, and for plenty good reasons, too according to the article.

_________________
Dreams are renewable. No matter what our age or condition, there are still untapped possibilities within us and new beauty waiting to be born.
-- Dr. Dale Turner

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Feb 2009, 7:29 pm

whitetiger wrote:

What good reasons? The 1994 ban was a complete bust, all it did was drive up the price of pre-ban weapons and magazines, even it's supporters admitted as much. It's the very fact that the economy should be priority #1 right now that's got me so pissed, bipartisanship is going to go out the window over this and for no good reason. "Assault weapons" are used in a tiny fraction of crimes, but are menacing looking and have the word "assault" built right into the name, so people get all bent out of shape over what amounts to a non-issue. If curbing the violence in Mexico was really the issue here, legalizing drugs would make far more sense, this is just the latest smokescreen to try to backdoor the second amendment.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,565

26 Feb 2009, 7:35 pm

"Assault weapon" is such a silly and emotive term.

The only weapons that ever/have had the name "assault" in them are assault rifles, which started with the MP44 back in WW2, and moved on to the ubiquitous AK-47 and M-16. These have been "banned" in the US since the prohibition days.

Whilst semi-automatic versions of the AK-47 and M-16 look the part, they're no different to any other sporting semi-automatic firearm in operation, effectiveness and functionality.

And hey, you can kill just as many people with a single-shot rifle as you can with a magazine fed one (whether semi-automatic, lever-action, pump-action, etcetera); the magazine fed ones come in handy when you're fighting other people with firearms of the same variety. And hey again, I think it's good for the police to fear the populace; this is no different to why they made the separation of powers in the first place. Everyone needs to wield power, or people start acquiring too much on their own if they don't let others have such.

kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

26 Feb 2009, 7:45 pm

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How the hell can you be well-armed when the only form of defense you have is some sort of pew pew handgun?! I'm sorry but Obama fails! I'm really starting to dislike him.

_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."

Metal_Man
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 895
Location: The Gates of Babylon

26 Feb 2009, 7:50 pm

The Assault Weapons Ban was a dismal failure and deserved to expire. Remember when seconds count the police are only minutes away. It is refreshing to hear that guns sales are up about 40% since the Messiah Obama descended from the heavens and into the White House.

_________________
Can't get it right, no matter what I do, guess I'll just be me and keep F!@#$%G up for you!
It goes on and on and on, it's Heaven and Hell! Ronnie James Dio - He was simply the greatest R.I.P.

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Feb 2009, 5:42 am

kxmode wrote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How the hell can you be well-armed when the only form of defense you have is some sort of pew pew handgun?! I'm sorry but Obama fails! I'm really starting to dislike him.

REGULATED.. not ARMED. I think you'll find that's a fail right there.

And beyond that, THERE is the rub. A well regulated militia. Not "Any nutter who wants a gold-plated AK because it's bling".. Not "Any weirdo in a shack in the bayou." Not even "Anyone who thinks the government is dodgy".. but a well regulated militia.

Lets check some definitions:

# civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
# the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service
# The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

So again: not anybody who wants to own a big gun, AT ALL. The constitution states it quite clearly. Perhaps people should read the whole thing, not just cherry-pick the lines that suit....

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

kxmode
Supporting Member

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

27 Feb 2009, 6:27 am

I found this:

Quote:

The Original Intent

The concept of a "well regulated Militia" is somewhat foreign to 20th century America, but it is central to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

At the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" — a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. Most of the adult male population was required by state law to enlist in the militia. The militia was "well regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various legal requirements. They were, for example, required to report for training several days a year, to supply their own equipment for militia use, including guns and horses, and sometimes to engage in military exercises away from home.

The purpose of the militia was expressed in the Second Amendment — to assure "the security of a free State" — against threats from without (e.g. invasions) and threats from within (e.g. rebellions, riots, etc.).

The "militia" was not, as some gun control opponents have claimed, simply another word for the armed citizenry. It was an organized military force, "well regulated" by the state governments. Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828 defines "militia" as: "...the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations."

When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the continued viability of the state militia was a central issue. The new Constitution established a permanent army composed of professional soldiers and controlled by the federal government. The "Anti-Federalists," who sought changes in the newly proposed Constitution, were fearful of the federal standing army authorized by the Constitution. The use of troops by George III as an instrument of oppression was still fresh in their memories.

The Anti-Federalists saw the state militia as an effective counterpoint to the power of the standing army but they were concerned that the federal government had excessive power over the militia. They argued that the Constitution left the arming of the state militia exclusively to the federal government. During the Virginia ratification debates, Patrick Henry asked: "When this power is given to Congress without limits or boundary, how will your militia be armed?"

The Second Amendment was written in response to this Anti-Federalist concern. The Amendment affirms that the keeping and bearing of arms in a "well regulated Militia" of the states is a "right of the people," not dependent on the whim of the federal government. The original intent of the Second Amendment, therefore, was to prevent the federal government from passing laws that would disarm the state militia.

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/secon ... ndmean.php

And the followup...

Quote:

The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century

The Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have a citizen militia in which a large portion of the population is enrolled for part-time military service and required by the government to maintain private arms for such service. As the nation grew, it became unworkable and unduly expensive for the states to impose military training and service on that many Americans.

The modern "well regulated Militia" is the National Guard — a state-organized military force of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers, like the early state militia. However, unlike the early militia, the National Guard is of more limited membership and depends on government-supplied — not privately owned — arms. Whereas in 1787 federal restrictions on privately owned guns may have interfered with the "well regulated Militia," this is not the case today. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably exempt the National Guard. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issue.

"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government
from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would
interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia."

U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)

I learn something new everyday. It would seem your comment has truth. I take back my "Obama fails" comment. I'm going to watch this issue closely. Thank you for clarifying Macbeth.

velodog
Gold Supporter

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,374

27 Feb 2009, 9:59 am

Macbeth wrote:

REGULATED.. not ARMED. I think you'll find that's a fail right there.

Bull$hit, the Heller versus DC decision clearly recognizes the Individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment. Heller decision.
What now Macbeth, do you want to deny that the Heller decision happened?
Here is my latest addition to my safe. A Smith & Wesson 625 JM 45 ACP Revolver. Nice isn't it.

philosopherBoi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Aug 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,255

27 Feb 2009, 10:53 am

Sorry but I see nothing wrong with bans and regulations on extremely dangerous weapons, and ammunition.

_________________
When Jesus Christ said love thy neighbor he was not making a suggestion he was stating the law of god.

MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire

27 Feb 2009, 11:07 am

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.

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

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

27 Feb 2009, 6:27 pm

Macbeth wrote:

That might be very convincing... to someone with no brain.

“We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”
U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

“The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard ...”
Ibid

"The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States."
Ibid

...and...

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home." (2-54)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... 07-290.pdf

...and, a few quotes...

"Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense..."
John Adams, Opening statement as defense counsel for British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre in 1770; from the "Legal Papers of John Adams", Butterfield and Zobel; 1965

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Millennium Edition of The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 16:45

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;” Richard Henry Lee (Member of the Continental Congress) Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

MrMisanthrope
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire

27 Feb 2009, 6:34 pm

Nice T-Rav...

I like the way Pen & Teller put it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related[/youtube]

http://splodetv.com/bullshit-gun-laws

_________________
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

Last edited by MrMisanthrope on 02 Mar 2009, 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Feb 2009, 6:58 pm

velodog wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

REGULATED.. not ARMED. I think you'll find that's a fail right there.

One: I was referring to the misquote itself. It clearly states WELL REGULATED in the sentence quoted, but it was misquoted as WELL ARMED. The two are clearly different. The two words mean completely different things.

Two: I have little or no faith in a document held to be self evident, but butchered so continuously, and adapted and re-written so continuously over a mere 200 years. And the decision that it regards the individual does not invalidate the obvious desire to have some stops or controls over these arms bearers.

Three: Regulated. You do know what regulated means don't you? IE NOT the freedom to carry whatever you like regardless of who you are. Individual or group, the document is quite clearly stating their should be some form of control in place.

Four: Yes, its still a fail because you completely failed to read what I wrote properly.

Five: Bit snappy aren't we? Bit temperish? I like my gun owners to be calm, well-balanced people.

Five: That's not even a weapon relevant to the ban in the topic/op. Ergo who cares if you have it or not?

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

27 Feb 2009, 7:03 pm

T-rav20 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

And all this despite the fact it quite clearly in big letters says "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"? Only by re-writing every word in that sentence, perhaps..

but then see my earlier comments regarding "amending" self-evident truths....

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

Page 1 of 6 [ 87 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban Post Reply New Topic

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban