Obama To Bring Back Assault Weapons Ban
I seem to remember some anti-gun commenters on this blog and elsewhere saying that gun owners were being paranoid for stocking up. Watch prices skyrocket tomorrow.
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.
“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.
Now what will you use for rabbit hunting?
Posted by capper on February 26, 2009 at 0006 hrs
This is just the beginning. Gun sales will be through the roof this weekend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0020 hrs
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
- Sigmund FreudPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0246 hrs
No one should be surprised. A. Holder has always been anti-second Amendment. B. Obama is anti-2nd. C. Many Dems would like nothing better than to severely restrict guns if not outright ban them. Remeber, Obama and big daddy gummin’t know best.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0306 hrs
This is one issue I disagree with my conservative bretheren and it is just a personal opinion. I think there needs to be a ban on certain assualt weapons- not all, but some. Any gun that can get through a bullet proof vest worn by police should not be on the market, or at the very least very limited. (I’m not talking aout the shots that sneak through the the areas of the vest that offer limited protection)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0402 hrs
“Dan” you are very uninformed and it is sad so many other Americans are as well. “Any gun that can get through a bullet proof vest worn by police should not be on the market-”
Every “hunting rifle” round from the venerable .30-30 on up will go through “bullet proof” vests like butter. They only stop traditional handgun rounds.Let us get something straight as the news media and gun banning politicians won’t tell you this-the definition of an “Assault Rifle” is a one that is of medium power and selective fire. That means you can choose semi-auto or full auto fire.
Also you are falling for the gun prohibitionist trap. None of the rifles they are talking about banning are capable of full auto fire. There is no difference between a Semi-Auto “Assault Rifle” and a semi-auto hunting rifle except cosmetically. They don’t like the looks of “black rifles” and many of them want to use this as a spring board to ban all semi-autos and have been very open about saying so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0544 hrs
baby steps….
Posted by phel on February 26, 2009 at 0743 hrs
Paranoia is total awareness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0759 hrs
FYI-
Freud was a opium addict that has largely been discredited over the years.
Paranoia is crippling fear brought on by a disconnect with reality.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2009 at 0828 hrs
So, capper…WHY are you so afraid of guns?
Have guns jumped up and shot someone you know…all by themselves?
Maybe they’ve said mean things to you? Or didn’t hug you enough…oh wait..guns…we’re talking about inanimate objects here…sorry. I forgot that they don’t have a will of their own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0850 hrs
Dan, I will second .45 on this. Almost any typical hunting-rifle bullet will go through body armor.
Beyond that, the term “assault rifle” is propaganda, pure and simple. As .45 mentioned, they are “defined” by the way the look—not what they do.
It’s interesting that Holder & Co. link “full-auto” weapons used by the drug cartels to this legislation; it is damn near impossible to purchase full-auto weapons in the USA.
Posted by dad29 on February 26, 2009 at 0913 hrs
capper: Just because you don’t believe in paranoia doesn’t mean we still aren’t out to get you….
Freud was a opium addict that has largely been discredited over the years.
In ten years you will be able to replace Freud’s name with Obama.in that sentence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0925 hrs
How many lives per year is the ban expected to save? I’m not sure but I would guess assult rifles are used in less than .00001% of gun homicides.
So the real reason to reinstate the ban is???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 0953 hrs
Wouldn’t be surprised if the Messiah has stock in arms manufacturing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1020 hrs
How many lives per year is the ban expected to save? I’m not sure but I would guess assult rifles are used in less than .00001% of gun homicides.
So the real reason to reinstate the ban is???
It’s a stimulus package for the gun industry!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1023 hrs
The reason is that it appeases the left wing moon-bats and the “drive-by” media who don’t think anything through.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1031 hrs
I have 4 words for every mouthy obamabot:
“Fucking TOLD YOU SO!”
SCOTT:
Seriously. The gun ownership hyperventilating about having a Democratic president is astounding. Somehow these people really think that the Obama administration is going to mean this is their last chance to purchase? While this is obviously ridiculous, there must be someone or some organization that is whipping up this frenzy for their own gain, be it political or economic. Who, pray tell, might it be?
Scott:
Okay, Tyler. I challenge you. Go down to your local gun dealer and see what they have available. I’ll give you a solid year to return and fine one thing that isn’t still available because of Democrats in Washington.
Scott:
Christ, lighten up already. The man hasn’t even had one day in office. Give him a flipping chance to do something you don’t like. Something more than ...whatever pettiness this is.
Scott:All I’m saying is that a) it seems unlikely that a Democratic 2008 election is going to result in the kind of gun banning that would merit a nationwide rash of gun sales prior to Obama taking office, and b) that it’s petty to criticize his “there’s no need for this” remarks on the grounds that sales are good for the economy.
Scott:Yet I don’t see anyone leaping to take my bet.
So how about that bet Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1039 hrs
And some CATEGORICALLY misleading information in the article owen cites:
Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons
Private citizens cannot obtain automatic weapons. If these “drug cartels” have automatic weapons they either are NOT coming from the united states or the law is already being broken to get them.
In either case, its an all to typical scenario for gun laws. It will affect only the law abiding, and have zero effect on the ones we really would wish not to have guns if we could.
Nonsense legislation. This is becoming a pattern Mr. President.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1056 hrs
clarification: private citizens cannot obtain automatic weapons without a license (stamp) so any of these “drug cartels” are already breaking the law to get these guns (or getting them from elsewhere) and an assault weapons ban would only affect law abiding americans.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1101 hrs
Talked “guns” this week with someone in the know and he said invest in gold and invest in LEAD!! Ammo is going to be taxed to the high heavens or impossible to get at some point and gun owners are stocking up like crazy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 1110 hrs
Capper I’m glad to know that a chunk of metal in my closet makes your unicorn cry.
Dan, I would love to have the opportunity to take you to the range sometime and explain the truth behind some of your misconceptions. As has already been stated, the level IIA units that cops wear will not stop any round suitable for hunting medium game. Besides, as you alluded to - what’s the point in restricting weapons based on their ability to defeat that which can be easily bypassed? If anyone with a brain wants to kill someone wearing body armor, they’ll shoot him in the head. It’s a very bad reason to restrict basic rights.
Posted by Mike Gallo on February 26, 2009 at 1709 hrs
If any person thinks that this president and his legislators will not pass any piece of lefty, right-infringing, tax-increasing, sticking it to the man bill/law they can possibly dream up, is out of their pathetically weak mind. I have a better idea than those written above, don’t try to custom-tailor an anti-gun law, JUST DON’T HAVE AN ANTI-GUN LAW….PERIOD.
ThanksPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2009 at 2049 hrs
It’s funny that people think I am afraid of guns, since I own what Owen would classify as a “standard farmer armament,” a couple of shotguns and a .22 for dinking varmints up north.
It’s not the guns that scares me. It’s the people with an unhealthy need for them.
Posted by capper on February 26, 2009 at 2231 hrs
It’s the people with an unhealthy need for them.
You don’t know ‘unhealthy’
Who the hell are you to judge. Please… Your arrogance is astounding.
Sit there behind your little keyboard and pretend that you have any clue what peoples motivations are and make up these fictitious little characters in your altered reality of people who have this “unhealthy need” for a gun. Get real.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2009 at 0017 hrs
John, I don’t think you don’t want to meet me on the range. When I was in the Air Force, shot 25 points out of a possible 400.
There are some guns/rifles that I feel need to be restricted. For instance, an AK 47- I think guns like that should be restricted to only people have a legitimate reason to have one like a collector and not gang members.
And I stand corrected about guns and police armored vests. Thanks for the info.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2009 at 0154 hrs
Dan, the “AK-47s” that available to citizens of the U.S. are semi-auto only versions-they OPERATE EXACTLY THE SAME as any semi-auto rifle made for “sporting purposes”. They only look like assault rifles, they aren’t assault rifles. Same for the AR-15 and many others. Please try to understand the difference. You and many others have been brainwashed by the anti-gun media and most Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2009 at 0549 hrs
There are some guns/rifles that I feel need to be restricted. For instance, an AK 47-
Why?
It’s a friggin’ DEER RIFLE—although not too accurate.
But it has other charms. You can buy ammo relatively cheap; there are parts all over the world, available relatively cheap; and it fires no matter how badly it’s maintained.
By the way, Dan, how does banning the AK in the USA prevent drug-lords in Mexico and AlQuaeda in Afghanistan from obtaining them?
Posted by dad29 on February 27, 2009 at 0911 hrs
For instance, an AK 47- I think guns like that should be restricted to only people have a legitimate reason to have one like a collector and not gang members.
Wait a minute? jijarwm said people with hundreds of guns are looney? A collector would have hundreds of guns no?
But Dan says a collector should be able to have one. Ok, then call me a “collector” Who gets to right the rules on what qualifies as a “collector”?
As far as gang-bangers and guns.
Its illegal for ANY felon to possess a firearm. Check the rap sheet on any gang banger and you’ll see that they could never purchase (legally) a firearm anyway.
And its illegal for them to have one now. No additional law required.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2009 at 1024 hrs
Dan, the “AK-47s” that available to citizens of the U.S. are semi-auto only versions-they OPERATE EXACTLY THE SAME as any semi-auto rifle made for “sporting purposes”. They only look like assault rifles
I would echo this.
Arguably one of the most common/popular deer hunting rifles is a .30-06 caliber.
This rifle is FAR more powerful well over twice the impact force and has much longer effective range than an AR-15 which is considered an “assault rifle” and shoots a .223 caliber
The difference is how they look. Plain and simple.
Beyond that, the AR-15 is used mostly for sporting/target shooting purposes, the .30-06 a much more powerful much deadlier gun is used for hunting.
So next time you are having a cup of tea with your gun-ignorant leftist friends, impress them with your knowledge of guns and tell them that hunting rifles are far deadlier than assault rifles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2009 at 1035 hrs
Dan, my offer stands - I generally shoot high-power competitions on the first Sunday of every month at West Bend Barton Sportsman’s Club, and would be happy to familiarize you with the AR-15 rifle (well, mine’s a carbine technically), probably the most common target rifle in competition in the US today. I’ve thought about shooting my WASR-10 (a semi-auto AK-type carbine I own) just for kicks, but quite honestly I need all the help I can get and AKs aren’t good for much better than 6-8” groups at 100 yards. They are fun to shoot though, and 7.62x39mm is still about half the cost of most other centerfire ammo these days, as it’s no problem to shoot the crappy steel-cased stuff…
In all honesty, my 60+ year old bolt-action Swiss K-31 is a much more potent battle implement than any “assault weapon,” as it is capable of hitting (and killing) a man-sized target at well over 800m, and I have no trouble keeping up a faster rate of aimed fire than the semi-autos on the line with me, including a stripper clip reload mid-string. You have to detach yourself from thinking of the machine as inherently capable of evil; they are imbrued by the wills of men.
Posted by Mike Gallo on February 28, 2009 at 1145 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 46
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/23/2013 07:01 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).