Obama On renewing AWB

[Serial Crusher]

YouTube - Barack Obama Still Wants Assault Weapons Ban

Relayed through JPFO newsletter.

Notice that he doesn't say the AWB would stop this imagined problem of American guns in Mexico, just that it would be a "good thing."

 

[Serial Crusher]

Link to article pertinent to this: Lame Ducks and Guns

 

[dross]

Putting aside that the guns that go from the U.S. and Mexico aren't coming from individuals, but from our government to the Mexican army to the cartels, is he actually saying that even though we can't stop people from going North, we can stop guns from going South?

How about this - the Mexican government provides all serial numbers of siezed guns, and we run them up here and publish the results? Could it be because we'll expose the two governments - ours and theirs - as the true culprits?

 

[dross]

Link to article pertinent to this: Lame Ducks and Guns

The saving grace is that only a third of the Senate is up for reelection in November. They won't touch it.

 

[beararms1776]

Did I here him say they will continue to honor and respect our 2nd Amendment Right?

 

[figley]

notice the date on that video

 

[dukeboy_318]

Not surprised

 

[MACHINEGUN]

The AWB made sense..

 

[Mgderf]

Seems funny to me that he finds trafficking in "illegal firearms" is already illegal, and something we can stop with existing laws, yet "illegal aliens" are just "undocumented individuals" that require compassion and understanding, but are NOT criminal?

What the hell, over?

 

[Bill of Rights]

The AWB made nonsense.

Fixed

 

[Bill of Rights]

Seems funny to me that he finds trafficking in "illegal firearms" is already illegal, and something we can stop with existing laws, yet "illegal aliens" are just "undocumented individuals" that require compassion and understanding, but are NOT criminal?

What the hell, over?

Nice self-censor there, Mike.

The answer is simple. The illegal firearms do nothing but kill good, clean, wholesome Americans. The illegal aliens are just here to make a better life for themselves and their children. Think about the children. It's all about the children...



Never mind the crimes committed by the unwelcome trespassers against good, clean, wholesome Americans and never mind the lives saved which improves the quality of life of American children. That's not important. The only children that need saved are the ones who grow up with no positive associations with guns.

Do pardon, I believe I shall go vomit now.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Britton]

I was talking to one of the board of directors of the NRA about a month ago, he informed me that they are getting ready for a big fight coming just after the election this fall. Obama and his lame duck congressmen will push anti-gun legislation through at a record pace. Look at health care, the majority of Americans did not want it and yet they pushed it through. The gun industry is also preparing for a huge sales spike as well, so get ready for it, all indications are that it is coming and this may be the big one.

 

[RomanDad]

I was talking to one of the board of directors of the NRA about a month ago, he informed me that they are getting ready for a big fight coming just after the election this fall. Obama and his lame duck congressmen will push anti-gun legislation through at a record pace. Look at health care, the majority of Americans did not want it and yet they pushed it through. The gun industry is also preparing for a huge sales spike as well, so get ready for it, all indications are that it is coming and this may be the big one.

There are about 50 votes in the Senate to filibuster gun legislation right now.... Only a few of those votes (cough cough Harry Reid cough cough...) are likely to be "Lame ducks" in December. Reid could be a big one though.... As majority leader he has kept gun legislation off the floor (NOTHING gets to the floor without support of the SML) he might not do that to spite us if he gets the boot, but there still aren't 40 votes for cloture by my count.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I'm sorry, should have used purple text with the roll eyes.. thanks for fixing.

 

[ak keep the second]

blah blah blah im not saying anything just spewing meaningless words blah blah blah no more "assault weapons" blah blah blah i wanna trace your bullets.
Thats what i got from this video anyone else agree?

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Just read about the violence in Monterry on FoxNews.com...the drug cartels were lobbing grenades at businesses and such. I really doubt the problem is with "assault weapons".

FOXNews.com - Mexico's Richest City Plagued by Violence

 

[Serial Crusher]

blah blah blah im not saying anything just spewing meaningless words blah blah blah no more "assault weapons" blah blah blah i wanna trace your bullets.
Thats what i got from this video anyone else agree?

Well, that's what I always get from him, but never hurts to pay attention. I didn't realize how old this video was, it was just sent to me as a link in the JPFO newsletter on Tuesday, 8/19.

Just read about the violence in Monterry on FoxNews.com...the drug cartels were lobbing grenades at businesses and such. I really doubt the problem is with "assault weapons".

FOXNews.com - Mexico's Richest City Plagued by Violence

Anyone who's seen the images or video would know that these aren't weapons American civilians possess in enough numbers to have a brisk trade. I've seen a few that had not just grenades, but mines and even an old LAW rocket tube. Then again, there's no telling. Most people that are terribly misinformed on issues concerning gun rights aren't going to be able to tell the difference ....

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Isn't it that military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons? A bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Probably, most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. An AR-15 (civilian version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful larger caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles.

There's enough statistics to show that assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

If assault weapons are so rarely used in crime, why all the hoopla when certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons were banned by the Crime Control Act of 1994? A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.​

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Isn't it that military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons? A bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Probably, most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. An AR-15 (civilian version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful larger caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles.

There's enough statistics to show that assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

If assault weapons are so rarely used in crime, why all the hoopla when certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons were banned by the Crime Control Act of 1994? A Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994) summed it up best:

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
​

I recall reading somewhere that the Founding Fathers wanted regular citizens to be as well equipped as any military force likely to be arrayed against them. Full-auto weapons against bolt-action or lever action rifles creates an imbalance of force (at least in terms of max rate of fire); semi-auto rifles vs full-auto rifles are a much more balanced proposition.

 

[ak keep the second]

I recall reading somewhere that the Founding Fathers wanted regular citizens to be as well equipped as any military force likely to be arrayed against them. Full-auto weapons against bolt-action or lever action rifles creates an imbalance of force (at least in terms of max rate of fire); semi-auto rifles vs full-auto rifles are a much more balanced proposition.

As true as this is I dont think the founding fathers would have a problem with citizens having automatic weapons. The second amendment isnt about hunting or sport! It is about the people being able to defend themselves, even if that means against their own government. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think that is pretty clear, so why are automatic weapons so heavily regulated and "assault weapons" are now under fire.