I think there are comparatively fewer ways that abortion rights can be undermined, than gun rights.
Gun “control” laws can include any of the following:
Cosmetic-feature bans like the AWB
Function based bans like semi-auto bans
Bans on handguns specifically
Restrictions on magazine capacity
Restrictions on ammunition (“cop killer bullets”)
Weaselly and underhanded permit systems (you CAN get a CC permit, but only if you suck some assemblyman’s cock, wade through a quagmire of paperwork and fees and endure waiting periods that would make the Sphinx gnash its teeth, or happen to be “well connected.”)
Taxes (on guns and on ammunition)
Abortion is a simpler issue. Either you have an abortion, or you don’t. The issue of rape complicates it somewhat, as does partial birth abortions, but beyond that, there just isn’t the minutiae of little things that can be chipped away at slowly, like there is with gun rights.
Also, abortion has Roe V. Wade on its side. 35 years of precedent. Gun rights has Heller, but that was only months ago and it passed by the skin of its teeth - one Justice away from losing. Obama or whoever appoints some new blood to the court, and it could be overturned.
It’s a fine point to nit, but the AWB outlawed the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Anything that previously existed was still permissible.
In that respect the connection is still tenuous, because had the V-Tech killer wanted to get them he could have, and quite easily. For many years they were considered a precious commodity, and up until the ban was lifted they still commanded a premium, but it was more like $20-25, not the $100-200 it was immediately following the ban.
Other than the mention of target shooters, when any good hunter should punch paper as often as he can to hone his skills, what is wrong with that statement? It’s the pathological loudmouths, especially the ones who see any law regarding gun ownership, use, or transport as an attack on their rights, who ruin it for the rest and turn off the non-gun-owning voters who otherwise would be either indifferent to or supportive of most gun rights.
Just so you hear it from another source, yes it was a huge deal and was a major contributor to the '94 Republican takeover of Congress. Remember that this was prior to the internet and information was passed a little slower back then. I’d like to think that it would not be renewed again, but in 2004 we had a (R) president who essentially said that if it hit his desk he’d sign it AND a good chunk of the house and senate doing everything they could to get that bill passed and signed.
They didn’t learn their lesson that gun control was a non issue although that is a common statement heard around here, and as recently as this year are STILL trying to pass another AW ban.
This also caused me to become the gun advocate that I am today.
Where’s your cynicism? I believe that president Bush said that he would sign it if it got to his desk precisely because he knew it never would. it never even came close to getting to him.
He was playing both sides of the street. In a way that might have been the most masterful thing he’s done in 8 years, because it scared you and appeased them when both sides should have been having precisely the opposite reaction.
Because there are those in congress who are still actively trying to ban assault weapons. Sure, that doesn’t affect the fudds out there with there shiny double barrels and squirrel rifles does it? Take a look at HR 1022 introduced in 2007. This bill through Section 3 sub sections (J) and (L) essentially bans ALL semiauto rifles and shotguns, not just the mean looking ones.
Their semi auto shotguns and hunting rifles are in just as much peril as those nasty AK clones out there. Yet they stick there fucking heads in the sand and cling to the fact that their “hunting” guns will never be targeted. Well, they have been and they are still on the block today. Yet they still join bullshit orgs like AHSA and think they are fighting the good fight…
I see no reason to own a .50 caliber target rifle. They are heavy, loud, kick like a mule and are very expensive to shoot. They have also become the latest poster child of the anti gun crowd. Ridiculous claims such as “accurate to three miles” or “able to shoot down a jumbo jet” were enough concern for the pussies in the Los Angeles City Council to ban them, even though no crime has ever been committed with them, and are prohibitively expensive to acquire. All that said, and I still will defend anyone’s right to own such a firearm, even though they bring much unwanted and unnecessary press to the anti gun movement.
I’m sure that he was, but he paid lip service to all guns owners and did NOTHING in eight years to roll back any bad legislation on the books. Remember the anti gunners who got sooooo upset when the NRA said they had a seat in oval office once Bush was elected? Yeah, how did that work out?
Y’know, on rereading the above, I should hope even NRA diehards would find every single bit of it, including the AWB, perfectly and eminently reasonable. At least as stated. (What happens when we get the gun-control Trojan Horse’s nose under the tent* is a different story, bwah-hah-hah! )
Any criticism of metaphor mixture will be met with deadly armed force.
The AW ban, bans guns on the way they look. Nothing more, nothing less. Few if any armies field their soldiers with the guns banned in that legislation.
There is no gun show loophole it is total bullshit.
As usual, an explanation is in order as to what a so-called “assault weapon” is. It is a semi-automatic, not select-fire version of a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge and bears similar visual characteristics to an “assault rifle”, which is a select-fire weapon.
Now, all you have to do is tell me how many people died at the hands of “assault weapons” (around 2%, last I looked), and while you’re at it you can tell me how many died as a result of a bayonet charge (if you need to think about this you’re beyond help).
-What is the “gun show loophole”? Please define it as you see fit.
-Child-proof guns are impossible. Child-proof anything is impossible.
Funny, so does the NRA. They actually spend money teaching kids to stay away from guns with their Eddie Eagle program. They are also strong backers of the National Instant Check System.
So far they are batting a big 0-fer on guns. So much for “commonsense”.
No, you would not find a single NRA member who would in a billion years agree with that quote from Obama’s site. First of all, “commonsense measures” is an exceptionally notorious weasel-phrase that can be interpreted to mean more or less anything that the person proposing it wants. It’s a ridiculously vague statement.
More importantly I can’t imagine any NRA member possibly thinking the AWB is reasonable, and that utterly ridiculous phrase “such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets” makes me - seriously - question the intelligence of these candidates, or whatever little cog in their machine decided that this would be a good position to take. As has been already stated (but very rarely is ever really listened to by the pro-AWB side, which runs completely on emotion and nothing else) this ban is based on COSMETIC FEATURES ALONE.
Is there ANY “foreign battlefield” where you will find AR-15s, WASR-10s, and HK91s? The answer is no. These are all semi-automatic civilian versions of military rifles. They are NOT ASSAULT RIFLES. Yet this ban would outlaw them simply because they look like the ones the military uses.
That would be like outlawing baking soda because it looks like cocaine.
How am I not supposed to worry about an AWB renewal under a Democratic presidency if it’s stated in such unbelievably bold-faced terms? I mean, really. With Obama and Biden in the White House, couldn’t the usual troupe of clowns - Schumer, Feinstein, and McCarthy - just draft up a bill and hand it to Obama, who’d happily put his John Hancock on it? It’s not like those politicians’ constituents are going to hate them for it. All the rest of the Dems can shake their heads and say “hey, I wasn’t in favor of this” if their districts come after them with pitchforks and torches. How could this not be a home run for them?
Now, with all that said, I want to turn again to Airman Doors and the rest of the people who have said that the Democrats don’t really pose a threat vis-a-vis the renewal of the AWB and further gun restrictions because they’ve realized it’s a “loser issue.” And I mean this as a genuine question, not trying to be hard headed:
This is obviously going to be a close election. Obama needs to appeal to the widest group possible, for the sake of the “swing states.” Therefore, what does he gain by having the AWB renewal in his official platform? And on the other side, what does he have to lose by simply not mentioning it? Not jumping up onto the podium with a Bushmaster AR-15 and yelling, “I love rifles with pistol grips and folding stocks and bayonet lugs!” but simply not mentioning it at all?
On the one hand, a lot of voters who - as you seem to have indicated, were swayed against the Dems by the first AWB - would “swing” in favor of McCain instead of Obama based on that oh-so-earnest endorsement of one of the stupidest gun restrictions or federal restriction of any kind in history.
On the other hand - if he simply didn’t say anything about it at all - do you really think the “core” Democrats would really come pounding on Obama’s door, screaming “YOU DIDN’T CALL FOR A RENEWAL OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!”?
Which of those strategies is more canny for a politician who’s interested in, you know, winning?
If the AWB was indeed the “straw that broke the camel’s back” last time around, why would a supposedly intelligent politician like Obama want to touch it with a ten-foot bayonet?
Great question, yet all you will here from the Obamaniacs is crickets chirping, “common sense, common sense!” or “reasonable control.” Similar to the south heading thread about the UK and guns, those who are anti gun don’t care that the AW ban is an insidious attempt at banning guns through deception. How many times on this board alone have they been told that the guns mentioned in the AW ban legislation are not “full auto” or “machine guns?” They simply do not care that they are banned due to cosmetics and not some sort of uber lethality.
With that being said, it is common sense legislation to them (surely you can’t HUNT with them so why do you gun guys even care???) and as such, is both on BO’s platform as well as the Democrats 2008 Party Platform. I’ve said it a hundred times here, if the Dems really wanted to win easily, take that crap off the platform and publicly claim that guns are a non-issue and no new legislation will be introduced under their watch. McCain’s numbers would drop like a rock and the election would be over before November.
Instead, the only people who claim guns to be a non-issue are just those who post here frequently.
Second, I was more referring to the original AWB. If for no other reason than expediency, I don’t expect a new version would be nearly as stupid. Admittedly, I would prefer they didn’t call it “reinstating the AWB”; instead, perhaps something like, “instituting some reasonable gun controls without our heads up our asses this time.”
Third, I thought I would include the actual text of this part of the Dem platform:
I think the issue is that there is a significant proportion of Democrats who are pro-gun control. They need something to be thrown in their direction. And there are many people who think of themselves as pro-gun, but for whom it isn’t the central issue that determines their vote. And of those people, they might not be willing to vote for a Democrat that supported “major” gun control, but they might, like myself for example, oppose the AWB legislation but not see it as, in the global scale of things, a huge deal. I’d rather it wasn’t law for multiple reasons, but in a choice between a Democrat who will renew it, and a Republican who won’t, I’ll almost definitely pick the Democrat.
Parental Notification is seen by some as undermining abortion.
Legislating that babies are person’s, and may be listed as victims in a homicide when the mother is attacked is seen as a backdoor attempt to ban abortions.
Well, alright, and these are the people that the AHSA represents. The NRA, on the other hand, isn’t willing to compromise on our rights. They’re not willing to give up an inch. They’re not willing to say, “fine, you can ban guns based on stupid cosmetic features that are meaningless, and I’ll still vote for you as long as I get to keep my Winchester 70.” They’ll be fine with that - until they come after the Winchester, and then they’ll join the NRA.
)