Obama likely to ban semi-automatic weapons if elected??

Great Debates
21

I think as soon as the democrats have both sides of Congress and the Presidency we’re going to have massive gun control bills come down the pike. I think they’re keeping as quiet as they can while on the campaign trail.

And, by the way, the 2nd amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting. I’m so sick of pols on both sides of the aisle acting like it does.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with self defense either. It’s about individuals owning their private arms to keep the government in check against tyranny, AND, having individuals having privately owned arms in case the militia (private citizens, NOT the National Guard) is called upon by the Governor or the President.

But it certainly isn’t about hunting!

22

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Guns in the minds of a lot of people, pro and con, are the ultimate sign of rugged individualism. Socialism abhors rugged individualism - people who not only don’t rely on the government but actively buck the system are problems. Conservatism (and like I said, I don’t mean the fascist jingoistic current Republican party) embraces individuals who don’t rely on the government and are willing to buck the system.
[/QUOTE]

Hehe, I like the idea that a tool that requires an industrial manufacturing base to exist is a sign of rugged individualism. I think of that every time I watch a Western, when the only thing keeping the characters locked into civilization is their need for bullets.

23

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
And it’s silly, anyway. Of course an armed population with the will to resist can do so against a technologically superior government. They wouldn’t engage in symetric warfare. If even 10% of all gun owners in the US went into active rebellion and the general populace was generally supportive of them, the combined force of the US military would have very little chance of suppressing it. We’d be talking about a movement hundreds of times larger than the insurgency in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

This is true. Though, any sort of resistance would have people within the military and defectors bringing state secrets and weaponry with them. It’d be made up by disgruntled ex-military men. If the US broke up there would be no sense of side, we don’t have tribal loyalties like they do in Iraq. Blackwater mercenaries would infiltrate Nevada militias while Nevada militiamen would infiltrate Blackwater and people would be found dead with bullets in the back of their head while the entire notion of trust breaks down completely.

24

[QUOTE=pkbites]
I think as soon as the democrats have both sides of Congress and the Presidency we’re going to have massive gun control bills come down the pike. I think they’re keeping as quiet as they can while on the campaign trail.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because they know they if they can just win this one, they will never have to run for reelection ever again. :rolleyes:

25

Gun ownership as it exists right now amongst lawful citizens is extremely unlikely to change.
Barack is right that the need to “crack down” on guns is on the supply rather than the use side. Illegal arms dealers, unscrupulous legal ones, flea markets with no oversight, websites that sell too “easily”…these are the areas that the government can and should intervene in.
And whenever “assault weapons” in the form of a ban is used, it generally means “automatic” weapons, which if you know anything about guns, is mostly a useless feature on rifles with the exception of “cover fire” in a military use, and dead innocent people from a “drive-by” in a civilian sense.
There’s no reason a citizen needs an automatic machinegun.
Especially when it’s a waste of ammo and accuracy.
:wink:

26

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Gun ownership as it exists right now amongst lawful citizens is extremely unlikely to change.
Barack is right that the need to “crack down” on guns is on the supply rather than the use side. Illegal arms dealers, unscrupulous legal ones, flea markets with no oversight, websites that sell too “easily”…these are the areas that the government can and should intervene in.
And whenever “assault weapons” in the form of a ban is used, it generally means “automatic” weapons, which if you know anything about guns, is mostly a useless feature on rifles with the exception of “cover fire” in a military use, and dead innocent people from a “drive-by” in a civilian sense.
There’s no reason a citizen needs an automatic machinegun.
Especially when it’s a waste of ammo and accuracy.
:wink:
[/QUOTE]

A really interesting article I read by a Marine officer in Fallujah said that he didn’t even use the burst setting on his rifle.

27

[QUOTE=mswas]
A really interesting article I read by a Marine officer in Fallujah said that he didn’t even use the burst setting on his rifle.
[/QUOTE]

Most soldiers don’t. I didn’t in the first Gulf War, and some relatives and friends in the current conflict said they never did either. You only have so much ammo you can carry, and in the midst of a firefight there isn’t always an instant resupply.

Granted, the burst setting is much more accurate than the old M16 Auto setting (because it avoids the tendency of the barrel to “rise” while firing, rendering it inaccurate), but the M16/AR15 is such an effective weapon that one round is generally all that is needed due to it’s “tumbling” characteristics…and inherent accuracy in semi-auto mode.

28

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Yeah, because they know they if they can just win this one, they will never have to run for reelection ever again. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

You seem to think re-election fears will keep them in line. 1994 was a long time ago.
The antis are licking their chops.

29

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
And whenever “assault weapons” in the form of a ban is used, it generally means “automatic” weapons, which if you know anything about guns, is mostly a useless feature on rifles with the exception of “cover fire” in a military use, and dead innocent people from a “drive-by” in a civilian sense.

[/QUOTE]

This is wrong. “Assault weapon” bans have never covered fully automatic weapons. The media and government want to give the impression that that’s the case, but it’s not.

“Assault weapon” is a term that’s meant to sound like “assault rifle” without actually having any legitimate meaning, and that’s why politicians and the media use it. But “assault weapons” are not assault rifles. They may be patterned after them in look and function, but no “assault weapon” has ever been a fully functional select-fire weapon.

Instead, they ban semi-automatic only versions of stuff like the AR-15 because, essentially, they look scary. If you ever look up what defines an assault weapon, it’s generally cosmetic rather than functional. Because that’s the only criteria they can go on - since the guns function the same as any semi-automatic safe-looking hunting rifle, they ban them for what they look like.

This is an AR-15. It looks like an M-16, but it doesn’t have the ability to fire in fully automatic mode. This is an “assault weapon”.

This is a mini-14. It’s functionally identical to the AR-15. They both fire one round with each trigger pull, they accept detachable magazines, they’re gas operated. This is not an assault weapon. Why? It doesn’t look scary. Seriously - I’m not exaggerating - functionally identical guns are split into seperate categories based solely on how they look.

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire have been banned from production and importation for the civilian market since 1987. Funny case, that, actually. In the years between heavy federal fully automatic regulation and their eventual banning (1934-1987), no civilian ever used a legally owned fully automatic weapon to commit a crime. A few police officers did, but the regulations work differently for them. Anyway - despite an absolutely perfect record for automatic firearms, they were banned in 1987. That’s how gun control works - it doesn’t matter whether the guns are a net drain on society or even have any negative effect at all - gun control advocates will slice any little bit of freedom away that they can, until eventually they inflict death by a thousand cuts.

You could make the case that the 1934 national firearms act that heavily regulated automatic firearms worked perfectly and was an example of effective gun control (I’m not making that case, though) - hundreds of thousands of guns were owned by tens of thousands of people, and none whatsoever were ever used to do anything bad in over 50 years. A perfect record. And they were banned anyway, for no reason, because the media and gun control proponents managed to fabricate the perception of a menace that didn’t exist. That’s the gun control agenda.

30

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
This is wrong. “Assault weapon” bans have never covered fully automatic weapons. The media and government want to give the impression that that’s the case, but it’s not.

“Assault weapon” is a term that’s meant to sound like “assault rifle” without actually having any legitimate meaning, and that’s why politicians and the media use it. But “assault weapons” are not assault rifles. They may be patterned after them in look and function, but no “assault weapon” has ever been a fully functional select-fire weapon.

Instead, they ban semi-automatic only versions of stuff like the AR-15 because, essentially, they look scary. If you ever look up what defines an assault weapon, it’s generally cosmetic rather than functional. Because that’s the only criteria they can go on - since the guns function the same as any semi-automatic safe-looking hunting rifle, they ban them for what they look like.

This is an AR-15. It looks like an M-16, but it doesn’t have the ability to fire in fully automatic mode. This is an “assault weapon”.

This is a mini-14. It’s functionally identical to the AR-15. They both fire one round with each trigger pull, they accept detachable magazines, they’re gas operated. This is not an assault weapon. Why? It doesn’t look scary. Seriously - I’m not exaggerating - functionally identical guns are split into seperate categories based solely on how they look.

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire have been banned from production and importation for the civilian market since 1987. Funny case, that, actually. In the years between heavy federal fully automatic regulation and their eventual banning (1934-1987), no civilian ever used a legally owned fully automatic weapon to commit a crime. A few police officers did, but the regulations work differently for them. Anyway - despite an absolutely perfect record for automatic firearms, they were banned in 1987. That’s how gun control works - it doesn’t matter whether the guns are a net drain on society or even have any negative effect at all - gun control advocates will slice any little bit of freedom away that they can, until eventually they inflict death by a thousand cuts.

You could make the case that the 1934 national firearms act that heavily regulated automatic firearms worked perfectly and was an example of effective gun control (I’m not making that case, though) - hundreds of thousands of guns were owned by tens of thousands of people, and none whatsoever were ever used to do anything bad in over 50 years. A perfect record. And they were banned anyway, for no reason, because the media and gun control proponents managed to fabricate the perception of a menace that didn’t exist. That’s the gun control agenda.
[/QUOTE]

Well, while what you say may be true about certain weapons looking “scary”, the fact is, AR-15’s are still legal to own right now (without 3-round burst feature), and I don’t expect that to change…ever.
There are far too many responsible gun owners out there for the government to EVER take them away. I am confident that no matter which political party is currently in governance that this situation will ever change. And if it does, then Hunter S Thompson help us.

31

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Well, while what you say may be true about certain weapons looking “scary”, the fact is, AR-15’s are still legal to own right now (without 3-round burst feature), and I don’t expect that to change…ever.
There are far too many responsible gun owners out there for the government to EVER take them away. I am confident that no matter which political party is currently in governance that this situation will ever change. And if it does, then Hunter S Thompson help us.
[/QUOTE]

AR-15s were legal to own because they changed to get around the laws. The intent of the law was to ban them, but they had trouble doing so because their methods were bullshit.

There were a certain number of features that qualified a weapon as an “assault weapon” - for example one was the presence of a bayonet lug. As a result, if you see any AR-15s made from 1994 till 2004, the bayonet lug is sawed off to reduce the number of “assault weapon” features on the AR-15 to make a version that was unaffected by the law.

Imported weapons fell under a different set of criteria, so some importers would replace certain parts on their rifles with US-made replacement parts because if you had enough US-made parts it was no longer considered an imported weapon.

So the fact that you could still get an AR-15 from 1996-2004 was not intended by the creators of the law - they fully intended to ban them - but it’s because their criteria were so flimsy and superficial, you could make superficial alterations to get around the ban.

32

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Well, while what you say may be true about certain weapons looking “scary”, the fact is, AR-15’s are still legal to own right now (without 3-round burst feature), and I don’t expect that to change…ever.
There are far too many responsible gun owners out there for the government to EVER take them away. I am confident that no matter which political party is currently in governance that this situation will ever change. And if it does, then Hunter S Thompson help us.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the question isn’t whether certain guns will ever be banned, the question is has a certain candidate in the past said one thing, then said or done another.

Apparently, this would make him or her a lying scumbag who should never be elected.

33

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Well, the question isn’t whether certain guns will ever be banned, the question is has a certain candidate in the past said one thing, then said or done another.

Apparently, this would make him or her a lying scumbag who should never be elected.
[/QUOTE]

Whether or not a politician has waffled on an issue (now there’s a novelty!) is irrelevant to me, as I don’t think that ANY President will be able to author a passable bill that will limit gun ownership in this country any more than they already are regulated, with the exception being going after the hacks that will sell guns to any fuck with money rather than abide by the legality of the system.

34

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
AR-15s were legal to own because they changed to get around the laws. The intent of the law was to ban them, but they had trouble doing so because their methods were bullshit.

There were a certain number of features that qualified a weapon as an “assault weapon” - for example one was the presence of a bayonet lug. As a result, if you see any AR-15s made from 1994 till 2004, the bayonet lug is sawed off to reduce the number of “assault weapon” features on the AR-15 to make a version that was unaffected by the law.

Imported weapons fell under a different set of criteria, so some importers would replace certain parts on their rifles with US-made replacement parts because if you had enough US-made parts it was no longer considered an imported weapon.

So the fact that you could still get an AR-15 from 1996-2004 was not intended by the creators of the law - they fully intended to ban them - but it’s because their criteria were so flimsy and superficial, you could make superficial alterations to get around the ban.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I know that, and I agree that it is silly. Liked having a fixed bayonet position makes an accurate M16 any less deadly… :rolleyes:
But, I still don’t see the current climate changing much. I think the concessions on both sides have for the most part been made, and there isn’t much room for more regulation without infringing on the Constitution.

35

This was illegal while this was not.

The difference? The first one has a collapsible stock. Yup, that makes it an “assault weapon” and thus a dangerous killing machine while the fixed stock on the second prevents anyone from going on a rampage.
I fully believe that Obama would sign a similar ban if it was presented to him, yet I also seem to recall that Dubya publicly stated he would have signed if Congress had passed the reinstatement. I don’t know that there’s any candidate I’d trust to be honestly pro-gun.

36

We’ll have to see if the Supreme Court rules in a way that takes the issue largely out of executive or legislative control.

37

[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist]
I don’t know that there’s any candidate I’d trust to be honestly pro-gun.
[/QUOTE]

What about Ron Paul?

As a United States Congressman, I have:

  • Led the fight to restore the Second Amendment rights to all Americans, without infringement, that have been stripped away;

  • Introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “Gun Free Zone” victim disarmament law of 1990;

  • Introduced legislation to repeal the 1993 National “Instant Background Check” gun registration bill;

  • Authored legislation to stop taxpayer funds from going to the anti-gun United Nations;

  • Opposed all gun control schemes that would register ALL private sales and mandate government “Lock-up Your Safety” devices;

  • Introduced legislation to protect American citizens’ freedom to carry in our national parks.

  • Publicly Opposed legislation just this year that would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from EVER owning a gun.

38

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why is this even an issue?
[/quote]

I wonder about this too. If certain people would just start respecting our rights, we’d be able to shut up about this issue and move on to more important things.

Absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, I’m amazed anyone could think this. A government that fears an armed citizenry has a damn good reason to. I’m paraphrasing some famous dead person there, but I don’t care who: it’s true no matter who said it. It is exactly the ability of the people to become ungovernable in response to tyranny that the second amendment was written to protect.
As for Obama: his ideas about gun rights are absolutely fucked up, but I doubt that he will try to make any serious efforts in that direction, for fear of dooming his presidency. I hope that politicians have learned that gun control is a losing issue, but we still need to be prepared to resist them if they haven’t.

39

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
As for Obama: his ideas about gun rights are absolutely fucked up, but I doubt that he will try to make any serious efforts in that direction, for fear of dooming his presidency. I hope that politicians have learned that gun control is a losing issue
[/QUOTE]

No flame intended, but some of you need to get your head out of the sand. There are all sorts of gun bills floating around in committees right now, including the “that gun looks scary so lets ban it” [i.e. Assault weapons ban] and the gunshow “loophole” bill. These bills are being pursued mostly by Democratic law makers.

Do you really think Obama is going to lean of these people to not push this stuff? Do you really think he’s going to veto it once it’s passed? Do you really think the Democrats have learned their lesson about gun control? Gun control may have ended the careers of some pols back in '94, but it did not “doom a Presidency”. Hillary has already stated she wants the scary looking gun ban reinacted. C’mon folks: THINK!

40

[QUOTE=mswas]
Hehe, I like the idea that a tool that requires an industrial manufacturing base to exist is a sign of rugged individualism. I think of that every time I watch a Western, when the only thing keeping the characters locked into civilization is their need for bullets.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t forget coffee, tobacco, and alcohol.

Marc