# Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475 "2009-02-26T03:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/401 "2009-03-06T13:44:18Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Wait. What? How the hell can that survive Miller? The entire point of Miller was that the shotgun was not used by the armed forces. (Admittedly, no defense, or it would have been shown the shotgun was used by the armed forces.) > This makes the Colt .45 an Assault Weapon? Hell, this makes a Remington 870 an Assault Weapon? I don’t think that could stand review at all. To put it in context, time wise, it was last introduced before the Heller case had been decided. This is from the ill informed Carolyn “The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up” McCarthy who introduced [HR 1022](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022) > [@](#): > > (L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption **that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.**'. IANAL, so I would appreciate a better interpretation. Looking at it with a fresh set of eyes, perhaps it only applies to rifles and shotguns. The part I bolded however certainly seems to be more far reaching than that. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/402 "2009-03-06T16:38:33Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’re some guy living in a warzone in suburban America that requires killing or harming dozens of people a day? :dubious: Ummm…Yog, he might live near the Mexican border. They’re turning into warzones. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/403 "2009-03-06T17:26:06Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Ah, and this is where they catch you. > > 1. What is an _“Assault Weapon”_? > > 2. _“Assault Weapons”_ are not the only things banned in the AWB. Magazines with capacities over that of Rounds are banned too. And there have been many documented cases of people need that many **and more** to end an immediate threat to themselves or their family. Hey, I agree that the law as written is a mess. I’ll even raise that and say I think it’s a deliberate attempt to rip as many guns as possible from the hands of their owners, and that it is painted as seeming to refer only to AK 47s to deceive people into thinking it’s more reasonable than it is, to gain supporters who wonder what you need a machine gun for and don’t realise or internalize that the bill targets more than machine guns. > [@Todderbob](#): > > On principle, yes, there is a difference. Okay. What’s the difference? Does it effect wether the right to own one category of weapon should be defended more ardently than another? > [@Todderbob](#): > > Fully Automatic Firearms != Bazookas. > > The simple fact they fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull does not magically make them more dangerous than ones that fire only a single round per trigger pull. Yes, I know. So what? That doesn’t mean that they can’t both be denied (or permitted) to a similar degree, anymore than the legal nature of six-shooters implies that shotguns should be banned. And your second sentence is funny when combined with the first, because the bazooka fires only a single round per trigger pull but I _hope_ we can agree that a bazooka is more dangerous weapon than a machine gun. 🙂 As for comparing single-shot vs. automatic guns, I’d think that it’s not magic, but rather the increased amount of lead being delivered, that would make it more dangerous (possibly coupled with a lesser amount of control due to recoil, but I’m pulling that out of my butt; I don’t actually know about that). _Aren’t_ automatic weapons more lethal than single shot? > [@Todderbob](#): > > You have made the assumption, without proof, that fully automatic weapons are destructive devices. I’d like some proof, please. Oh, come on. Point a fully automatic weapon at a person. Pull the trigger. Some damage has been done, yes? Of course the things are destructive devices. What do you think guns are used for, holding papers down in high winds? _Neither_ side of the discussion is improved by ridiculous hyperbole. > [@Todderbob](#): > > Constitutional Argument, Backed by [United States V. Miller](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller): Arms used in the Military are covered under the 2nd Amendment. > > There’s a constitutional argument, for you. Does this apply to _all_ military arms? Bazookas? Tanks? Nukes? > [@Todderbob](#): > > So, how about the argument _for_ allowing fully automatic weapons being that legal Fully Automatic firearms have been used in less crimes that **any** other type of firearm (perhaps, even less than muskets). Only **two** since the NFA registry in 1934 has tracked them, both by police officers, one using a Police department weapon (so this one really wouldn’t count – since it is legal even though they’re banned for Civilian use). This argument I find very uncompelling, as it hasn’t been adjusted to account for the relative number of fully automatic (why do you keep capitalizing that?) weapons in circulation, as opposed to the number of other weapons. Just because there are more dog attacks than cougar attacks per year, doesn’t mean dogs are more dangerous to have around than cougars, after all. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/404 "2009-03-06T18:07:17Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hey, I agree that the law as written is a mess. I’ll even raise that and say I think it’s a deliberate attempt to rip as many guns as possible from the hands of their owners, and that it is painted as seeming to refer only to AK 47s to deceive people into thinking it’s more reasonable than it is, to gain supporters who wonder what you need a machine gun for and don’t realise or internalize that the bill targets more than machine guns. They got you too. The bill does not target machine guns. > [@From JXJohns](#): > > (L) …and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.’ So. If a firearm is suitable for a sporting event, that doesn’t necessarily mean its suitable for sporting purposes. That’s just brilliant. In other words. They could ban pretty much any gun they want to under this legislation. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/405 "2009-03-06T19:06:56Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … As for comparing single-shot vs. automatic guns, I’d think that it’s not magic, but rather the increased amount of lead being delivered, that would make it more dangerous (possibly coupled with a lesser amount of control due to recoil, but I’m pulling that out of my butt; I don’t actually know about that). _Aren’t_ automatic weapons more lethal than single shot? They shoot faster, but they also empty faster and are very difficult to control. On the whole I would say they are about the same. > [@](#): > > Oh, come on. Point a fully automatic weapon at a person. Pull the trigger. Some damage has been done, yes? Of course the things are destructive devices. What do you think guns are used for, holding papers down in high winds? Destructive Device is a term that the Feds use to classify certain weapons such as grenades, landmines, bazooka rockets, rocket propelled grenades, c4, etc. Bullet spewing rifles are not considered destructive devices by the feds. FYI > [@](#): > > This argument I find very uncompelling, as it hasn’t been adjusted to account for the relative number of fully automatic (why do you keep capitalizing that?) weapons in circulation, as opposed to the number of other weapons. Just because there are more dog attacks than cougar attacks per year, doesn’t mean dogs are more dangerous to have around than cougars, after all. Well, there are thousands and thousands on the registry and only 2 have been used in the commission of a crime. Since one of them was owned by a police dept. i bet it wasn’t even on the list. I bet there have been more cougar attacks since 1934 than crimes committed with a full auto gun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/406 "2009-03-06T19:06:59Z")
The whole “sporting purposes” clause that started with the GCA '68 are complete bullshit through and through. Any law that contains a provision based around it is automatically bad. It works somewhat because a huge number of the dicks that are NRA members say “just don’t take my duck gun” and sell everyone else up the river. Classic divide and conquer stuff. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/407 "2009-03-06T19:09:01Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > They got you too. The bill does not target machine guns. > So. If a firearm is suitable for a sporting event, that doesn’t necessarily mean its suitable for sporting purposes. > > That’s just brilliant. In other words. They could ban pretty much any gun they want to under this legislation. That’s the way I read it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/408 "2009-03-06T19:14:17Z")
This isn’t atypical of gun control proposals. If they thought they could sneak “oh and by the way all guns are banned” into the “Don’t Worry, We’re Only Banning Bazookas Act”, they would. There were “Cop Killer Bullet” bans which were actually attempts to ban EVERY RIFLE available. And then when the NRA spent political clout to oppose the ban, they got “the EXTREMIST NRA wants to defend COP KILLER BULLETS!” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/409 "2009-03-06T19:50:20Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > They got you too. The bill does not target machine guns. I didn’t say it did; I said it was being sold as doing so. And isn’t it? > [@JXJohns](#): > > Destructive Device is a term that the Feds use to classify certain weapons such as grenades, landmines, bazooka rockets, rocket propelled grenades, c4, etc. Bullet spewing rifles are not considered destructive devices by the feds. FYI That’s informative but irrelevent to the way he or I was using the term. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Well, there are thousands and thousands on the registry and only 2 have been used in the commission of a crime. Since one of them was owned by a police dept. i bet it wasn’t even on the list. I bet there have been more cougar attacks since 1934 than crimes committed with a full auto gun. 🙂 Thousands and thousands, huh? So how many _other_ guns are out there? I still think that collecting _all_ the necessary data to make the correct calculation drastically weakens this line of argument. Which is not to say this isn’t necessary a solution in search of a problem, even _if_ the law had been written to simply restrict automatic weapons unstead of being the weasley mess it is. But that doesn’t excuse the use of flimsy arguments to oppose it. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/410 "2009-03-06T20:05:20Z")
begbert2 - You didn’t say that? Well then you sure did phrase this strange. > [@begbert2](#): > > Hey, I agree that the law as written is a mess. I’ll even raise that and say I think it’s a deliberate attempt to rip as many guns as possible from the hands of their owners, and that it is painted as seeming to refer only to AK 47s to deceive people into thinking it’s more reasonable than it is, to gain supporters who wonder what you need a machine gun for **and don’t realise or internalize that the bill targets more than machine guns.** [bolding mine]. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/411 "2009-03-06T20:19:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > …That’s informative but irrelevent to the way he or I was using the term. Just saying. Since bazookas and C4 invariably make their way into this argument, now the DD term is too. It means something besides what you were using it as and it directly applied to the difference between a Bazooka and a machine gun. > [@](#): > > Thousands and thousands, huh? So how many _other_ guns are out there? I still think that collecting _all_ the necessary data to make the correct calculation drastically weakens this line of argument. Lets make it simple. There are about 80 million guns in private hands. Per the DOJ [in 1994](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf) there were some 85000 requests to the ATF to track weapons that had been seized in the commission of a crime. That works out to about one tenth of a percent of all guns privately held. If the NFA registry holds a million guns, and 2 were used in crimes, in 60 years that equals .0002% of the guns. > [@](#): > > Which is not to say this isn’t necessary a solution in search of a problem, even _if_ the law had been written to simply restrict automatic weapons unstead of being the weasley mess it is. But that doesn’t excuse the use of flimsy arguments to oppose it. I’m not sure which arguments were flimsy. Can you please elaborate. I’m not being sarcastic, this thread is just getting big and specifics are getting harder to find. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/412 "2009-03-06T20:59:15Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Lets make it simple. There are about 80 million guns in private hands. You’re getting your numbers mixed up - about 80 million gun owners in the US, around 250 million guns. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/413 "2009-03-06T21:34:22Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You’re getting your numbers mixed up - about 80 million gun owners in the US, around 250 million guns. Thanks, one can only keep so many number straight… 85,000 / 250,000,000 = .03% ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/414 "2009-03-06T22:10:31Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > begbert2 - You didn’t say that? Well then you sure did phrase this strange. Are you under the impression that I am a supporter of this bill? I’ve already criticized it in no uncertain terms, including the statement you’ve been quoting. So, as I’m not a supporter of the bill, clearly I didn’t fall for the ruse. > [@JXJohns](#): > > I’m not sure which arguments were flimsy. Can you please elaborate. I’m not being sarcastic, this thread is just getting big and specifics are getting harder to find. Thanks. Asserting that automatic weapons only have been used in two crimes while casually not mentioning that only a small fraction of the guns in circulation are automatic weapons is a rhetorical argument that artificially stresses the safety of such weapons by failing to credit their basic rarity for the rarity of their use. To me, that’s a weak argument. (Actually based on the numbers it sounds like a better argument could be made that their limited numbers is _all_ that has made their use in crimes rare, and thus, that restricting them further would make them _safer_.) And there was that passing comment one needs an automatic weapon to drive off a hapless burglar, as if a 12-gauge shotgun isn’t enough of a persuader. There may be others, but those were recent. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/415 "2009-03-06T22:26:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Are you under the impression that I am a supporter of this bill? I’ve already criticized it in no uncertain terms, including the statement you’ve been quoting. So, as I’m not a supporter of the bill, clearly I didn’t fall for the ruse. :shrug: Whatever. Read your quote again. It clearly reads like you think/thought that the bill would ban machine guns. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/416 "2009-03-06T22:27:50Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > :shrug: Whatever. Read your quote again. It clearly reads like you think/thought that the bill would ban machine guns. Clear as mud, my friend. :shrug: ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/417 "2009-03-06T22:35:08Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > That doesn’t mean that they can’t both be denied (or permitted) to a similar degree, Did you miss the part where I think Fully Automatic Weapons should be unbanned? > [@begbert2](#): > > Okay. What’s the difference? Does it effect wether the right to own one category of weapon should be defended more ardently than another? Function. No, both should be as ardently defended. However, I’m not in a position to stop the '86 amendment from going through… > [@begbert2](#): > > _Aren’t_ automatic weapons more lethal than single shot? _No._ There’s a reason Military issued M16’s are no longer Fully Automatic, they’re 3 shot burst. > [@begbert2](#): > > Oh, come on. Point a fully automatic weapon at a person. Pull the trigger. Some damage has been done, yes? Of course the things are destructive devices. What do you think guns are used for, holding papers down in high winds? And that’s your personal bias saying **all** guns are destructive devices. The same argument could be made for Cars. **My** guns only shoot at paper. Period. I’m still waiting for that proof. > [@begbert2](#): > > _Neither_ side of the discussion is improved by ridiculous hyperbole. I haven’t used one yet. > [@begbert2](#): > > Does this apply to _all_ military arms? Bazookas? Tanks? Nukes? What happened to not using ridiculous a hyperbole? > [@begbert2](#): > > This argument I find very uncompelling, as it hasn’t been adjusted to account for the relative number of fully automatic (why do you keep capitalizing that?) weapons in circulation, as opposed to the number of other weapons. Just because there are more dog attacks than cougar attacks per year, doesn’t mean dogs are more dangerous to have around than cougars, after all. Let me rephrase: Prove to me why my rights should be infringed, in the light of the negligible amount of deaths attributed to weapons with selective fire capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/418 "2009-03-06T22:36:56Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Well, there are thousands and thousands on the registry and only 2 have been used in the commission of a crime. Since one of them was owned by a police dept. i bet it wasn’t even on the list. I bet there have been more cougar attacks since 1934 than crimes committed with a full auto gun. 🙂 There have been more **polar bear** attacks, in the continental united states… ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/419 "2009-03-06T22:40:17Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I didn’t say it did; I said it was being sold as doing so. And isn’t it? You did say it did. And no, it it isn’t. > [@begbert2](#): > > IThat’s informative but irrelevent to the way he or I was using the term. Actually, it’s _ **exactly** _ how I used the term. The fact you didn’t understand it that way, does not mean it’s not how I used it. > [@begbert2](#): > > IThousands and thousands, huh? So how many _other_ guns are out there? I still think that collecting _all_ the necessary data to make the correct calculation drastically weakens this line of argument. You obviously don’t understand the argument… you seem to be repeating yourself… > [@begbert2](#): > > IWhich is not to say this isn’t necessary a solution in search of a problem, even _if_ the law had been written to simply restrict automatic weapons unstead of being the weasley mess it is. But that doesn’t excuse the use of flimsy arguments to oppose it. It’s not restricting fully automatic weapons **at all** , not simply, not complexly, not in any manner. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/420 "2009-03-06T22:44:40Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > (Actually based on the numbers it sounds like a better argument could be made that their limited numbers is _all_ that has made their use in crimes rare, and thus, that restricting them further would make them _safer_.) They were registered in 1934, the registry stayed open and IIRC there are 125,000+ selective fire, NFA registered firearms still on the books. This number has dwindled from 135-140,000, because of standard breakages… again, IIRC. > [@begbert2](#): > > And there was that passing comment one needs an automatic weapon to drive off a hapless burglar, as if a 12-gauge shotgun isn’t enough of a persuader. Find that for me, please. I believe you’ll find the term used is _“Assault Weapon,”_ which is a Semi-Automatic shotgun (and the best home defense weapon, imo) under the current bill. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=22)