# 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:** 22
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/421 "2009-03-06T23:13:14Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > 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. Congratulations - you have, in my mind, graduated to the ridiculous. By this line of argument, literally nothing is destructive. Literally. Nothing. This has become tiresome. The question which has brought me into this thread (which was admittedly something of a hijack), the question whether there are actual arguments in favor of permitting automatic weapons in addition to single-fire weapons, has been in my opinion answered. (No.) I leave you all to fence with people who actually support this bill and/or wish to ban _all_ guns. Good day. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/422 "2009-03-06T23:19:33Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > …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. And if it has a: [Pistol Grip](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022&version=rfs&nid=t0%3Arfs%3A82) which most shotguns do [A fixed mag of more than 5 rounds,](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022&version=rfs&nid=t0%3Arfs%3A70) which many do Based upon a [receiver](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022&version=rfs&nid=t0%3Arfs%3A72) of an already named AW (bye bye Saigas) Used by the [.gov](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022&version=rfs&nid=t0%3Arfs%3A74) (see ya benellis, HK, Remingtons, Mossbergs,) They are banned too. ---
**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, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/423 "2009-03-06T23:27:29Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > … This has become tiresome. The question which has brought me into this thread (which was admittedly something of a hijack), the question whether there are actual arguments in favor of permitting automatic weapons in addition to single-fire weapons, has been in my opinion answered. (No.) I leave you all to fence with people who actually support this bill and/or wish to ban _all_ guns. Good day. Honestly, that bell has already been rung. Only the most hard core gun rights supporters (myself included) would even consider arguing for the reinstatement of that class of weapons to us commoners. They are crazy expensive and collectors pieces and most people have never had the opportunity to even see one, not to mention shoot it. I know that if I went to my other website hangout, full of hunters and sportsmen to get a grass roots movement started, it’d be like pissing in the wind. Full auto guns have been demonized by the press and hollywood for years now and it’s probably too late. I think that the intent of the Miller decision should allow them, but a lot of people disagree with Heller too. I guess I’m happy with what I have now and I am focused on not losing any more through compromise or outright deception. I saw through your posts that you weren’t looking to ban anything FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/424 "2009-03-07T00:08:53Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Clear as mud, my friend. :shrug: I’m just trying to clear something up. When you said - > [@begbert2](#): > > and don’t realise or internalize that the bill targets more than machine guns. It reads to me that YOU think that the bill ALSO regulates machine guns. You keep skipping around this. I’m not saying that you support the bill. But you made the GOOD argument that the wool is being pulled over a lot of peoples eyes. If you think that the bill also regulates machine guns, I’m afraid that you are in that group. I wasn’t trying to be snarky. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/425 "2009-03-16T21:11:16Z")
Apologies for the delay, if anyone cares. Had some auditing issues that hopefully are now resolved > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Here’s a hint then. Next time you come into a debate, learn what you’re talking about _before_ you adopt a controversial position. And when people point out that you have no clue what you’re talking about, remedy that by learning and not by talking about how you just trust politicians and it’s totally unreasonable to know what’s in a bill before you decide to support it. A good thing for you to adopt is perhaps some manners next time someone who disagrees with you decide to join the conversation. To be honest, some of what I said was designed specifically to piss you off, because you were just so rude in your initial response that I figured that if I cant convince someone that pig-headed, I might as well play with him a while. That burlap sack comment was completely uncalled for and if you wanted to intimate that I should subsist on a diet of pig lard, then maybe you should have the nerve to stop pretending you’re doing anyone a favor by arguing an issue in which you clearly cannot control your emotions. Just a thought :dubious: Its pretty stupid to consider that I’m the only one unwilling to look at my sources when your sources in the DoJ is of a political nature as well, and that among the bill writers, I’m certain that it wasn’t just a bunch of Congressmen locked in a room with no outside lobbying done at all. Say what you will of the government, but part of its job is to be so frustratingly slow as to make sure to cover all its bases, find all relevent view points, and THEN decide. The last 8 years notwithstanding, I think that generally, not all the time, it does that. So for you to imply that only uneducated politicians wrote the bill, and assume that none of them are versed at all with guns, is utterly laughable. I often trust those guys to come up with the bills that affect me, and they do, and you’ll just have to get over your paranoia. They are just as qualified as you or me. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > You are deliberately ignoring all the facts. > The actual DoJ stats are based on real numbers. > It’s already been pointed out to you that some of the politicians who drafted the legislation are hopelessly clueless/dishonest. You could, for instance, learn about the difference between flash suppressors and muzzle brakes. Or “the shoulder thing that goes up”, or any of that. You could check out the actual DoJ statistics which show that “assault weapons” are the vast, vast minority of weapons used in crimes in any case, and that means that the vast, vast majority of “assault weapons” are held by perfectly legal gun owners. Post some actual DoJ facts or shut up. You keep alluding to this supposed report by the DoJ without any kind of citation, as if such a list would only support one side. I’ve gotten into plenty of gun debates and the one thing I can be certain will always happen is that somebody will post a report of some findings and skew it one way, but the report, unless its from the NRA, can easily be made to skew the other way And you keep pointing out the irrelevent detail of assault weapons being in the minority of crimes when I keep pointing out that part of the criteria for banning them also includes its uselessness. For the last time, such weapons should not be viewed through a vacuum. They are dangerous, useless for general protection, replaceable with handguns, and have functions outside of the range of legal use. Your refusal to acknowledge that certain useless or generally dangerous items lead to your puzzling myopia. I think this sentence encompasses your entire argument: **…the vast, vast majority of “assault weapons” are held by perfectly legal gun owners.** You do realize that we are arguing WHY something should be legal, instead of WHAT is legal, don’t you? Present legality is tangent to this debate. If you’re going to keep coming from that perspective, don’t even bother > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Again, your argument wouldn’t be so glaringly absurd if you had a clue what you were talking about. To begin with, any machine which propels a piece of hot lead at massive velocity at a specific target will be “dangerous”. But as you still refuse to define what exactly makes something an “assault weapon” other than that politicians say so (and you still can’t identify why their definitions makes a lick of sense in any case), your argument fails. I’m fine with redefining what constitutes an assault weapon. If the AWB does not provide for updated definitions then I say go ahead and redefine what’s legal and what’s not. In no way would I, like you, try to completely block the argument by saying that the bill as it is currently is bad and it should be done away with. Of course you’d think that because you have no interest in actually debating why people should want such items banned > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Not to mention that, again, your ignorance is showing. > The vast majority of crimes are, in fact, committed with handguns. Not “assault weapons”. So you don’t really care about crime or danger, you’ve just decided you want to take people’s guns away and you’re rationalizing your way to that pre-determined conclusion. Unfortunately, handguns are too prevalent to ban outright. I see the AWB as a good step towards harsher regulation of all firearms and so in that vein, I will support it. And it is about crime and danger, as such guns are worse in their impact than handguns, both physically and psychologically, and so your attempt at attributing such fear to ignorance is misplaced. Why even have those tiny amount of crimes possible if we can stop it? Theres no reason > [@FinnAgain](#): > > This is totally nonsensical, and I’d wager you’ll perform your usual dodge of adding in other qualifiers after the fact. As much as I would like omniscience, I don’t have it, so yes, I add qualifiers after the fact to cover up things I have missed. I suppose you chisel all your writings in stone and remove the erasers from your pencils but some of us are not insane. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > We’ve already identified the fact that your “necessity” claim is bullshit. Which is exactly why you’re not wearing a burlap sack and eating bread, water, vitamins, protein pills and raw fat. Or, for that matter, trying to communicate with us via smoke signals rather than the internet. Bullshit? Is this the part where you talk to yourself for a while, declare victory, then take your ball and go home? Reread our give-and-take from posts #144, #153, and #331. “We” haven’t identified anything, except that you are a really bad reader. Between those posts, I specifically stated that necessity isn’t the single criteria upon which I build my argument, yet you ignore that. I suppose that food other than bread, water, and pills, along with the internet serves no other purpose then? And by themselves, they are all dangerous if handled correctly AND incorrectly? We do not need such weapons, and due to their danger, and the fact that their desired use can be replaced with other, safer items, they should be banned. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Stop this absurdity. “Necessity” is not a valid metric, and the fact that you continually back away from when challenged it is revealing. That you normally back away from it to bombastic bluster about “rhinos” or whatever, and then back away from that as “sarcasm”, still never identifying what makes a gun “bannable” or “more dangerous”, again, shows what your argument is made of. Sure it is. And if you took the rhino comment as serious and are trying to attribute that to my argument, then you are sadly a worse debater than I realized. I think even children could have recognized that as sarcasm. I could have easily substituted “bison” or “rampaging brides” to that and my point would have still been made > [@FinnAgain](#): > > It goes something like this. > > 1. “Assault weapons” are not a necessity. **Yes, along with other criteria** > 2. Well, okay, what I really meant to say was that they’re too dangerous and they’re not a necessity. **Along with other reasons** > 3. There are no good uses for them, they’re way too dangerous for normal people to have and all they’re good for is hunting large game. **Forgetting that there are little large game in the US that requires an AK47, plus no good hunter would use such a weapon anyway** > 4. Ha ha, I was kidding. You’re silly for taking me seriously. But they’re still too dangerous for citizens to own. **No, you’re mistaken. I was not kidding about the spirit of the comment (that there are little big game that are hunted with assault weapons), but was kidding about the specific game** > 5. No, I won’t tell you why they’re dangerous, it’s strange that you’d even ask me to support my claims. You can’t have those guns because they’re dangerous though. **If you mean danger in excess of regular handguns, then everything already stated in the AWB makes them an extra threat. Why anyone would need things like bayonets and grenade launchers for protection is beyond me** > 6. What do you mean that the facts show I’m wrong? Politicians agree with me. **And what facts are those?** > 7. What do you mean the facts show that they’re wrong too? I bet you expect people to know the contents of a bill before they have an opinion on it, eh, eh? How unreasonable! **Right, I’m supposed to go entirely by this nebulous DoJ report of which no one’s even provided a cite. Well you know what Finn, the National Association of People who got Shot has a study that refutes the DoJ study!** > 8. But seriously, “assault weapons” are not a necessity. **They are?** My responses in **bold**. By the way, there was sarcasm in my reply above. I hope you can pick out where it was, just warning you. Don’t want you to get confused again 😛 > [@FinnAgain](#): > > When is the last time that someone was able to sue Ford if some idiot drove his Ford while intoxicated? When was the last time Ford refused to put safety devices in its cars, doors without locks, and didn’t want to make them trackable with any identification? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > And guns require background checks and/or safety training. > What, you didn’t think anybody would notice the difference between “regulate swimming areas” and “ban the fuck out of all assault swimming pools!” Unless of course you’re selling it to your cousin. I suppose that when someone dies and passes along a house or a car to their next-of-kin, the kin shouldn’t be subject to property taxes, or fill out change of ownership forms at the DMV, or learn how to drive? The so-called gun show loophole would like to have a word with you But hey, I see the glimmer of a compromise in your profanity-laden response! How about we make sure that all gun owners meet a certain standard of training and all guns are registered no matter how they get their guns? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Maybe you should learn what you’re talking about. You have yet to define “dangerous” let alone “more dangerous” and have ignored that the facts show that “non-assault weapons” are used in vastly more crimes than “assault weapons”. Not to mention that “safety locks” are neither safe, nor effective locks. So a lock on a door is bad and your automatic response is that all locks are bad? My dear fellow, your article helps my cause. That’s not an argument against safety locks, that’s an argument \*\*FOR \*\*better safety locks! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/426 "2009-03-16T21:43:04Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > A good thing for you to adopt is perhaps some manners next time someone who disagrees with you decide to join the conversation. So it’s now “bad manners” to point out that your argument is full of shit? Awwwww, so sad. If you can’t deal with someone pointing out that your gun-grabbing rationalizations fail, you can cry me a river. By your own standard, which you quickly changed and shifted the goalposts, the only metric was necessity. Only necessity. Not any of your other post-hoc rationalizations. When it was pointed out that by that same standard, the federal government could limit you to wearing a burlap sack and eating bland food only for its nutrient content, you harped on the dramatic unfairness of having your own bullshit rationalizations applied to yourself. So horrible, your own rationalizations turned against yourself. So sad. Abhorrent absurdities are only for legal gun owners who are unlucky enough to be your targets. Oh, and, yeah, you are unwilling to look at sources. The DoJ data has already been posted, and as you’ve just admitted to posting deliberately to “piss me off”, I’m certainly not going to fall for the same trick again. Go read the thread if you’re curious. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > And you keep pointing out the irrelevent detail of assault weapons being in the minority of crimes when I keep pointing out that part of the criteria for banning them also includes its uselessness. No, actually the fact that they’re hardly ever used in crimes and those that are would not be banned is relevant. You’re also spewing fiction, as per your normal pattern. People have pointed out numerous uses, you’ve spewed obnoxious rhetoric about how they’re only useful for hunting rhinos and such, and when called on it, you get all upset and talk about sarcasm, obnoxiously intimating that those here debating honestly have done something wrong in not realizing that you were posting things you knew not to be true in your admitted attempt to piss people off. Good job, though, ignoring the fact that you never actually provided any valid argument for something’s lack of use, only provided bombastic hyperbole that you explicitly admit wasn’t something you believed in. “Those guns are not necessary because their only use is hunting large game”, even if it’s sarcastic (and seeing how you argue, I’d put money on you actually being so ignorant that you didn’t know what “assault weapons” were used for), still means that you argued for removing American citizens constitutionally protected rights and didn’t even bother to provide a justification besides an obnoxious untruth which you didn’t even _attempt_ to replace with an accurate claim. Or as you put it, you deliberately posted in an attempt to piss people off. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > They are dangerous, useless for general protection, replaceable with handguns, and have functions outside of the range of legal use. Moe bullshit. Every weapon is dangerous, “assault weapons” are quite useful for self defense and hunting, they are not replaceable with handguns (which you’d know if you had even a basic clue, which you still resist strongly), handguns are used in the vast majority of crimes in any case, and any object on the planet has a range of functions “outside of the range of legal use”. You’re just rationalizing, based on ignorance. Go figure. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Your refusal to acknowledge that certain useless or generally dangerous items lead to your puzzling myopia. Sorry, your ability to spew untruth about “useless” things only means you’re not exactly being knowledgeable, or aren’t playing straight if you aren’t horribly ignorant. Recognizing your bullshit hardly counts as myopia. Your absurd preference for the weapons that vast majority of crimes are committed with over the weapons that the vast, insignificant minority are committed with reveals that your objection is neither utility nor crime, but rationalizations designed to gun-grab and remove constitutionally protected rights. That you want to ban weapons that overwhelmingly are used for legal purposes in the hopes of imposing stricter policies that would lead to your unconstitutional wishes being put into law is something that can’t properly be commented upon in this forum. You’re like someone who pushes for harsher and harsher obscenity laws in the hopes of one day eliminating the first amendment itself without the mess of a new amendment. And proper comments on such a person are fit only for the Pit. I’m done with you here. If you want to allow people to respond to you properly, post in the Pit thread which was started to describe your behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/427 "2009-03-16T22:30:01Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > They are just as qualified as you or me. As qualified as _you_, maybe. But do not insult me, or FinnAgain, by implying that you are as qualified as I am, or FinnAgain is. I am most certainly more qualified than you to speak to the dangers of firearms, having been around them for over a decade, worked on them, and studied them. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Post some actual DoJ facts or shut up. You keep alluding to this supposed report by the DoJ without any kind of citation, as if such a list would only support one side. [Citation](http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf). The report is pretty clear, you’re going to have to do some heavy cherry picking to skew this one your way. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > And you keep pointing out the irrelevent detail of assault weapons being in the minority of crimes when I keep pointing out that part of the criteria for banning them also includes its uselessness. For the last time, such weapons should not be viewed through a vacuum. They aren’t view through a vacuum, but you need to understand that **laws should not be passed that restric individual liberties without causation.** The law in question restricts individual liberty without benefiting society. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > They are dangerous, useless for general protection, replaceable with handguns, and have functions outside of the range of legal use. No they cannot. You are arguing from ignorance. All things have a range of uses outside of their legal uses. Should we ban Propane tanks because Charcoal is safer, and serves the same purpose? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Your refusal to acknowledge that certain useless or generally dangerous items lead to your puzzling myopia. **They are not useless.** I cannot make myself any more clear. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I think this sentence encompasses your entire argument: **…the vast, vast majority of “assault weapons” are held by perfectly legal gun owners.** You do realize that we are arguing WHY something should be legal, instead of WHAT is legal, don’t you? Present legality is tangent to this debate. If you’re going to keep coming from that perspective, don’t even bother “These guns are not used in crimes. Banning them does not lower crime.” > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m fine with redefining what constitutes an assault weapon. If the AWB does not provide for updated definitions then I say go ahead and redefine what’s legal and what’s not. In no way would I, like you, try to completely block the argument by saying that the bill as it is currently is bad and it should be done away with. Of course you’d think that because you have no interest in actually debating why people should want such items banned I see _why_ they want such items banned. I also see _why_ people are racist. It doesn’t mean they’re right, or I agree. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Unfortunately, handguns are too prevalent to ban outright. I see the AWB as a good step towards harsher regulation of all firearms and so in that vein, I will support it. So you see this as the first step toward eventual total revocation of Civilian firearms rights. Which is the only honest and genuine argument I’ve heard from you so far. I disagree whole heartedly, for a variety of reasons. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > And it is about crime and danger, as such guns are worse in their impact than handguns, both physically and psychologically, and so your attempt at attributing such fear to ignorance is misplaced. Why even have those tiny amount of crimes possible if we can stop it? Theres no reason _Banning them did not stop those crimes._ > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Bullshit? Is this the part where you talk to yourself for a while, declare victory, then take your ball and go home? Reread our give-and-take from posts #144, #153, and #331. “We” haven’t identified anything, except that you are a really bad reader. Between those posts, I specifically stated that necessity isn’t the single criteria upon which I build my argument, yet you ignore that. I suppose that food other than bread, water, and pills, along with the internet serves no other purpose then? And by themselves, they are all dangerous if handled correctly AND incorrectly? We do not need such weapons, and due to their danger, and the fact that their desired use can be replaced with other, safer items, they should be banned. “You don’t need it, it should be banned.” Applies to SUV’s, Caviar, Sushi, etc. Sushi is more dangerous than Soy Curds. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > When was the last time Ford refused to put safety devices in its cars, doors without locks, and didn’t want to make them trackable with any identification? _ **All** _ firearms have Serial numbers, and are trackable. Saying they aren’t is a lie, or you’re still ignorant of the subject you’re debating on. The majority (in fact, I don’t know of any commercial firearms that don’t) feature safety mechanisms. That’s **not** what these lawsuits were. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Unless of course you’re selling it to your cousin. I suppose that when someone dies and passes along a house or a car to their next-of-kin, the kin shouldn’t be subject to property taxes, or fill out change of ownership forms at the DMV, or learn how to drive? The so-called gun show loophole would like to have a word with you De facto gun registration - no thanks. Know why? Because it’s always led to gun confiscation in the past. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > So a lock on a door is bad and your automatic response is that all locks are bad? My dear fellow, your article helps my cause. That’s not an argument against safety locks, that’s an argument \*\*FOR \*\*better safety locks! They’re **not** what you’re calling them, any more than calling a bottle of water gasoline will make it power your car. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/428 "2009-03-16T23:39:32Z")
Bob, all post '68 guns have serial numbers and are trackable. Older guns than that may or may not, and probably don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/429 "2009-03-17T00:25:24Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Bob, all post '68 guns have serial numbers and are trackable. Older guns than that may or may not, and probably don’t. I’ve seen multiple pre-68 guns that do, most do, some don’t, but that’s not what I meant, I meant all new manufacture. I could’ve sworn I specified that, but apparently not. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/430 "2009-03-17T01:31:04Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > A good thing for you to adopt is perhaps some manners next time someone who disagrees with you decide to join the conversation. To be honest, some of what I said was designed specifically to piss you off, because you were just so rude in your initial response that I figured that if I cant convince someone that pig-headed, I might as well play with him a while. I have not found your posts to be beacons of civility, so getting snide with other posters about their rudeness is not a wise course for you to take. Beyond that, posting deliberately to enrage is pretty much the definition of trolling and we take a dim view of that sort of activity, here. Stick to the actual discussion and leave the personal attacks for the **Pit**. (And please find some better logic that that we should ban anything just because it has a _potential_ to be dangerous before we find you shutting down amusement parks, banning all automobiles larger than Yugos, and compelling everyone to register their Bic lighters and Blue Diamond matches.) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/431 "2009-03-17T01:44:21Z")
By the way, **YogSosoth** , when you include text within a Quote box, you are not to add your own text to it. Simply bolding your rejoinders does not make it clear that the poster you are quoting did not actually post those words. Find some other way to post your rejoinders and leave other postrers’ quotes alone. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/432 "2009-03-17T03:02:50Z")
I’d also like to, again, point out the absurdity inherent in the claim that “assault weapons” are for hunting large game, just not rhinos. No weaseling possible on that point, as the direct quote is: > [@](#): > > I was not kidding about the spirit of the comment (that there are little big game that are hunted with assault weapons), but was kidding about the specific game Along with the claim that AK’s (the non-fully auto variants that are 100% legal) are unsuitable for normal hunting. :rolleyes: The AK is actually quite suited for deer hunting, although my understanding from the friends of mine who hunt (I haven’t ever been able to join them, unfortunately), a high powered long-range rifle is a superior choice. A buddy of mine swears by anything that’s chambered for thirty ought six. My understanding is that the 7.62x39mm is roughly equivalent to the 30-30, and that it’s fine for white tail deer but even for larger deer you want something with more punch. A person who took the 100% legal variant of the AK that is an “assault weapon”, and used it to hunt large game like rhinos, let alone domestic game like a brown bear, would be a fool. And most likely would be made very dead in very short order. P.S. Just for the record, I don’t own any firearms, although I’d like to when money/time permits. I still support the 2nd amendment and find backdoor attempts to circumvent it to be distasteful. I wouldn’t object (on principle) to an honest drive to repeal the 2nd, but I’d still vote against such a measure when it came time to take it to the polls. Then again, I also don’t produce fetish pornography or Nazi propaganda, but I support the first amendment for those, too. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/433 "2009-03-17T10:07:16Z")
I figured you meant that, bob, but, you know, when you’re in a discussion with someone who lies, never leave something untrue stated. Gives 'em way too much leverage. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/434 "2009-03-17T11:02:26Z")
You can kill anything with any rifle, basically. I mean, Chris McCandless managed to kill a fucking Moose with a .22-caliber Remington Nylon 66. The question is, can you do it humanely, quickly, and effectively enough (in the case of dangerous game) to ensure your own safety? An AR-15 can be chambered in damn near any cartridge you can come up with. There are several very powerful rounds that can be used in AR platform rifles, like .338 Lapua, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, etc, that I wouldn’t hesitate to use against dangerous game (which I wouldn’t hunt, because I don’t see the point in killing a non-edible predatory animal, but whatever.) The point is, it can be done. Almost ANYTHING can be done with the AR platform. It’s an absolutely ingenious rifle design, and without a doubt the most versatile on the planet, though it has its shortcomings as any number of people will tell you. It is for all intents and purposes one of the most practical rifles there is, and it is very much in common use. Any bans that go after it are founded on the most profound kind of ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/435 "2009-03-17T14:10:36Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I figured you meant that, bob, but, you know, when you’re in a discussion with someone who lies, never leave something untrue stated. Gives 'em way too much leverage. Thanks, I figured it was something to that effect. 😃 At this point, almost all guns that wouldn’t have serial numbers are C&R’s, aren’t they? Give it another 10 years and some with serials will be. It’s 50 years or older, right? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/436 "2009-03-17T15:07:10Z")
Technically, .499 Beowulf. That means it’s legal in those strange places that have outlawed .50 cal. Course, you _can_ shoot .50 BMG from an AR-15, too. Got to turn the whole thing into a bolt action, but it’s a technically easy conversion. C&Rs? You’re wooshing me on the shorthand. I should point out, if you havn’t got it already, I have a ‘typical gun’ I like to use for hypotheticals. Imagine, if you will, in '64, or so, a man bought a Mossberg 500 in 12ga for huntin. Died shortly after that, after putting about a box through it. It was then stored for 40 years in his son’s basement. The son had a chance dinner with a friend, who mentioned he was getting in the hobby of shooting trap, and wanted a gun for his son. The son said, “Eighty bucks, it’s yours.” And lo and behold, my dad got me my first trap gun. Mossberg 500, 12 gauge, pump action, capacity five rounds, legal at 3. It is kept legal by a dowel stuffed up it and held in place by a screw. For all intents and purposes, it is _brand new_, and the equivalent of what the military used in the second Gulf War. There is no record it exists on _many_ levels. No paperwork was needed. No license, nothing. In New York State. Note that several of the ‘gun show loophole’ proposals would render this completely innocent situation illegal in several dozen ways, but it’s a fairly typical example from the real world, and I like to use it. (My current trap gun is slightly weirder. Single barrel break action japanese shotgun. As I like to say, if I hit something, it’s a Miroku.) ---
**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 17, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/437 "2009-03-17T16:42:13Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Thanks, I figured it was something to that effect. 😃 > > At this point, almost all guns that wouldn’t have serial numbers are C&R’s, aren’t they? Give it another 10 years and some with serials will be. It’s 50 years or older, right? That is one qualification. I believe that the ATF still has to actually label any particular gun as eligible, by name, to the C&R list. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/438 "2009-03-17T16:55:30Z")
Oh! Curio and Relic. Righty. Again, though, shotgun, no license needed or relevant. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/439 "2009-03-17T18:35:22Z")
Plenty of guns that have serial numbers are C&Rs, such as old Russian SKS’s. (Only the Russian and, IIRC, Yugo ones, though. That’s why they can be sold with the bayonet attached, whereas ones from other countries are supposed to have the bayonet sold separately.) ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475/440 "2009-03-17T18:46:02Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Plenty of guns that have serial numbers are C&Rs, such as old Russian SKS’s. (Only the Russian and, IIRC, Yugo ones, though. That’s why they can be sold with the bayonet attached, whereas ones from other countries are supposed to have the bayonet sold separately.) Yeah, I meant some with _mandated_ Serial numbers would be, in 10 years, C&R guns. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Oh! Curio and Relic. Righty. Again, though, shotgun, no license needed or relevant. No license required for Shotguns at all, in most states. 😛 Sorry I forget that some people aren’t as gunnerdy as I am. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-to-seek-new-assault-weapons-ban/487475.md?page=23)