This goes along with Argent Towers “I told you so” bit.
IIRC in those old threads it was often mentioned that the Dems really wanted no part of gun control as it bit them in the ass last they tried in the early 90’s.
So, seems we told you (gun advocates) so as well. 
Yeah, after getting all worked up, the true power behind the throne says she’s afraid of trying to push any.
I don’t believe her and I’m still singing out ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ all the time, but this time she’s saying wait.
Well, my friend, they DO want to ban the M1. At least if I logically infer from Eric Holder’s desire to ban “cop-killer bullets” that he wants to ban rounds that are capable of punching through the body armor that police officers wear, that means that the .30-06 which the M1 Garand fires would be a cop-killer bullet, which would mean that the M1 Garand would have to be either banned, or converted to fire a .22-caliber round in order for it to be legal. (Don’t try to throw around all those fancy calibers with their fancy numerals and decimal points with the anti-gun crowd - they won’t know what the hell you’re talking about and their brains will get all tied into knots.) But since you know what an M1 is, you must know what a .30-06 is. (Don’t tell Eric Holder, though.)
And if by M1 you meant M1 Carbine, well, they DO want to ban that. It’s on the new list of “Assault Weapons.”
Yup, I read it (and thank you for the cite). But no, it didn’t provide much of an answer to my questions, which I’ll restate here:
Your cite didn’t provide any evidence about the percentage of cops that actually support or oppose an assault weapons ban. It did offer an opinion as to why law enforcement organizations support an assault weapons ban: namely, because politicians are paying them off.
So I’m still no wiser than I was in terms of quantitative data about the opinions of law enforcement professionals on an assault weapons ban. The closest thing I have to represent their opinion is the official position of the organizations that represent them, which may or may not be genuinely representative of their views.
Oh, I’m perfectly willing to take your (and other posters’) word for it that semiautomatic weapons are not effective (or at least far from optimally effective) when “sprayed from the hip”. But does that mean that they aren’t actually used that way?
If I just google “video AR 15 from the hip”, I get hits that seem to indicate that many people at shooting ranges do fire such a gun in this way:
Guy teaches his teen sister to bump fire from the hip
“Bump Fire Academy” instructor explains use of belt loop
Very buff shirtless guy bump fires AR-15 (hey, this research is more fun than I expected! )
Non-shirtless guy demonstrates bump firing from hip and shoulder
And on and on. Sure, I’m willing to believe you that “spray firing from the hip” with an “assault weapon” is not very accurate, but based on these videos, I’m also willing to believe that many people who use these guns sometimes fire them like that anyway.
So I’m wondering if there may not be something to be said for both sides of the argument on this point: namely, it’s inaccurate to claim that “spray firing from the hip” is a good way to use these guns, but it may still be true that many people do it.
Well, okay then, I will, and will stop taking up space in this thread. Bye.
Yeah of course it’s possible to fire an AK-47 or an M16 from the hip. But it’s also possible to fire a Smith and Wesson revolver by putting your hand behind your back and holding it upside down with your eyes closed. That doesn’t mean it’s the right way to fire it.
What Carolyn McCarthy and the Brady campaign say is that “Assault weapons are designed to be fired from the hip.”
There’s a big difference between designed to be fired, and some idiots who might fire them that way.
There is not a single military’s manual-of-arms (except maybe Somalian irregulars) which dictates or recommends that any automatic (or semi automatic or any other type of rifle) be fired from the hip.
People who fire guns from the hip, sideways, or other ways that they’re not supposed to be fired, are considered the clowns of the range by serious shooters, and if you go on any gun forum, the people who fire their guns that way are talked about with nothing but derision and ridicule.
Trying to use the fact that these weapons can be fired from the hip or whatever, as an excuse for banning them (as the anti-gun lobby did and continues to do) is like showing David Cronenberg’s “Crash” and saying that cars should be banned because they’re designed to be driven at 80 miles an hour and crashed into each other while James Spader and Holly Hunter fuck each other in them.
It may not be true (or may be, I don’t have any reason to even come up with an opinion about that), but it is not “deceitful” as it is what Holder likely honestly believes to be true, given his personal “history of anti-gun, anti-gun owner sentiment”. He has merely stated as his beliefs exactly what he has stated in the past with the add-on of explicitly saying that we are not doing it now and making no promises about if/when they’d ever get to it.
The WH has not jumped in saying “Oh yeah, we want this.” Pelosi has said that they are staying away as far from it as they can.
In short, there’s no news here, and never was, other than more evidence that some gun rights advocates have itchy trigger fingers.
I just don’t see that passing constitutional muster. I hope your inference is wrong. I’ll take a look myself when I get round to it.
Oh well, I don’t like the carbine anyway. Go ahead and ban it for all I care. 
Bump firing is a technique to simulate full auto fire by using the recoil of the gun to bump your hand in a position to hit the trigger again. It’s done for kicks - it’s not an effective way to use the weapon at all.
And it’s certainly absurd to use it as evidence that the rifles were “designed to be fired from the hip” - the weapons as originally designed are capable of firing fully automatically from the shoulder.
Incidentally, you can bump fire non-“assault weapons”
The rifle featured in that video is not an “assault weapon” - It functions identically to the guns in the videos you linked, but it’s not scary looking black plastic, it’s a conventional looking rifle, therefore not an assault weapon.
And let’s not forget that the weapons that they are trying to ban are not capable of firing automatically at all.
This ban is based on cosmetic features alone. It is totally absurd in every way, and always was, and this new shit about Mexico and cartels only adds another Orwellian layer of absurdity to it.
To quote George Costanza of Seinfeld fame:
“Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie if you really believe it…”
Something like that?
Actually yes. And sorta like Bush hadn’t lied about WMDs since he allegedly really believed they were there.
Except that for all I know Holder might be right and really does believe it.
I see this is another one of those alarmist blog headlines that Drude is linking to lately. There’s actually no news in it. Holder isn’t saying anything that Obama hasn’t always said.
What do you need assault weapons and cop killer bullets for anyway? There are problems in this country that actually matter right now. The AG saying that Obama might, in some indeterminate future, be amenable to some common sense, fully Constitutional regulations on firearms in order to protect law enforcement personel is not one of them. Grow up. I’m not going to lose any sleep if a few anti-social misfits don’t get to play with machine guns. That’s way down at the bottom of my give a fuck list. No one who’s ever lost a kid as collateral damage in a drive-by is going to weep for you either.
That amount of strawmen and ignorance crammed into such a small paragraph is impressive, even for you.
And I know you’ve participated in enough of the threads that cover this subject to know better.
You should know better Dio, or at least read a thread to clear up your ignorance before you post in it.
As pointed out already, “cop killer bullets” include some of the most commonly used basic hunting rounds. Outlawing them would be absurd.
As pointed out already, there is no firm definition for an “assault weapon” and one can often take an “assault weapon” and make it compliant by modifying the furniture that’s used to surround the moving parts.
As pointed out already, there is no real data to suggest that the AWB protected LEO’s at all in the first place.
As pointed out already, there haven’t exactly been a rash of bayonet attacks.
As pointed out already “the thing that goes up” isn’t exactly going to make a rifle into anything more lethal than it was to start with.
As pointed out already, not only do people not need to “grow up” or stop being “anti-social misfits”, but machine guns are already highly regulated and would be even without the AWB. Conflating machine guns with semi-automatic weapons is dishonest and deceptive, and using a fabrication to call people “misfits” who need to “grow up” is rather unpalatable. But I suppose that it’s hard to resist flaming people in GD sometimes.
Whooa. Hold on, though. What do you need to sing old showtunes for anyway? What if they banned that? What if they banned any of millions of things you don’t “need” to have or do? We didn’t “need” alcohol (which kills more people than every gun in America, btw), but I don’t have to tell you how well the 18th amendment went over.
I’m definitely not either, but first they came for the communists, ya know? I believe in results and realistic, necessary legislation. This stinks of showboating to me.
Oh good, the voice of reason has arrived.
Why do you bother Dio? You already know you’re wrong and you’re just throwing out Brady rhetoric to get attention. Stop it, you’re being more annoying than usual.
Machine guns?
We’re not talking about machine guns, we’re talking about semi-automatic rifles. Supposedly you served in the military, at least I’ve inferred this from past posts you’ve made, so surely you know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a machine gun.
But even if we WERE talking about machine guns:
How many incidents of crime can you site that were committed with registered, Class 3 fully-automatic firearms (true “machine guns”)?
(crickets)
Dio, you’re a smart guy and have always been one of my favorites here. Surely what you’ve said about “machine guns” and the anti-social lunatics who like to “play” with them is just a bit of emotional rhetoric, and not what you actually believe…right?
I too am impressed DTC. Should I attempt to fight your ignorance or allow you to wallow in it?
Just as an aside, would this ban be grandfathered like the last one? I’ve got several 15 rnd. mags that are marked “For LEO/Government use ONLY” but that designation is meaningless now.
What would happen under a new ban? Would I have to turn these in to a federal repository somewhere?
You can read a slight edge of sarcasm in my words. I don’t need my “ignorance fought.” I know the song. I know they’e not “machine guns,” I know “assault rifle” doesn’t mean anything. I know the phrasology is demagogic, but you know what? So is all the alarmism and defensiveness about it. You guys get way too worked up about this stuff.