You may claim to know they aren’t “machine guns” but the yahoos in office and the talking heads on TV don’t seem to know this. They want to ban the Ruger 10/22 because it’s a “machine gun” in their mushy little minds.
Talks of banning the guns are comming from the White House. Explain why we shouldn’t be concerned.
Maybe because talks of banning are not coming from the White House (not to mention Congress Dems are putting it at arm’s length as well)? Using Bobotheoptimist’s link from earlier:
Actually, Assault Rifle does have a pretty well-defined meaning.
Assault Weapon, on the other hand…
Ok, so the WE that Holder referred to was in fact the mouse in his pocket, or was it perhaps his boss?
Speaking as one who’s deep enough in the tank for Obama to need a snorkel at times: This is a sloppily written law, and I’ll be disappointed if Obama considers it important enough to spend political capital on.
Heck, if there’s a sliding scale of suitability for criminal use, handguns (with their easy concealment) are much, much better tools for those wanting to commit mischief. Carrying 3 feet of steel pipe makes the discreet approach and getaway quite a daunting task, for one thing.
I do think that the US gun laws and the accompanying gun culture has unintended consequences in spades, however I am not sure legislation is going to do much, and I’m pretty certain that the Assault Weapons ban is doing next to nothing. Is the criminal use of bayonets really that prevalent?
“The White House declined to comment on Holder’s remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment.”
That’s pretty conclusive, all right. “No comment” is certainly reassuring. 
Gee…I wonder if this is the first time ever a politician said something that was not the actual case. :rolleyes:
Unless you think Obama told him to do this then ran and ducked for cover leaving his AG hanging in the wind.
Look…Obama is on record and been explicit he supports the AWB. I just do not think he would squander all the political capital needed to push it in the midst of the current issues he faces. Say whatever you want about the guy but he does not strike me as stupid and handing the Pubs this sort of rallying cry at this point in time would be stupidity of the first order.
Perhaps someday if things get all better and Obama is flying high he’ll take a shot at this but I would not expect it for awhile.
Yeah, but the ladies love it.
People need an assault weapon…why?
Theres no need for it, and I’m certainly not of the mind that its a slipperly slope into complete gun bans. Assault weapons have no place in a citizen’s hands, they should totally be banned.
I would think so (for the gun advocates).
If he had a pow-wow with Holder and told Holder this was his intention and told Holder to work on it and then Holder says it is so and Obama runs and hides…well, shitty thing to do to your shiny new AG.
More likely “no comment” translates to “ahh crap…the goof fucked up, now what do we do?”
At least that is how I parse it.
Please describe my situation and then elaborate upon what I really need.
You’ll understand that when I hear such comments from a renowned gun control supporter/AG and an executive/POTUS who has broadcast his anti-gun messages from the get-go, I may parse things a bit differently.
I do not doubt it is something they would both like to do. I just cannot imagine Obama wanting to take this on at this point. It would be a lovely gift to the Republicans allowing them a thing to rally around and draw support. I really do not think Obama is that stupid to try for the AWB at this point. Clearly Pelosi and other Dems are not keen on it either so Obama would be alienating them as well.
To those who said that this is overreaction by the pro-gun people, let me throw out an analogy:
government official: “We support a literacy test for being able to vote”.
**every African-American in the USA:**WHAAATTT?!?!
another government official: “oops- er, I mean, That is not our position”
I can only hope this was just one official’s idea, or at most a “feeler” using a deniable sock puppet. Just to be on the safe side, what’s the best way for someone to contact their representatives and let them know WE ARE NOT AMUSED? This goes beyond griping on a message board.
Lumpy: my vote goes to “trial balloon”
I agree. We will start you on your federally mandated diet of bread, water, vitamin pills and protein capsules ASAP and we can swap out your wardrobe for some very functional burlap sacks.
Kay?
On edit, I suppose you do need some fat in your diet. Would you prefer federally mandated pig lard or federally mandated beef lard?
Why on Earth not? you’ve just laid the exact foundations for any such ban. That which isn’t “necessary” can be banned. No gun is “necessary” for a civilian. Hence, all guns can be banned.
Assault weapons also have no functional definition and the term is a meaningless scare phrase.
And trying to ban scary looking guns or every semi-auto gun is an absurdity. What, we should all have lever/bolt action rifles? Maybe go back to muskets?
It would at least help their cause a LITTLE bit if the anti-“assault-weapon” people could cite more instances of the so-called “assault weapons” being used in crimes as relative to handguns and other types of firearms - but they never even do that. They seem to operate out of sheer ignorance. They don’t know what the difference is between an “assault rifle” and an “assault weapon” and a “machine gun” and a “semiautomatic rifle.” Hence the misinformation and false terminology spread by the anti-gun side works on them, and they find themselves opposing “assault weapons” even though they don’t really even know why - maybe because they just sound vaguely threatening.
You’d be amazed at how many people think “semi-automatic” means “automatic.”
My grandpa - who is not a “gun person” but did spend four years in Korea using both the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine - thought that semi-automatic meant automatic. When I told him I had gotten an SKS, long ago, and he asked what it was, and I told him it was a semi-automatic rifle, he said, “semi-automatic? Where’s the challenge in that? You just pull the trigger and it fires a whole bunch of shots all at once? In my day, you pulled the trigger once, and you got one shot!”
Seriously…why bother putting this out as a “feeler”? I think the reaction to it is entirely predictable.
Seems this was started when the Mexicans, in classic political fashion, blamed someone else for their mess. The AG responded and said more than the Administration was willing to go with.
For those of us who haven’t been following the debate rigorously, could you explain your objection to the National Institute of Justice study cited in the Wikipedia article for the Assault Weapons Ban (PDF here)? Are you saying the numbers reported are too low to justify the ban?
Could you be more specific? I don’t feel like sifting through a 114-page PDF file.