# Reid Admits No Support For "Assault Weapons" Ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402 "2013-03-19T22:41:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/101 "2013-03-20T17:53:00Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Denying it by putting it in their platform (as linked by **John Mace** )? I’ve heard of hiding in plain sight before but this takes the cake. If you want evidence of what their position actually was, that is definitely the smoking gun. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/102 "2013-03-20T17:56:00Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Keep batting those eyelashes. You’ll have to explain that allusion. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/103 "2013-03-20T17:56:54Z")
> [@Cyros](#): > > Denying it by putting it in their platform (as linked by **John Mace** )? I’ve heard of hiding in plain sight before but this takes the cake. Here is the platform: Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. The proposals in the past few weeks have included things like adding background checks for all transfers, even when the people involved are not FFLs. This isn’t in the platform. They have included banning magazines over a certain size. That isn’t in the platform. The platform is half fluff and have dishonest, tired rhetoric like “common sense” laws and “gun show loopholes”. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/104 "2013-03-20T17:58:08Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You’ll have to explain that allusion. Feigning innocence. Pretending that the Democrats haven’t been claiming to have given up on gun control for the past decade or so. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/105 "2013-03-20T17:59:35Z")
So, that’s what they say. But you know it isn’t what they really mean, because, well, you know it. Therefore, they are being dishonest, because they are not saying what you already know they really mean. Please submit your Certificate of Telepathy for inspection. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/106 "2013-03-20T18:06:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > From the [2012 Democratic Party Platform](http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform#protecting-rights), which was published before the Sandy Hook shooting: > > Emphasis added. Not seeing any shift in signals here, **Bricker**. If anything, we’re seeing that many Democrats are not toeing the party line on this item. I’m not seeing the background checks, and the magazine banning. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/107 "2013-03-20T18:10:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not seeing the background checks, and the magazine banning. It’s a platform, not s piece of legislation. But the key item that you focused on in you OP is in there. And the idea that they do favor more restrictions is. You claim they signaled no interest. Obviously there is interest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/108 "2013-03-20T18:12:14Z")
Which prospects enjoy…what was it, about 90% support amongst the people? Which is equal to zero support, I hear… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/109 "2013-03-20T18:17:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a platform, not s piece of legislation. But the key item that you focused on in you OP is in there. And the idea that they do favor more restrictions is. You claim they signaled no interest. Obviously there is interest. No, I don’t agree. Phrases like “reasonable regulation,” and “focus on effective enforcement of existing laws,” are weasel worded to allow Democrats to dance on both sides of the street: to an audience of Mother Jones readers, they can point to their commitment to pass new “reasonable” legislation. To more moderate voters, they can point to the same words as evidence for the fact that they don’t want to do anything outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/110 "2013-03-20T18:21:19Z")
No. It is 100% clear that they support further legislation, contrary to what you have claimed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/111 "2013-03-20T18:23:05Z")
Could be. Outside of your telepathic powers, have you any evidence to back that up? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/112 "2013-03-20T18:28:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s a platform, not s piece of legislation. But the key item that you focused on in you OP is in there. I’ll grant you that the AWB is in there, and I’m surprised it made it in since there are many Democrats from rural areas who are opposed to it. > [@](#): > > And the idea that they do favor more restrictions is. You claim they signaled no interest. Obviously there is interest. I disagree with this, however. The focus is clearly on enforcement of existing laws, especially regarding background checks. It clearly states that it would prefer to enforce the current laws and now you’ve got proposals to dramatically expand background checks to include every sale. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/113 "2013-03-20T18:31:15Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > This is your interpretation, and it’s just silly. > > If I promise not to hit you and then I hit you sixty seconds later am I not breaking my promise because I didn’t say I wouldn’t hit you forever? Let’s take hitting out of the discussion. Four or five years ago, my neighbor said that if I wanted to borrow some of her yard tools, I should just help myself from her shed anytime. Now it’s four or five years later, and I’ve never taken advantage of this offer. I wouldn’t feel right just going to her shed and borrowing her edger without asking first, because while she didn’t specify any time limit on her offer, _the value of an informal commitment fades with time._ People forget, change their minds, their situations and recollections change, you name it. If I _did_ go back to her shed without asking first, would I hold it against her if she said, “excuse me, but WTF are you doing in my shed?” Of course not. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/114 "2013-03-20T18:48:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not seeing the background checks, and the magazine banning. Tru dat. But the question has been one of “were the Dems signaling that it was safe to vote for them if you were opposed to new gun control measures, and did they violate that implicit pledge?” It hasn’t been about “they were for one set of gun control measures, but now they’re for a different set of gun control measures.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/115 "2013-03-20T19:05:10Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > II disagree with this, however. The focus is clearly on enforcement of existing laws, especially regarding background checks. It clearly states that it would prefer to enforce the current laws and now you’ve got proposals to dramatically expand background checks to include every sale. I don’t think that is the focus. It appears to me to more about regulation and new laws than enforcing existing ones, but I think the most you could reasonably stretch it to is saying it’s about equal parts better enforcement and equal parts new laws. At any rate, the OP made the claim that the Democrats signaled that people who wanted “expansive gun rights” could safely for them. But it’s 100% clear that they are for more, not less regulation. A more restrictive right to bear arms, not a more expansive right. There is no wolf in sheep’s clothing here. Just the wolf, plain and simple. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/116 "2013-03-20T19:08:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But it’s 100% clear that they are for more, not less regulation. A more restrictive right to bear arms, not a more expansive right. There is no wolf in sheep’s clothing here. Just the wolf, plain and simple. Wouldn’t they be sheep in wolve’s clothing in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/117 "2013-03-20T19:11:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If I _did_ go back to her shed without asking first, would I hold it against her if she said, “excuse me, but WTF are you doing in my shed?” Of course not. > > YMMV. I’ve got no problem with that. I’d feel the same way if the neighbor said it once and I had waited five years. However, that’s not analogous to the Democrats on gun rights. For many years they have been assuring us that they don’t want to take away gun rights. Indeed, even as he’s proposing new restrictions Obama has been going out of his way to claim support for the second amendment. This is a lie. I’ll ask you this: Assume Obama gets everything he wants next week. AWB part II, background checks on all sales, magazine restrictions. Do he and his fellow Democrats call it quits? The issue of gun control is off the table, since they got everything they wanted? You know this isn’t true. They would be back pushing for further restrictions. On and on it goes. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/118 "2013-03-20T19:20:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > A more restrictive right to bear arms, not a more expansive right. There is no wolf in sheep’s clothing here. Just the wolf, plain and simple. If this is true then why the code words in the conversation and in the platform? Why call for “common sense” gun laws without defining what they are? Why call for a “open national conversation” on guns, whatever that means. Why claim to want to address a “gunshow loophole” that doesn’t actually exist? The platform on guns is only a paragraph. It’s not like they needed filler. Why all the distraction and noise, if not to disguise their true intentions? One section up from guns in the platform is “Freedom to Marry”. > [@](#): > > Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference. We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act. Firearms. See how clear it is? They say what they actually mean. There aren’t any code words. A bit further up we have Abortion rights: > [@](#): > > Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs. Why is the gun rights section filled with weasel words while these are not? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/119 "2013-03-20T19:24:39Z")
Another good comparison is the Republican platform on Gun rights: > [@](#): > > We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority. No weaseling there. They say what they mean, because they don’t have to hide their opinions to win elections.\* \*On this topic. Of course, on many other topics they lie just like the Democrats do. See “War in Iraq will pay for itself” for obvious example. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402/120 "2013-03-20T20:30:35Z")
> [@](#): > > …We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers… No doubt a response to the overwhelming grass-roots pressure. All across America, in the diners, the truck stops, and the beauty salons, all they talk about is the plight of gun manufacturers and the frivolous lawsuits. When they take a break from talking about voter fraud, of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reid-admits-no-support-for-assault-weapons-ban/653402.md?page=7)