• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Re-institute the assault rifle ban?

Do you support Obama banning assault rifles?

  • Yes, outlaw assault (AK47-type) weapons

    Votes: 8 17.8%

  • No, do not outlaw assault (AK47) type weapons

    Votes: 35 77.8%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Total voters
    45
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the debate, Obama said he wants to re-institute the assault rifle ban. Romney said he will pursue no new gun legislation, but then said he would pursue a bi-partisan effort for some new gun laws (a contradiction).

The essence of what "assault rifle" means in legislation means foremost limiting the bullet capacity of the weapon or magazine (bullet holder). It also tends to then include more specifics such as how rapidly a magazine can be replaced in the design, specific construction design limits on the trigger group, and other specific construction details, and import restrictions of firearms (ie Made in America fire arms or parts legal, but if identical made elsewhere not legal).

With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?
 
Last edited:
First let us define 'assault weapon'.

Semi-automatic vs 'Selector switch for Full automatic.' ?

Start there.

Magazine capacity?
 
joko104 said:
With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?
Click to expand...

The first Federal AWB did nothing to stop crime. All it did was to take legal firearms out of the marketplace and to place unnecessary regulations and restrictions on those who already legally owned them. A re-introduction of that legislation would not do anything more than the first one did. It's nonsensical.
 
CedarBear said:
First let us define 'assault weapon'.

Semi-automatic vs 'Selector switch for Full automatic.' ?

Start there.

Magazine capacity?
Click to expand...

Full auto is federally illegal without the necessary permit. So it is about limiting magazine capacity on semi-auto.
 
joko104 said:
Full auto is federally illegal without the necessary permit. So it is about limiting magazine capacity on semi-auto.
Click to expand...

For what reason? Is the 11th or 16th or 21st bullet a gun fires somehow more lethan than the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

To what result? High Capacity magazines are already awash throughout the marketplace. There is no chance that you could ever get them all back, even if you did ban/confiscate them.
 
CedarBear said:
First let us define 'assault weapon'.

Semi-automatic vs 'Selector switch for Full automatic.' ?

Start there.

Magazine capacity?
Click to expand...
From what I understand the so called assault weapons ban in the Brady bill didn't ban automatic weapons. It banned cosmetic appearances.Basically if it scared hoplophobes or made them piss their panties then they wanted it banned.


Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[h=2]Criteria of an assault weapon[/h] Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.



An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.
 
joko104 said:
With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?
Click to expand...

They both got a strong anti-2nd amendment record. So the only thing I can trust both of them to do when they don't have to worry about any negative political consequences is enact a ban and probably one more stronger than the so called Brady bill.
 
I have this exact gun in my closet right now:

800px-Zastava_M70AB2_with_folded_stock_Hunter_la5.JPG

Anyway, it was obvious to me that Obama wants to bring back the so-called assault weapons ban. He made that clear. I don't think Romney will push for ANY new gun restrictions; he will just be for making sure the current laws on the books are enforced...and not give guns to Mexican drug dealers.
 
jamesrage said:
They both got a strong anti-2nd amendment record. So the only thing I can trust both of them to do when they don't have to worry about any negative political consequences is enact a ban and probably one more stronger than the so called Brady bill.
Click to expand...

I believe Romney will not support any new gun control laws; and I found this pretty interesting when I was researching Romney's past gun control actions:

Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner

During Romney’s term he signed several pieces of firearms regulation. A look at that regulation does not reveal an anti-gun Romney. Those bills are characterized as “net gains” for gun owners in a state where opinioned is weighed against them.

During his tenure, Gov. Romney was credited with several improvements to state laws, including protections for shooting clubs, restoration of the Inland Fish and Game Fund, and requirements that all new hunters pass a hunter safety course. He is also credited with relaxing manufacturing testing for some models of pistols.

In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons as well as clarified and insured other rights and responsibilities for gun owners. It was a hard-fought compromise between interest groups on both sides of the issue. The NRA Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement, and Massachusetts gun owners endorsed the bill.
Click to expand...
Mitt Romney on Gun Control
 
The AWB was a horrible law that that banned entirely pointless cosmetic features of no relevance. There isn't a wave of "bayonet" violence that could possibly justify removing bayonet mounts. The good news is that there is bi-partisan resistance against re-introducing it, so the president is unlikely to get anywhere even if he tries.
 
Porchev said:
I believe Romney will not support any new gun control laws; and I found this pretty interesting when I was researching Romney's past gun control actions:
Click to expand...

As a Massachusetts resident and gun owner who lived here during the Romney administration myself, he was no great supporter of the average gun owner in this Commonwealth. The only truly useful thing he did for the average gun owner was to require that the Massachusetts FID and LTC cards were reduced to a size that was convenient to fit into a wallet. Under previous administrations the permit was oversized and completly inconvenient to carry, which it is required to be any time you are in possession of a gun, ammunition, pepper spray, etc....
 
2nd Amendment issues aside, prohibition still doesn't work.

Either way, I'm getting an AK and an AR in a few weeks while I still can.
 
Tigger said:
As a Massachusetts resident and gun owner who lived here during the Romney administration myself, he was no great supporter of the average gun owner in this Commonwealth. The only truly useful thing he did for the average gun owner was to require that the Massachusetts FID and LTC cards were reduced to a size that was convenient to fit into a wallet. Under previous administrations the permit was oversized and completly inconvenient to carry, which it is required to be any time you are in possession of a gun, ammunition, pepper spray, etc....
Click to expand...

Yes, I get the impression he is not a gun guy, but I believe he is not going to add anymore gun restrictions either. He will just leave things as they are at the federal level. I think the businessman in him likes to cut deals to get things done though. However, it's all about the economy and he won't spend time on any new gun control changes IMO. Especially if he listens to the avid hunter and pro-gun Paul Ryan.
 
joko104 said:
With Obama saying he WILL pursue a ban on assault rifles and Romney might or might not, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I'd say I wouldn't trust either of them to uphold our rights and liberties and also that the previous assault rifle ban didn't actually ban any guns.
 
Lachean said:
2nd Amendment issues aside, prohibition still doesn't work.

Either way, I'm getting an AK and an AR in a few weeks while I still can.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling there will be an increase in AK and AR sales now. Obama showed his cards on this last night.
 
Since most guns that are bought and sold illegally begin as legally purchased guns, wouldn't this sort of thing be the only means of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals that could actually work? Decreasing the pool of weapons means decreased access. Obviously, many who want guns legally don't want to lose that, but if there is no other way to deal with the consequences, then isn't such a course the right one? Unless the consequences of armed violent criminals aren't really that bad. But it sort of seems like complaining about health problems while eating gallons of ice cream.
 
Paschendale said:
Unless the consequences of armed violent criminals aren't really that bad.
Click to expand...

Not as bad as an armed, violent government aimed against its disarmed and defenseless people.
 
Ikari said:
Not as bad as an armed, violent government aimed against its disarmed and defenseless people.
Click to expand...

Very true, but doesn't the presence of a standing military already mean that the government completely outguns us, no matter how many AKs we might have? Unless, in the incidence of a violent revolt, the military also revolts, in which case they bring their weapons with them. I would agree very much that the old dynamic of everyone having their weapons to rebel against a tyrannical government would be an important reason if the military were still made up of conscripts. But it isn't, and so the balance of power is WAY on one side. Unless private citizens start rolling around in tanks and keeping bazookas and state of the art surveillance equipment, but I don't think that's a society we really want to live in?
 
Paschendale said:
Since most guns that are bought and sold illegally begin as legally purchased guns, wouldn't this sort of thing be the only means of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals that could actually work? Decreasing the pool of weapons means decreased access. Obviously, many who want guns legally don't want to lose that, but if there is no other way to deal with the consequences, then isn't such a course the right one? Unless the consequences of armed violent criminals aren't really that bad. But it sort of seems like complaining about health problems while eating gallons of ice cream.
Click to expand...

First, it wont work, like all prohibition.

Second, why would it be the only means? Criminals DON'T OBEY LAWS, so they will laugh at this one too.
 
Paschendale said:
Very true, but doesn't the presence of a standing military already mean that the government completely outguns us, no matter how many AKs we might have?
Click to expand...

I still want the chance. I retain revolt as a proper and rightful tool of the People should the government no longer serve our needs and protect our freedom.

Freedom in general is always dangerous. It never has been, is not, and never will be safe. There are consequences and repercussions to freedom which do include some base amount of crime. We allow guns, we have the freedom to keep and bear arms, and as a result of that we will realize a certain amount of gun violence. Does that mean we remove the freedom? Surely if there were exactly 0 guns in America, there would be 0 gun crime. Or do we pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and understand that with freedom comes danger? And that aggregated over a large enough population, you will surely realize that danger. I'll go for the latter, rather be free than a slave. I'll take my random probabilities with people in general, when government is involved it's a guarantee.
 
Paschendale said:
Since most guns that are bought and sold illegally begin as legally purchased guns, wouldn't this sort of thing be the only means of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals that could actually work? Decreasing the pool of weapons means decreased access. Obviously, many who want guns legally don't want to lose that, but if there is no other way to deal with the consequences, then isn't such a course the right one? Unless the consequences of armed violent criminals aren't really that bad. But it sort of seems like complaining about health problems while eating gallons of ice cream.
Click to expand...

Since a huge number of fatal car accidents are due to drunk drivers it seems that a ban on automobiles would be something that could work to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel. Decreasing the pool of cars available means less drunks killing people with cars. Since there doesn't seem to be any other way of solving the problem shouldn't we at least give it a try?

/s
 
Porchev said:
I believe Romney will not support any new gun control laws; and I found this pretty interesting when I was researching Romney's past gun control actions:


Mitt Romney on Gun Control
Click to expand...


So he bans weapons and increases fees by 400%,has stated numerous times that he supports the brady bill and does nothing to remove a state's anti-2nd amendment laws and throws a tiny crumb to 2nd amendment advocates and somehow he is supposed to be friend of the 2nd amendment? By that logic Obama must be a swell guy because he signed legislation allowing concealed guns into national parks. You are fooling yourself if you think Romney won't enact any new anti-2nd amendment laws.
 
Obviously we want to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Does an assault weapon ban do that? I'm not so sure.

I think that I'd rather see assault weapons licenced and regulated. Instead of making something illegal and driving it underground, make it legal but make the process a bit onerous. If you want an assault rifle because they're awesome, then feel free as long as you're willing to obtain a licence, background check, and maybe ensure that they're stored in a gunsafe.

People who make the point that bullets kill people are kind of right. An assault rifle looks scary, but it's not tremendously better at indiscriminate killing than a brace of large calibre handguns.
 
I doubt either one of them will get any new legislation across, whether it be pro or against. Economies too big of an issue, and some bi-partisan opposition.
 
jamesrage said:
So he bans weapons and increases fees by 400%,has stated numerous times that he supports the brady bill and does nothing to remove a state's anti-2nd amendment laws and throws a tiny crumb to 2nd amendment advocates and somehow he is supposed to be friend of the 2nd amendment? By that logic Obama must be a swell guy because he signed legislation allowing concealed guns into national parks. You are fooling yourself if you think Romney won't enact any new anti-2nd amendment laws.
Click to expand...

I know you hate Romney and all, but I think he is going to focus on so many other things related to the economy if elected, that he won't touch gun control. And he is friends with his VP pick who is very pro 2nd Amendment, so I believe Ryan will have a positive impact in that area if it comes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom