President Obama Suggests Pushing for “Assault Weapon” Ban Not In the Cards

rather than worry about the “flood” of guns in to Mexico, how about inspecting all shipping in to the US for drugs, and stopping the “flood” of illegals from coming in to the US.

Ban ALL assault rifles. There is absolutely NO reason to have those. None, Zip, Zilch, Nada

BlameAmericaLast We know that. We want ALL assault rifles banned, auto or otherwise. Gone.

The federal Assault Weapon Ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons such as AK-47s, it banned semiautomatic clones. The fully automatic weapons were restricted in 1934 and outright banned with the closure of the machine gun registry in 1986.
If machine guns were smuggled to Mexico from the US, then they were here illegally first.

Will nobody stand up to ther gun lobby, whose main concern is profit$???

Arm the Sunni’s and disarm the American people, what is WRONG with this picture… Anyone??? Bueller… Bueller… Bueller???

Some of you sound like fully automatic idiots.

Liberal media never lets up on the anti-gun push. Amazing how you make it sound SO BAD when it is so VERY LEGAL! Oh my! Those terrible “assault” weapons! (AR-15, AK47…bla..bla..bla) Liberal folks…I hate to rain on your parade here but the weapons here in the US are semi-auto’s no different than the semi’s (22′s, shotguns, etc.) you can buy at Wal-Mart. These guns are not like automatic M16′s used in the military or Mexico’s automatic AK-47′s. These automatic guns are already illegal in the US. You need to accept the fact that guns will “ALWAYS” be a part of America and traded among millions of law-abiding Americans. If your messiah removes these rights you can forget him in 2012 (research your NRA history). Move on to something more productive like getting your new Government to fix this economy (or as you understand it “spread the wealth”).

Technically, “pesiri” is correct that the AK47′s available to the public are semi-automatic, not automatic. This is an important distinction. However, clandestine conversion kits seem to be readily available at gun shows and in gun magazines. Also, large banana clip magazines and design of the weapon mean that in even in semi-auto mode, a large amount bullets can be fired in a very short time-almost as fast as you can pull the trigger. So instead of 5 quick shots you now get 30 or more.
I’m 62 years old, live in the west and have been a lifetime hunter. I support the “the right to keep and bear arms” with reasonable restrictions. (I don’t get to have my own nuke or 105 mm. Howitzer.) That is the current U.S. Supreme Ct. holding in the Wash. DC gun ban case. Then Sen. Obama and the right-wing publically suppported the decision. Is a restriction on mililtary rifles with large clip cabability “reasonable? Men and women of good faith on both sides of the issue will differ.
There is another serious issue with regard to the AK 47. It’s a Soviet creation responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans beginning with the Vietnam war. WHY WOULD ANY PATRIOTIC AMERICAN WANT TO OWN ONE OF THESE THINGS?

Jim Bob, are you saying you can not hunt with a AR-15 or protect your family with one, I would rather out gun the criminals than vice-versa

That ban expired in 2004, and Mexican President Calderon recently told Nightline that he thought “it was very good legislation. During that period, we didn’t suffer a lot, like we suffered in the four or five years” since it expired.
==============
Does he have the right cause and effect?
We’ve also, in the past several years, gotten much better at cutting off the cocaine traffic from Colombia via the Caribbean.
Is it possible Mexico started suffering because it started seeing more traffic?

Jim Bob, Thinking, You’re not “thinking” very well. Your comments and questions indicate that. Fully automatic weapons are not banned or illegal. They are legal to own by qualified citizens who pass a background check and register them under the Firearms Act of 1934. Thinking, just because you can’t fathom any reason to own one of these weapons doesn’t mean none exists. By the way, ownership of these weapons is protected by the U.S. Constitution no matter WHAT you “think”. Law abiding citizens all over this country own, collect, shoot, and even hunt with these weapons every day. You just don’t read about them in the liberal media because it doesn’t “think” that they make good copy.

Ignorance is not pretty. Get schooled someware besides the Brady antigun propaganda. My AK is not full auto and to modify it to make it so, is a $10,000 fine and years in jail. Now being a law abiding citizen that’s no place I will go. Why own one? because I can, Thank God for the constitution and all those who have protected the rights afforded in it. Beware of the slippery slope you want to walk on because you choose to live in ignorance and fear.

Thinking, just because you can’t fathom any reason to own one of these weapons doesn’t mean none exists.
**************************************
I think you are responding to jim bob who posted under me. So I do not think that you are “thinking” very well. God it is an old slam that is not very creative. If you are going to get all snarky at least respond to the person who wrote whatever you are opposed to.

It states on the FBI’s website that a whopping two percent of weapons used in crimes have been assault rifles. Way to go people! I have used my ak-47 extensively for hunting here in the northwest where it is heavily wooded and proves to be better then long rifles in many cases. It also has proved useful when up against Canadian drug smugglers which is not a rare thing in my part of the country where response for 911 is at least an hour.
Sure I can understand restricting fire arms if you live in the city or bigger towns or even living near the Mexican border. However don’t just assume assault weapons are bad for their evil looks. Oh and people, read your local and federal guns laws. Half of the people here don’t even know what their talking about.

Most Americans are against reinstating the ban or adding more ineffective, feel-good laws. All the police officers I talk with here in California have told me that the public’s ability to protect themselves is extremely important, and that they can’t be everywhere. They say that people need to take responsibility fo their safety, whether at home, on the street, or in cars.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
What part of that DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, I put that language in there for a reason. It does not say “what obama thinks we should have”, “no guns that look scary”

Dear Thinking, Yes, you’re right. I was responding to Jim Bob and BlameAmericaLast, whose didn’t check his facts. Now if you’re going to nail me for being snarky, at least note that I also screwed up in my comments by not noting that the weapons owned by most Americans are the semiautomatic type, not the fully automatic ones regulated by the Firearms Act of 1934, which most of us can’t afford now.

Why in the World would we re-instate the unconstitutional “assault” weapon ban because of something that is happening in a different country? That is the lamest excuse that I have ever heard…
More people die by vehicles than guns in the United States, why don’t we ban them? Or sue the knife manufacturers when people use knives in crimes? The whole thing is just absurd…

“As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals,”
Fully automatic weapons are illegal. The Clinton gun ban had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons in any way.
“These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen.”
I read the Second Amendment again just to make sure. The words ‘hunting’ and ‘sport’ aren’t in there anywhere. I don’t think those words are anywhere in the Constitution in any context.
I don’t mind if someone presents a logical argument for their position on a subject. Presenting fictitious nonsense as reasonable fact only causes me to disbelieve any statement made by that person.

Skip
Please define “assault rifle”. According to the Clinton gun ban one of the characteristics is an adjustable stock. How does adjusting the stock so my short 23 year old daughter can use it, make it more dangerous? The truth is that my AR-15 isn’t much different than my Ruger 10-22 or the .22 Remington my dad taught me to shoot 45 years ago. All are semi-automatic and will only fire one round every time the trigger is pulled. So called ‘assault rifles’ look scary to some people, that’s all.

can you tell me the difference between a post ban AR-15 and a pre ban one? the difference is that the post ban one cannot have a bayonet lug or a flash hider. great, so I cant mount a knife on the end, and you can see flame coming out of the muzzle. I could still buy pre ban Hi-capacity magazines, of which there were literally millions. So how does that deter crime again? that law was stupid back in 94 when it came out, and it would be just as stupid today.

The AWB that expired in 2004 didn’t cover full-automatic weapons… another myth about firearms just like the “loophole” myth continully reported by liberal journalists…
First paragraph of this story is just wrong unless you like portraying fiction as fact…

Devin
The AR made during the ban could not have a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, detachable magazine and adjustable stock. I think there was one other thing on the list. It could have 3 of the five but not all.
Current ARs can have all the features of the pre-ban guns. The flash suppressor helps with recoil but I’ll never use the bayonet lug. Like the lug on my M1 Carbine, it’s there but I’ll never use it. The adjustable stock is the great feature. It makes a more comfortable fit if I’m wearing a coat and allows my 5 foot nothing daughter to use it. The removable, high capacity magazine enables me to better fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment. To defend my freedom against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Verbatim from the Constitution. In order to have a well-regulated militia, that militia must be able to have the right to posses modern weapons used in War.
What good does an assault weapons ban do to people that purchase guns illegally because they can’t otherwise? A ban like this only affects the law abiding public.
The whole point of owning an assault weapon as a civilian is protection. Your reward for being a productive law abiding citizen is to have a weapon much more powerful than the little peashooter that a crook has when he comes in your home to rape your wife and steal your TV. It’s also protection against tyranny.
“Ban ALL assault rifles. There is absolutely NO reason to have those. None, Zip, Zilch, Nada”
No reason for YOU to have these. I, however, am a private citizen, and a free individual. I have every right in the world to own one, and it’s none of your business what I do, and do not own in my private domicile. Understood? Mind your own damn business.

“The whole point of owning an assault weapon as a civilian is protection.”
Again: Assault weapons have never been shown to be good home defense weapons. Law enforcement agencies recommend shotguns for home defense. Assault weapons are designed for ‘assault’, that is attack. You should never need a gun to attack somebody.

I would hope that most people are smart enough to know the difference between “Fully Automatic” weapons and “Semi-Automatic” weapons. Once again, ABC has proven that they are not smart enough to know the difference or to do their homework before making false statements. Fully Automatic weapons are strictly controlled and the general public cannot own and use them. All studies have shown that the previous weapons ban did nothing to reduce crime. Stop the lies!

I am sick and tired of anti-gun folks keep saying that so called assault weapons are not for hunting. Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or why our founding fathers created it. Some say there is no reason for the public to own what they call assault weapons. One of the most challenging shooting sports in this country is NRA service rifle competition. I and 100s of thousands of other law abiding citizens compete with the AR-15 in this sport. Also few criminals will go to a gun store or show and plunk down over $1000 for an AR when the black market has tons of cheap fully auto AK-47s available. Let enforce the laws we already have against illegial owned fully auto weapons. Yes if one qualifies a Class 2 license to own a fully auto weapon can be had, but guess what the going price for a legal weapon is. Upwards of $15,000. Hardly a street weapon of choice .

I agree with Obama on this one. We need to enforce the existing gun laws. Full auto weapons have been banned since 1933, but yet there are hundreds of them on the streets of New Orleans.

Where to start. Let’s start with safety.
Safety is a very important reason for using so-called assault rifles.
Almost all use one of 3 types of rifle rounds, 5.56 NATO, 7.62×39, or 7.62 NATO. Safety ammo is only available in these calibers. You can NOT get safety rounds for most traditional hunting rifles. This is VERY IMPORTANT for the safety of others. A new ban WILL KILL CHILDREN because of this.
Many safety rounds do not stand up to repeated loading and unloading from a firearm with a fixed magazine. So-called assault weapons have removable magazines. This means you can leave safety rounds in one magazine for use at home. Use another magazine for practice at a range with cheaper ordinary ammo. REMOVEABLE MAGAZINES SAVE LIVES. A new AWB will KILL PEOPLE.
Safety rounds are available for most handgun calibers. But since handguns are very restricted or banned they are not an option for home defense.

Mexican President Calderon needs to get some facts before blaming US civilian gun sales for military weapons in Mexico.
Weapons going south to Mexico do come from our country. But from the US MILITARY, not gun shops. Cartels are buying real assault weapons (automatic fire) not the castrated copies in gun stores (no automatic fire). Evidence will follow in subsequent postings to avoid censorship.

Secretary of State let slip that machine guns (assault weapons), rocket launchers, and grenades were going south. Only the military is allowed to possess functional weapons such as these.

Skip
When I get a few bad apples in my barrel I throw out the bad apples. There’s nothing wrong with the cider press or the other apples.
Shooting up an old car sounds like a lot of fun but the possibility exists that a bullet can hit something solid enough to ricochet in an undesired direction. I like an old milk jug full of water Shake up a can of cheap cola on a hot day. Great target. I’ve heard of using shaving cream but I’m too much of an environmentalist for that. We all have our limits.
I fear the day may come that we may need our weapons for survival or to defend our freedom. Japan never invaded the mainland US because “there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Our own government’s oppression has always been modulated by the same factor.
Sheep fear the sheep dog because the presence of a sheep dog reminds them that they need protection from wolves. Some people fear armed civilians (in some cases soldiers.) For the same reason. They don’t want to know they need protection.
I pray the day never comes that the fears of our founding fathers are realized. If it does, I will be grateful that those fears caused them to write the Second Amendment.
Got to go. Buying a another gun today. ‘The Judge’ is a .45 Colt /.410 revolver. Loaded with .410 it’s probably the best home defense gun around.

“Again: Assault weapons have never been shown to be good home defense weapons. Law enforcement agencies recommend shotguns for home defense. Assault weapons are designed for ‘assault’, that is attack. You should never need a gun to attack somebody.”
I’ve already covered most of the reasons that a so-called assault weapon is better for home defense. However last but not least is because they are much more female friendly.
Most women lack the physical strength to fight off a male attacker. This is why so many women are raped. And if they report the rape the rapist can easily retaliate, even killing the victim. (The victims home address is given to the rapist’s lawyer and the rapist.) Again, women lack the physical strength to protect themselves. The courts have ruled that we have no right to expect protection from the police. So these rape victims are on their own. Now if these victims are allowed to own firearms they can protect themselves and their families.
Forget handguns, they require special permits, have waiting periods etc. Forget traditional hunting rifles. They are too powerful and will kill the neighbors’ kids. The are too large, too heavy, way too much recoil, etc etc.
Many so-called assault rifles like an AR-15 carbine are light weight, adjustable to fit women, take safety ammunition to protect the neighbors, can be purchased the same day as the rape, easily mounts a flashlight for safety, mounts a laser sight for quick and accurate aim, etc.
Is it any surprise that so many women are now buying firearms that manufacturers are now offering feminine colors and sizes to fit women.
Why does the gun ban lobby hate women?

“Assault weapons are designed for ‘assault’, that is attack. You should never need a gun to attack somebody.”
That is an un-educated opinion. Assault weapons are not designed for an activity, they are designed to fit requirments. Lightweight, field maintenance, ammunition designs, modularity and functionality beyond standard operating, such as mounts for cooling the weapon etc. Their versatility over standard hunting weapons make them appealing to people who target shoot.
If you are a shooter, you’d understand the enormous functionality an “assualt” weapon has over your average hunting rifle for sport shooting and home defense.
And for your information, they are tactical rifles. “Assault” label was created by anti-gun lobbies to influence people to think they are unecessary. There is no such official term in gun circles.

Guns do not kill, people do. Unfortunately, there are too many idiots who have to easy access to guns. Why anyone needs an assault weapon is beyond me…..Maybe to run drugs…that is a good reason….Illegal, but a good reason…

There have been a number of comments here about gun choice for home defense, especially concerning “assault weapons” (semiauto rifles) in that role. I have been shooting for many years and own multiple guns, and personally favor handguns for home defense.
While you can certainly use a semiauto rifle for this, a rifle is essentially a large, heavy longer range weapon for use from 25 yards to longer range. Home defense is most likely at very short range, such as within 20 feet inside the home against a home invader.
Handguns have the big advantage of being easily carried in a belt holster, leaving your hands free for normal activities. But if you need a gun instantly, you can draw it and use it in a second or two. You also have close control over a handgun on your belt, unlike a long gun standing in a closet in another room, which could be used against you if the invader gets it first. Running to the closet for your long gun will also take much longer than drawing your handgun from its belt holster. Paranoid as it may sound, I often wear a handgun concealed while at home, which requires no special permit.
The comments that handguns are heavily regulated and hard to obtain may apply in a couple of US locations, but in most of the country handguns are readily available to honest citizens. If I did want to use a long gun for home defense, I would use a shotgun with the legal minimum barrel length of 18 inches, and keep it ready and hidden near the place where I spent most of my time at home.

I may be a republican, and some here call me a right-wing idiot pretty regularly (even though I’m truly a moderate), but I have no problem with a ban on assault weapons. In fact, this was one of Obama’s campaign promises I actually had no problem with him keeping. Figures it would be one he would decide to take a pass on. What gives? They say they don’t want to expend political capital on this but they have no problem attacking a dozen different problems at the same time and using political capital to push high speed rail, health care reform, etc. etc. We can’t get the man to concentrate on the essentials and leave the rest for later– and now he won’t push for an assault rifle ban?
I mean, it’s easy to support a ban. There’s no money involved. Maybe that’s the problem– no spending to reward some interest group, so forget about it?

youneedto know says:
‘everyone knows Democrats have no respect for The Second Amendment.’
‘everyone’…. really? or just the fringe paranoid elements of society that can’t deal with losing free democratic elections?

Calling for reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban to fix Mexican crime rates is missing a very, very large logical gap in the argument.
The AWB affects semiautomatic weapons.
The Mexicans are having problems with criminals using fully-automatic weapons, which are a completely different thing.
If journalists or politicians would look at what the AWB actually banned and what weapons are actually used to commit crimes, they’d see they don’t line up. Which made the ban moot for stopping crime, and arguably a limitation on rights Americans previously had, like it or not.

I see the term assault weapon thrown around here. The legal definition of an assault weapon is a weapon that can selectively fire in two modes, semi auto and full auto. This type of weapon is only available to the military and law enforcement. The weapons that can be sold to private citizens are weapons that look like assault weapons but are semi auto only. The reason the liberal media throws around the term “assault weapon” is to scare those who don’t understand the difference into supporting the proposed AEB. Also, having been in Air Force weapons systems for ten years and having trained with some of the best weapons and defense instructors in the world a long gun like a AR-15 is always preferred over a hand gun or even a shotgun for home defense. Shotguns can be a good choice if the right ammo like “00 buck” is used, although most personal defense trainers worry about the amount of recoil shotguns produce.

There has to be some sort of legislation that requires every gun and riffle to be registered and accountable for. Many women, I speak for my self – are assaulted at gun point and have to ways of defending them selves, when your being held by the criminal that’s pointing a loaded gun to your brains and saying if you scream, kick or move i will kill you! I don’t say people should not have a form of defense, but in most cases it’s turns into tragedy and innocent people are dieing. Because they don’t think before they fire the weapon or are immature and go around on shooting sprees killing whoever they can target. Having places where you can buy guns and riffles with no registration no questions asked (as shown on ABC channel the other night) is not safe. It makes it easy for anyone to buy a riffle and not be psychologically well and go on and kill innocent people. all arms of fire should be registered. it’s been 8 years and the police hasn’t been able to track down the person and the gun that almost killed me. Why? because it wasn’t registered, it was probably stolen and never reported as stolen. Meanwhile, this person is still out there and doing it to others. Most people don’t see the point in reinforcing this policy and they should, many people many children are being hurt because of this. Unfortunately, until you are faced with life and death just because some freak either wants your money or wants to rap you, there will never be any sort of urgency to regulate this situation, because the decision makers in this matter haven’t been in a similar situation. I was never in favor of the gun policy during president Bush’s years but always hoped the next time around someone in the White House would do something about this. I am disappointed that President Obama does not she an urgency in this matter when daily we turn on our T.V’s to hear about an innocent person, child had that had their life’s cut short.

the drug trafficers already have tons of these guns they buy them by the thousands the ban will only hurt the average folks who can only afford one and why should the united states conform to mexico’s crap laws

I apologize, obviously you did not understand my sarcasm laden comments. I DO NOT SUPPORT A GUN BAN, partly for the reasons laid out in my last comment. Any type of imposed ban is just a form of our citizens being oppressed. A wise man once said, “A true patriot shall be ready to bear arms against their own government at any time” Our right to bear arms was put in place as a “reset button”, to instill in our government a fear of the people. The government should always place the will of the people above their own agendas, and if that is not done the people should rise up and force them too instill our will. A firearms ban makes this almost impossible. I am not advocating another civil war and I only believe the government should be overthrown by force, only after careful review, consideration, debates, and only when all else has failed. Anyways my last comments were strictly sarcastic and were supposed to be taken that way (They weren’t Joel), so in the future I will do my best to make sure you understand my point..

Another thing to think about is the fact that Mexico and our very own ATF is stating that 80% of the illegal guns seized in Mexico are coming from the U.S. this is a false number again reported by the Media. 80% is the number of weapons turned over to our ATF that are discovered to have come from the US. Now if these 80% are machine guns when they were shipped over to Mexico then who is sending them the only persons allowed to own them in the U.S. would be the persons who have taken the proper steps to buy a tax stamp (not likely when were talking thousands of guns) So that leaves the Government? and Criminals…..wow guess what that means they are already breaking a GUN LAW on the books! Now what makes you think they would follow along with this one?

I am an Australian Citizen I have been buying semi finished timber rifle stocks from an American manufacturer for resale in Australia. Can someone tell me why Homeland Security would sieze my shipment. They have not responded to my emails and they are threatening my supplier with the big stick approach. Can some one tell me what is going on over there sincerely
Vaughn G
Australia