|
|
Post by peterd on Jul 26, 2012 7:15:34 GMT -8
Obama signals support for new gun laws in wake of Colorado massacre President Obama has added his voice to the push for stricter gun control in the wake of the massacre last week at a Colorado movie theater. Obama, speaking Wednesday evening to the National Urban League, affirmed his belief in Americans' right to own guns, but he singled out assault rifles as better suited for the battlefield. "I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities." The president, in making the comments, went further than he typically does in suggesting Washington open a new debate on gun control. It's a topic he has handled lightly in the past, but his remarks Wednesday night follow statements from vocal gun control advocates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling for new restrictions. www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/obama-talks-limiting-some-gun-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/ |
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Jul 26, 2012 9:34:35 GMT -8
In the spirit of fairness over partisanship, Pete, when I read coverage of that speech earlier today, I believe Obama advocated a reinstitution of the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 during the Clinton administration and allowed to expire pursuant to its ten year sunset provision in 2004 while G.W. Bush was in office: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".
There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment. The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanThe President, therefore, was not advocating the passage of new gun control legislation, but in bringing back a law that had previously been in place in this country for a period of ten years. Arethusa  |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Jul 26, 2012 10:48:56 GMT -8
In the spirit of fairness over partisanship, Pete, when I read coverage of that speech earlier today, I believe Obama advocated a reinstitution of the assault weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 during the Clinton administration and allowed to expire pursuant to its ten year sunset provision in 2004 while G.W. Bush was in office: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".
There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment. The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanThe President, therefore, was not advocating the passage of new gun control legislation, but in bringing back a law that had previously been in place in this country for a period of ten years. Arethusa That is for folks who legally own guns. Now tell me, how does this apply to criminal elements. |
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Jul 26, 2012 11:31:25 GMT -8
My post was about a dissembling reference by the news organization to old legislation as "new". Nothing more. I'm not interested in getting into the debate of this issue. I leave that to y'all, thank you. Arethusa |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 26, 2012 11:49:02 GMT -8
Arethusa, let's be clear on something ... that "assault weapons ban" was useless, it did not prevent one violent crime. All it did was restrict sales of semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons because they have such things as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs like some models of the AR-15 or the M-1 Garrand.
When was the last time we had a drive by bayonetting? Anyone?
Second, there are many other semi-automatic rifles on the market now that in many ways are more powerful than the so-called assault weapons. Many of these are in caliber 30-06, 30-30 and 7mm.
High capacity magazine restrictions are similarly meaningless, indeed some of those on the market, like that "100 round" double drum mag for the AR-15 are pieces of crap. Holmes' AR-15 jammed because of that magazine causing him to toss the rifle.
Two lesser capacity mags for the AR are often duct taped together back to back, head to tail by some shooters to provide greater capacity but surrender no reliability. A skilled shooter can swap out mags faster than it takes to tell.
Similarly, a ban on high capacity magazines for pistols is meaningless as THOUSANDS of post ban mags are already in stores and in private hands. And like with the semi-auto rifles a magazine switchout takes almost no time, even for someone not particularly skilled like me. Drop the expended mag, insert the new loaded mag, close the slide and you're back in business. I can do it in just under 3 seconds and I am slow, very slow.
Everything that would be covered under this ban is already in private hands and will be impossible for the government to take out of circulation.
The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Trying to stuff him back in is pointless and doomed to fail.
Lastly, we already have something like 20,000 gun laws on the books. Will adding one more make any difference? I think not, especially since the only people who would follow it are already law abiding which is, I think, the most important point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Jul 26, 2012 12:10:12 GMT -8
Again, Sailor. My point was to register a dislike of misrepresentations of what public figures state about an issue. In this instance, Obama was misquoted as favoring new gun control legislation, when his advocacy is of a law that was on the books for ten years. As far as this debate is concerned, my contribution has been to interject the question as to why "clearly deranged" individuals are able to acquire weapons with which to mow down innocents. Not the efficacies as to how, or if or when they are or should be enabled to acquire them and whether or not the acquisition is seen as desirable and by whom. I want to know what we, as a society, can do to prevent this kind of mayhem on the part of the mentally ill and disordered that has been growing in frequency within our borders during the past 30 years. I leave it to y'all to discuss and debate your views on the other issues you've mentioned, as I said before. If you find my position unacceptable for a participant in this community, I will take the hint and leave. Thank you again, Arethusa |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 26, 2012 14:12:20 GMT -8
Again, Sailor. My point was to register a dislike of misrepresentations of what public figures state about an issue. In this instance, Obama was misquoted as favoring new gun control legislation, when his advocacy is of a law that was on the books for ten years. That law expired and is no longer on the books. Replacing it, even with one identical in every way means placing a new law in place. Therefore by favoring "bringing back" that law or regulation he favors a new law or regulation. What can be done to look into the future to see who might *PING!* slip off his trolley? How intrusive should government become? I don't find your views unacceptable luv. I'm simply placing my views out there also as an exchange of ideas and information. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 26, 2012 14:20:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Jul 26, 2012 15:40:13 GMT -8
Again, Sailor. My point was to register a dislike of misrepresentations of what public figures state about an issue. In this instance, Obama was misquoted as favoring new gun control legislation, when his advocacy is of a law that was on the books for ten years. That law expired and is no longer on the books. Replacing it, even with one identical in every way means placing a new law in place. Therefore by favoring "bringing back" that law or regulation he favors a new law or regulation. What can be done to look into the future to see who might *PING!* slip off his trolley? How intrusive should government become? I don't find your views unacceptable luv. I'm simply placing my views out there also as an exchange of ideas and information. *** I'm done then. Thank you, Grizz, for the invitation to post here. Fact is, I'm still working and don't have time to focus on building up a head of steam and stirring the pot about anything that doesn't impact the ability to earn my living until those days are over in a few years. I've had fun getting to know the Outposters who took the time to post back and forth with me and those who made the effort to know me better, and wish everyone here wonderful days and years ahead with gratitude in my heart for the experience. In addition, I encourage the folks in the baseball thread to use the links to keep up with how their teams are doing. You can be sure I'll be keeping track of them too and wishing you all well in making it into the playoffs. Arethusa |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Jul 26, 2012 16:17:08 GMT -8
An AK-47 belongs in the hands of a soldier?
What a dunce.
-DD
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahnn on Jul 26, 2012 18:29:24 GMT -8
That law expired and is no longer on the books. Replacing it, even with one identical in every way means placing a new law in place. Therefore by favoring "bringing back" that law or regulation he favors a new law or regulation. What can be done to look into the future to see who might *PING!* slip off his trolley? How intrusive should government become? I don't find your views unacceptable luv. I'm simply placing my views out there also as an exchange of ideas and information. *** I'm done then. Thank you, Grizz, for the invitation to post here. Fact is, I'm still working and don't have time to focus on building up a head of steam and stirring the pot about anything that doesn't impact the ability to earn my living until those days are over in a few years. I've had fun getting to know the Outposters who took the time to post back and forth with me and those who made the effort to know me better, and wish everyone here wonderful days and years ahead with gratitude in my heart for the experience. In addition, I encourage the folks in the baseball thread to use the links to keep up with how their teams are doing. You can be sure I'll be keeping track of them too and wishing you all well in making it into the playoffs. Arethusa I believe that Obama has used the term, "reinstituting" Clintons assault gun law and better enforcing the existing laws. For all intents and purposes, Obama cannot afford to use the Aurora shooting to push any self-defeating legislation. And he is saying as much in his own cagey way. Arethusa, you are correct until the elections are over. If you remember, Obama was caught whispering to a Russian leader that he would be more flexible after the elections. I think if he was reelected and had a majority House and Senate, he would push new gun laws if he was pressured enough from the left. This is how Obamacare became law. But, the odds of Obama ever being in the same position after the next election are slim to none. Everything points to new gun laws being off the books for a long time, even if Obama was reelected. Here's an article, just a few hours old, from the Assoc press that kind of speaks to this. news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-clear-no-push-gun-laws-221411826.htmlArethusa, thanks for your support here and your attempts to make us all think. But, I do hope you will reconsider. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 27, 2012 17:26:01 GMT -8
That law expired and is no longer on the books. Replacing it, even with one identical in every way means placing a new law in place. Therefore by favoring "bringing back" that law or regulation he favors a new law or regulation. What can be done to look into the future to see who might *PING!* slip off his trolley? How intrusive should government become? I don't find your views unacceptable luv. I'm simply placing my views out there also as an exchange of ideas and information. *** I'm done then. Thank you, Grizz, for the invitation to post here. Fact is, I'm still working and don't have time to focus on building up a head of steam and stirring the pot about anything that doesn't impact the ability to earn my living until those days are over in a few years. I've had fun getting to know the Outposters who took the time to post back and forth with me and those who made the effort to know me better, and wish everyone here wonderful days and years ahead with gratitude in my heart for the experience. In addition, I encourage the folks in the baseball thread to use the links to keep up with how their teams are doing. You can be sure I'll be keeping track of them too and wishing you all well in making it into the playoffs. Arethusa It saddens me to thinhk you would bail over a simple disagreement. This is a discussion board, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 28, 2012 12:00:52 GMT -8
I don't want a disagreement to drive a friend away. Please reconsider.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahnn on Jul 29, 2012 3:32:36 GMT -8
*** I'm done then. Thank you, Grizz, for the invitation to post here. Fact is, I'm still working and don't have time to focus on building up a head of steam and stirring the pot about anything that doesn't impact the ability to earn my living until those days are over in a few years. I've had fun getting to know the Outposters who took the time to post back and forth with me and those who made the effort to know me better, and wish everyone here wonderful days and years ahead with gratitude in my heart for the experience. In addition, I encourage the folks in the baseball thread to use the links to keep up with how their teams are doing. You can be sure I'll be keeping track of them too and wishing you all well in making it into the playoffs. Arethusa I believe that Obama has used the term, "reinstituting" Clintons assault gun law and better enforcing the existing laws. For all intents and purposes, Obama cannot afford to use the Aurora shooting to push any self-defeating legislation. And he is saying as much in his own cagey way. Arethusa, you are correct until the elections are over. If you remember, Obama was caught whispering to a Russian leader that he would be more flexible after the elections. I think if he was reelected and had a majority House and Senate, he would push new gun laws if he was pressured enough from the left. This is how Obamacare became law. But, the odds of Obama ever being in the same position after the next election are slim to none. Everything points to new gun laws being off the books for a long time, even if Obama was reelected. Here's an article, just a few hours old, from the Assoc press that kind of speaks to this. news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-clear-no-push-gun-laws-221411826.htmlArethusa, thanks for your support here and your attempts to make us all think. But, I do hope you will reconsider. Thinking back. I have been accused by several members here of lying, speculating, and fabricating information on the zimmerman case. I said I would leave if anyone here told me again that I intentionally tried to deceive anyone on this board. It was then that 101 told me that I made up more stuff on the zimmerman case than Disney. I'd hate to think I have less respect for myself than you do for yourself, Arethusa, so, I have been reconsidering my posting here. Maybe I should leave also as a show of self-respect. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jul 29, 2012 10:53:34 GMT -8
"It was then that 101 told me that I made up more stuff on the zimmerman case than Disney."
There were reasons for that which I would point out to you had I any desire to go over that ground again.
No one forces you, or anyone else, to come or to go.
If you were unwelcome here I would have told you in no uncertain terms.
This thread is about 2A and whether or not Obama supports for new gun legislation.
If you want to start another thread discussing your previous Zimmerman comments, feel free.
|
|
