Why passing an assault weapons ban in...

Why passing an assault weapons ban in Congress will be difficult

There are 709 comments on the The Washington Post story from Jan 15, 2013, titled Why passing an assault weapons ban in Congress will be difficult. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

President Obama is set to unveil a sweeping set of gun control proposals Wednesday, including a ban on assault weapons.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#125 Jan 18, 2013
McGruff wrote:
What's your pint pantywaists? They ruled 8-1 that an individual has a right to own a gun.
Pssst, it was 5-4.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#126 Jan 18, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>hahahahahahahahaah, you can't even get the liberals to vote on it.
Why would Dems take the political risk when they know the Orange Boner will never let it pass the House?

It's easier just to paint Boner & the GOPasaurs a pro-killer.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#127 Jan 18, 2013
McGruff wrote:
I say that there will be no laws passed by congress to ban any guns or magazines. If there is it will be watered down. Nothing like pantywaists has been saying since the shooting. Obammy his having a hard time with senate democrats on the issue, and the republicans rule the house where most guns laws will be DOA.
On that we agree.

There is no reason for Dems to take any political risk when they know it won't pass the House.

Instead they'll just paint the Republicans as supporting killing more children, and it'll work.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Mcallen, TX

#128 Jan 18, 2013
We,
"If only one life could be saved" touching, but unverifiable.

I give you facts and you reply in platitudes. Re: California.

Typical liberal response to a situation of which they have no grasp.

You think that passing laws solve everything or anything for that matter. It only works if the laws are fair, enforceable and deal with the issue. Background checks are none of these.

Obama has control of the largest capable use of firearms in the world, all without a background check. He has authority to kill US citizens at will, his authorizes drone strikes that have an 18% innocent kill rate, "one life saved' he signs off on killing one innocent for each four targeted suspected terrorists.

Some how that is okay?

You have no idea what a background check will entail, who will be responsible for it, how much it will cost, no idea how effective it will be, just that emotionally it makes you warm and fuzzy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#129 Jan 18, 2013
allcladrad wrote:
We,
"If only one life could be saved" touching, but unverifiable.
I give you facts and you reply in platitudes. Re: California.
Typical liberal response to a situation of which they have no grasp.
You think that passing laws solve everything or anything for that matter. It only works if the laws are fair, enforceable and deal with the issue. Background checks are none of these.
Obama has control of the largest capable use of firearms in the world, all without a background check. He has authority to kill US citizens at will, his authorizes drone strikes that have an 18% innocent kill rate, "one life saved' he signs off on killing one innocent for each four targeted suspected terrorists.
Some how that is okay?
You have no idea what a background check will entail, who will be responsible for it, how much it will cost, no idea how effective it will be, just that emotionally it makes you warm and fuzzy.
You'd be wrong, as evidence by your entire post.

But thanks for playing.....

Btw, I still support mandatory background checks and an assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity magazines.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Mcallen, TX

#130 Jan 18, 2013
We,
But, what is it that you are supporting? Anti abortionists say every abortion is an chilld's death, is that you idea of "if one life is saved?"

What is in a background check?
FBI is over burdened now, would you rather continue to background teachers and law enforcement applicants or toss in several million mostly regular citizens? Then guess how many get done in the new laws specified time limits?

The idea is emotional and will be worthless in stopping Johnny walking into school with moms gun and shooting as many people as he can.

I don't think you know what an assault weapon is and I don't think you understand what a high capacity magazine is. You like reactionary politicians say things that have no meaning. Automatic weapons are highly regulated with not many, if any, mass murders committed while using them, except by military personnel, so that sort eliminates "assault weapons" high capacity magazines? 2 or 50 what is a reasonable number and what are the grounds used to decide, emotional in your case.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#131 Jan 18, 2013
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
you have said over and over that the Feds will pass laws.
I haven't.

It one of those things you make up.

I think what happens is: your boy friend- or your customer- becomes excited and presses his swang against the back oaf your throat and the loss of oxygen causes you to imagine conversations you never had and colors... I guess...

You'd know more about that...

I see many dozens of new state laws.

And some legislation coming from Congress...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#132 Jan 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst, it was 5-4.
don't clutter this with facts.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#133 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's just a stupid statement. If Dems "want no rules to live by" they why are they attempting to pass a "rule to live by"?
You need to adjust your meds.
You can not have evil before eleminating good. Liberals are evil.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#134 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
On that we agree.
There is no reason for Dems to take any political risk when they know it won't pass the House.
Instead they'll just paint the Republicans as supporting killing more children, and it'll work.
And here I thought Pro Abortion was in the the liberal platform. Got your scissors handy there igor.
1 post removed
McGruff

Greensburg, KY

#136 Jan 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I haven't.

It one of those things you make up.

I think what happens is: your boy friend- or your customer- becomes excited and presses his swang against the back oaf your throat and the loss of oxygen causes you to imagine conversations you never had and colors... I guess...

You'd know more about that...

I see many dozens of new state laws.

And some legislation coming from Congress...
yes you have pantywaists. Over and over again you have stated that.
McGruff

Greensburg, KY

#135 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>On that we agree.

There is no reason for Dems to take any political risk when they know it won't pass the House.

Instead they'll just paint the Republicans as supporting killing more children, and it'll work.
if the country is strongly behind banning these guns then they shouldn't be taking any risks.
1 post removed

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#137 Jan 19, 2013
allcladrad wrote:
We,
But, what is it that you are supporting? Anti abortionists say every abortion is an chilld's death, is that you idea of "if one life is saved?"
What is in a background check?
FBI is over burdened now, would you rather continue to background teachers and law enforcement applicants or toss in several million mostly regular citizens? Then guess how many get done in the new laws specified time limits?
The idea is emotional and will be worthless in stopping Johnny walking into school with moms gun and shooting as many people as he can.
I don't think you know what an assault weapon is and I don't think you understand what a high capacity magazine is. You like reactionary politicians say things that have no meaning. Automatic weapons are highly regulated with not many, if any, mass murders committed while using them, except by military personnel, so that sort eliminates "assault weapons" high capacity magazines? 2 or 50 what is a reasonable number and what are the grounds used to decide, emotional in your case.
I served 20+ years in the military; I have a pretty good idea of what an assualt weapon is in the current lexicon.

Yes, automatic weapons are indeed highly regulated to the point it is very difficult for the average citizen to get one, which is why there are virtually no mass murders committed with them. So obviously regulations CAN work.

Now imagine if we regulated all semi-automatic weapons to the same extent?

While I don't support going that far, I do support banning assault weapons designed to appeal to the "wanna-be pretend military video gamer" type and high capacity magazines (anything over 10 rounds).

I think all weapons should require a permit to own and be registered with local law enforcement in a national database. In addition, you should be required to renew that permit every couple of years to ensure you are still qualified to own one; just as you have to renew your driver's license every few years.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#138 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I served 20+ years in the military; I have a pretty good idea of what an assualt weapon is in the current lexicon.
I think knowing what an assault weapon is begins with knowing how to spell it.

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Mcallen, TX

#139 Jan 19, 2013
We,
Rifles are responsible for 2.7% of the gun deaths. So pretty much your version of assault weapons are really insignificant. Every instance except Tucson, the murders occurred where guns were forbidden.

From when assault weapons were banned in 94 until the year the ban expired there was no measurable difference in gun deaths.

But all of that aside, the push for this legislation is manufactured for public appeal. The law, how ever it is written, won't accomplish anything positive. It will be an expensive waste of money and man power.

Your solution has some merit, but, it only covers people who normally comply with the law. Ill thought laws only create criminals where there were none and provide a blackmarket trade to develop that completely eliminates any safeguards.

An assault weapon ban only works after the weapon holder is found with one.
1 post removed

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#141 Jan 19, 2013
allcladrad wrote:
We,
Rifles are responsible for 2.7% of the gun deaths. So pretty much your version of assault weapons are really insignificant. Every instance except Tucson, the murders occurred where guns were forbidden.
From when assault weapons were banned in 94 until the year the ban expired there was no measurable difference in gun deaths.
But all of that aside, the push for this legislation is manufactured for public appeal. The law, how ever it is written, won't accomplish anything positive. It will be an expensive waste of money and man power.
Your solution has some merit, but, it only covers people who normally comply with the law. Ill thought laws only create criminals where there were none and provide a blackmarket trade to develop that completely eliminates any safeguards.
An assault weapon ban only works after the weapon holder is found with one.
Then there is no reason to ban me from owning a nuclear weapon either........

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Mcallen, TX

#142 Jan 19, 2013
We,
Childish, but still not true. Guns are the focus of the 2nd Amendment, not knives, poison, slingshots or A bombs.

Your side doesn't have a valid argument, witness your post.

Currently, every gun buyer in the US, by law, has a criminal records background check run on them before they get the gun. So why are all of the politicians and liberals up in arms? Pun intended.

Emotionally and politically motivated legislation does more harm than good.

There are real issues that we face, this is not one of them.

sheepleloveroyal ty

Pottstown, PA

#143 Jan 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there is no reason to ban me from owning a nuclear weapon either........
Should we ban a country from having a nuclear program because they can or might develope a nuclear weapon from that technology? Or that might actually use sed weapon once it's built.

I remember all the uh-ohs when Pakistan and India got nukes. They still might explode them but in reality should other countries be telling them what do. I see similar reaction with guns because of 'capability' and not how they are actually used or how often they are abused.

A nuclear program of anykind forces a country to think about safety as does owning a gun. One must think about safety and procedure or deal with the consequences.

I think what is lacking with gun safety/education is the lack of scared straight type photographs of gun murder victim. Show the blood, the holes, the shell casing number tags, the body outline-show what happens when somebody is shot with a gun. I remember seeing numerous pictures of the Hiroshima bomb victim and/or effects of radiation. When you think nuclear you also think safety. People think that inner city youth need to see that but it should be all youth. The problem I think many kids have seen hundreds of make believe death in games & movies but never opened up the history books for the pictures of the shot dead 1930s gangsters. You could show Columbine crime scene of the bodies of Dylan and Kliebold complete with blood and brain matter. Make them look at it. This is what a gunshot wound to the head does. This is not the movies.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#144 Jan 19, 2013
allcladrad wrote:
We,
Rifles are responsible for 2.7% of the gun deaths.
Actually: the gun owners are responsible for the deaths and the legislation isn't going to be there to punish the guns but the people who use them, and Americans are smart enough to understand that someone with an assault weapon with massacre magazines is a credible threat that has no real purpose in our civil society outside of making gun gnutter's tiny dickies hard.

And since right now the most immediate threat is (and has been) from the 40 percent of the mark of guns that are sold and transferred without going through a background check.

The 2 percent rifle that Grandpa gave you is a red herring...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#145 Jan 19, 2013
allcladrad wrote:
Currently, every gun buyer in the US, by law, has a criminal records background check run on them before they get the gun.
You are a g/d, c/s liar.

Not even close.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min District 1 222,543
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min woodtick57 1,419,260
News Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 9 min Ronald 39
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 min Eagle 12 21,172
News Warning of 'war' on farmers, Trump seeks suppor... 10 min Eleanor 3
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 12 min HILLARY 2016 239,533
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 13 min 2all 7,815
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 18 min Quirky 393,292
More from around the web