President Obama supports assault weapons ban

Pres Obama President Obama supports assault weapons ban

by NW Spotlight

The Hill reported on Tuesday that in the wake of last week’s mass shooting in Connecticut, “President Obama will ‘actively support’ efforts by Democrats to reinstate a federal ban on assault weapons next year.” 27 people were killed in the Connecticut tragedy, including 20 children.

Connecticut has had an assault weapon ban since 1993, that bans 67 semiautomatic assault weapons by brand name. The state’s assault weapon ban was upheld in 1995 by the Connecticut Supreme Court, was one of seven states’ bans to outlast the expiration of the national assault weapon ban in 2004, and was not affected by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that rejected laws banning handguns.

The federal ban that expired in 2004 outlawed 18 specific models of military-style assault weapons.

A Hartford, Connecticut, newspaper reported that the rifle used by the killer in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings was not illegal under the state’s assault weapon ban, and by law, it was not even an assault weapon.

A 2012 study by the anti-gun organization, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, ranked Connecticut as having the 4th strictest gun laws in the nation, for “having enacted some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws.”

tt twitter big4 President Obama supports assault weapons ban tt facebook big4 President Obama supports assault weapons ban tt linkedin big4 President Obama supports assault weapons ban tt reddit big4 President Obama supports assault weapons ban

Posted by at 09:06 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, President Obama | 74 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • guest

    This president of Kenya should attend to his back yard before telling US what to do. Google…violence in Kenya

    • idiocy

      Ugh, OC really should work on some outreach. Sad to see this idiocy still permeating.

      Try googling the civilian deaths from U.S. military activities in the last 12 years.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Obama has supported reinstatement of the semi auto ban from day one. That’s nothing new. What is new is the concept of absolute supremacy of the president, non questioning of him by either the media or his followers. How else could anyone explain actions of the summer? Back then, any questioning of Eric “Body Bags” Holder over selling thousands of these weapons to known criminals that wound up killing hundreds of people was deemed racist. Yet now nary a peep to hold him for account for claiming executive privilege in the incident?

    Does that prove attitudes about the issue are inconsistent? Of course. Does it show that those who want to ban semi auto’s really arent interested in stopping crime, but rather simply have some fetish for denying people’s right? Absolutely.

    When questioned they will get indignant. Asserting “well Bush did it”. Dispite the fact that this is untrue, the logical idiocy of trying to establish Bush was a perfect president is fairly idiotic. Yet nevertheless, this is the assertion from the low information voter.

    • crabman34

      Shorter Rupert: Obama is so bad, he is the worst president ever. Liberals hate me and want to take away my rights for fun because they are “low-information voters” by definition. Also Bush something or other.

      I have to say this is one of your weaker verbal burps.

      Yeah, wanting to establish new (or renewed) gun laws is “absolutely” about a fetish for denying rights. I mean, Rupert, do you really want to have discussion on here or just throw hissy fits?

      The world you live in must be scary if you think that anyone who thinks differently than you is a tyrant bent on taking away your god-given rights. Please.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        I guess just calling any argument you cant refute a “hissy fit” works well in liberal circles. Doesn’t work to well real world.

        What you need to answer is – if you guys are so concerned about guns, why did you spend all last summer defending Holder?

        Answer that and we might let you sit at the adult table next time. If not, back to the kiddie table with you, where you can yammer on about “hissy fits”, “rants” and “panties in a twist” and other favorite hive mind liberal chestnuts that indicate you don’t think, you react.

        So go ahead – Show us all your brilliance – How do you justify the lefts defending Holder all through the summer and now all of a sudden being interested in semi autos again?

        Astonish us with your genius.

        • crabman34

          I don’t see how the politicized Fast and Furious issue is all that related, to be honest. Fast and Furious was stupid, a lot of liberals, myself included, have criticized it, and Holder made a lot of mistakes related to it. That said, Fast and Furious is more complex that what Issa and Grassley make it out to be and frankly, anything that Issa does or says is suspect. The man has lied before he was a Congressman, there’s no reason to think he doesn’t to continue to stretch the truth as a highly ideological politician.

          But Fast and Furious also wasn’t about gun control. It was a stupid idea that was started before Holder and continued with his approval. Many people on both sides criticized him for releasing those guns, but it is a different issue than regulating private ownership of certain guns. Moreover, much of the defense of Holder came because of the irresponsible behavior by Issa in conducting his hearings. Washington has become an ugly place, the Fast and Furious hearings were ugly, but so was the program itself. That still doesn’t make defending Holder against Issa antagonistic to one’s support for gun control.

          You come at me because I called what you said a hissy fit, but Rupert, it truly was and you know it. You claimed to believe that people who think that gun control isn’t as strong as it should be are simply fetishizing the taking of your rights. That is ridiculous! That goes beyond hyperbole into the land of conspiracy theories and a bizarre self-centered universe where people actually give a crap about Rupert’s rights (or lack thereof).

          If you don’t want to have reasoned discourse, then don’t pretend to sit at the adults table (which I’ve come to see is your favorite dumb metaphor for your rhetorical posture). At the very least bring some intelligence to the discussion.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I don’t see how the politicized Fast and Furious issue is all that related, to be honest.

            Because the fact that you guys just dismissed the entire event, but now all of a sudden are interested in banning semi autos makes quite clear one thing – you aren’t really interested in controlling crime.

            You are going to demonstrate my point further so lets proceed.

            > It was a stupid idea that was started before Holder and continued with his approval.

            Yep, yep yep, “its all Bushs fault” do you see how you still excuse Holder? you see how I knew you would continue to do this?

            That’s why I brought up the issue. So people would see your defense of Holder, man who headed a department that sold thousands of guns to known criminals, hundreds dead. Now all of a sudden you are concerned about crime?

            If, on the other hand, you had said “you are right, Holder should totally testify and franky some people should have gone to jail over that one” you would have total credibility.

            How did I know you wouldn’t do that? Because I can tell you are a hive mind thinker. Liberals can never be critical of their leaders.

            Conservatives can admit all day long “Wow, Bush spent way too much, going into Iraq was totally stupid”

            Liberals can never admit “Wow, selling guns to criminals, hundreds dead, somebody should really go to jail for that. Holder was wrong, he should testify”

            I know liberals, so I know you, and that’s how I knew you would defend Holder and destroy your credibility.

          • 3H

            You just can’t help yourself can you? He blamed both Bush and Holder, but you only see Bush in your rush to demonize Liberals. He said it was a bad idea. He did not defend Holder at all, and yet… you see what you want to, and not what is in front of you.

            So, if you know one Liberal, you know them all? That says it all Rupert – your mind is closed, and trying to reason with you is a waste of time.

          • crabman34

            > It was a stupid idea that was started before Holder and continued with his approval.

            That statement is 100% accurate without bias. How does that defend Holder? How does that even pass the buck? That’s like me saying that Biden and Frist are both at fault for the ridiculous standards to which we hold judicial nominees. Started with Biden, got worse with Frist and now McConnell. Not passing the buck, living in the real world where both liberals and conservatives can be at fault for the SAME DAMN THING. I didn’t use the words you want me to, but that doesn’t mean that if you were able to put down your biases you wouldn’t see that I do in fact hold Holder at some fault. But I also am capable of recognizing nuance and subtlety and bias on the part of the idiots running the show on the Oversight committee.

            How do you know that I am “suddenly” interested in gun control? How do you know anything about me? You know what? in high school, a kid who was being bullied brought his dad’s legally registered gun to school, dropped his backpack at lunch, and accidentally discharged his dad’s handgun into the spine of my best friend. He will always be in a wheelchair. I’ve taken this issue very seriously for a very long time and your baiting BS will be sorely missed when you forget about guns again. I’ll continue to be interested in the issue, both from a constitutional law side, as well as a pragmatic angle. I don’t believe, as many do, that we need 300 million guns to protect us in the event that the U.S. turns into a fascist dictatorship that we need to defend against. But I won’t pretend that there isn’t a sliver of that view underpinning the 2nd amendment. But I also think that there are limits. The U.S. has a lot of guns, more than most countries. We also have a lot of gun violence, more than most countries but less than others (mostly 2nd/3rd world though). My view is that guns make violence worse, but they don’t make it go away. I’d rather get at the violence that is a problem in this country, but I think there is room for sensible gun regulation. But honestly, I don’t care to discuss it with you anymore.

            You’re an idiot Rupert. You’re an idiot because you think liberals are hive minds who think that it is ok to sell guns criminals. You’re an idiot because you think liberals want to come take away your rights and get off on it. You’re an idiot because you can’t ever put down your blinders to have real conversations. You’re an idiot because you can never see the other side, you’re too self-assured to open your eyes. You’d rather bait and switch, ignore inconvenient facts, and then wrap yourself in buzzwords and BS.

            >Conservatives can admit all day long “Wow, Bush spent way too much, going into Iraq was totally stupid”
            HAHAHAHA. Please. I’ll grant you that a lot of, maybe even most (but not me) democrats did not jump up and call on Holder to come to account for F&F, but you’ll have to admit that the majority of conservatives were not, and are still not, against the (cost of the) war in Iraq or really concerned at all about Bush’s spending.

            It’s not my credibility that was lost here, Rupert. You threw a hissy fit and then refused to acknowledge the bizarro conspiracy world you alluded to. If you had just said “you’re right, liberals have some different ideas but I can respect those differences without smearing them” then I’d respect you. But you’re a conservative, so I know you, and you’re no man to respect.

          • valley person

            We dismiss the entire event because it was much ado about nothing. Like Benghazi. You get yourself all worked up over a handful of deaths of adults who are in dangerous jobs and ignore the slaughter of 20 6 year old kids who only wanted to go to school.

  • WorthATry

    So, a (real) question for you all.

    Are we at a point where the gun laws in the U.S. are
    (a) perfect and should not be changed, they do the job they should
    (b) inadequate because they fail to keep some guns out of certain people’s hands, or
    (c) overwrought because the 2nd amendment is absolute and should not be affected by any legislation?

    I’m truly being serious and trying to start a genuine conversation here. It seems that many people on this site get pretty upset at the mere idea of gun laws. Why? No other amendment is considered as absolute as many view the 2nd. There are reasonable laws that limit speech and the press and religion, for example. Why shouldn’t there by laws limiting gun ownership?

    If you agree that some laws limiting gun ownership are acceptable then what is the limit? Can we articulate it in 10 words or less? (I take it as a given that it is constitutionally valid to put the bill of rights in the balance against other rights both enumerated and not, but maybe others don’t? I tend to accept the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence as pretty clearly establishing that the Bill of Rights is not absolute.)

    If you think (c) the laws are overwrought, should they all be completely eliminated? Or is there any middle ground?

    If (a), how and why did we get to the exact perfect place of regulation? Do you really believe that?

    Clearly, many disagree here. And it is obviously not a clear cut issue. Guns may not even be the primary issue here. I tend to think it is our mental health apparatus. Canada is very similar to us (similar media exposure, similar popular concerns about access to violence video games and movies, similar values, similar economy, etc. I’m saying SIMILAR here, not the same, please don’t freak out about Canada), but they don’t have the levels of gun ownership or violence. Why?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      We are at the point in the country where gun laws taken as a totality are imperfect and need to be reviewed.

      Why
      do we have gun laws that are rarely enforced – such as federal
      prosecution of felon in possession. That’s almost always left to local
      authorities.

      Why is it ok by some people for the attorney
      general to sell guns to known criminals that wind up killing hundreds,
      but those same people get apoplectic about far less?

      There are
      plenty of laws that clearly are not working – those need to be reviewed.
      An example of that would be background checks. Why is it there is
      virtually no arrest or follow up when someone goes to purchase and fails
      the check? The late congressman Steven Schiff asked this when the
      original Brady Bill was under discussion. Law Enforcement officials from
      various states that had waiting periods or background checks were
      called in to testify how great it worked. When Schiff asked – you know
      this is a unique crime, you have a person who has come in, is in the
      commission of a crime, and is waiting while you call police to check on
      them, how many have you arrested in the process of committing this
      crime? Nobody could point to any record or protocol for arresting
      someone in this, the easiest of all crimes you could possibly have to
      arrest someone for.

      Likewise, there are plenty of laws that
      clearly are not working, but also clearly do great harm – such as “gun
      free zones”. These laws need to be eliminated.

      I doubt anyone
      would argue gun laws are perfect. All could agree they are imperfect.
      Where the disagreement is is in what aspect is imperfect.

      Personally
      I feel the onus should always b on those proposing abrogation of
      rights. That’s the way our system works. If you want to infringe on
      someones constitutional rights, you’d better have a damn good reason for
      doing so – say like national security and free speech.

      I don’t
      think gun control people have done that. They just want a law to make
      them feel good. If they were truly interested in controlling crime we
      wouldn’t have gotten blank looks to Steven Schiffs question. We wouldn’t
      get deer in the headlights when we ask “where was the concern over
      sales of guns to known criminals when it came to Eric Holder?”

      • Ballistic45

        Well said, thank you….

      • DavidAppell

        Rupert: Did you look up that definition for the word ‘denialism?”

    • David from Mill City

      For point of reference the violent crime rate in Canada is twice ours.

      • DavidAppell

        Prove it.

        • David from Mill City

          According to The Daily Mail newspaper the violent crime rate in Canada was 935 crimes per 100,000 residents and the rate for the United States was 466 crimes per 100,000. Which is slightly less then Canada’s rate.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

          • DavidAppell

            I will check this out.
            Are you aware that the Daily Mail is considered an extremely biased newspaper?

          • David from Mill City

            Yes I am, my working assumption is that all British newspapers have a bias, though I will concede that my knowledge regarding the direction of those biases is limited. My working assumption regarding facts particularly cited statistical data reported by British news sources is that they are accurate. They may not be complete and it is likely they were selected to prove an editorial point report every fact but what is printed is accurate. Have you found this not to be the case.

            As an aside, do you have problems following a conversational thread with the new comment formatting? While the comments are easier to read then they were in the old format, where the reply was printed with a shorter line width then the comment it was responding to. It is can be difficult in the new format to determine which reply goes to which comment in a complex thread. My feeling is that giving time and dates in addition to the approximate time interval as impossing a numbering system would improve things. You are a regular user what do you think?

          • DavidAppell

            I would prefer official statistics, not as communicated by the Daily Mail.

          • Ballistic45

            They are reporting a British officials assessment David..

            The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

            Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2FewRs0MU

          • valley person

            If Canadians are more violent than Americans, then why is their murder rate much lower than ours David? Guns?

  • valley person

    From what I can tell so far, Obama is proposing 3 things:

    1) a renewal, and presumably some improvement on the federal assault weapons ban
    2) a limit on the number of bullets that a weapon can hold at one time without reloading
    3) Closing the background check loophole that allows gun shows and private sellers to avoid the background check.

    Of these, #2 and #3 could have saved lives in several recent mass shootings.

    I’d like to include some other measures, including a waiting period between purchase and possession (to allow cooling off and intervention), licensing and insurance requirements for all guns and gun owners, like we do with cars, and periodic retesting or license renewal to catch those who were ok then but maybe are not now, like my well armed friend who was later diagnosed bipolar.

    • Ballistic45

      Like most liberals, you keep getting RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES mixed up…. Rights do not have to be earned, rented, bought, qualified for…. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? What next? Only College grads qualify for ‘FREE SPEECH’ IF they are licensed… The only real assault weapons are in the hands of Criminals, Police, Military and licensed Citizens.. TRUE fully AUTOMATIC Weapons have been banned for DECADES.. Military definition of an Assault weapon is one that can be selectively fired in SEMI auto which requires the trigger to be pulled for each shot fired or FULL auto that sprays bullets out as long as the trigger is held back… Only Licensed Citizens are allowed Assault Rifles… Liberals have used the Name ASSAULT RIFLE for ANY rifle that even looks like a real FULLY AUTOMATIC true assault rifle… Doesn’t matter the difference… And please tell me ANY Where in this Countries founding papers and 2nd Amendment where the RIGHT to bear arms are limited by what kind of arms, magazine size, color of stock, length of barrel, silencers, sights or anything else having to do with arms… The abuse of RIGHTS are well covered in our Criminal Law, from the miss-use of FREE SPEECH, miss-use of GUNS, on down the list of RIGHTS… ‘GUN FREE ZONES’ guarantee a would be shooter a safe field of fire, that’s all it accomplishes… Don’t attack our rights and diminish them, beef up our laws and punishments for misuse of RIGHTS… That focuses on the Abusers not the Law Abiding Citizens…

      • crabman34

        Doesn’t sound like you understand rights either. Your rights aren’t absolute. Do some research into the long history of constiutional law. You have a 4th amendment right not to be searched or seized without due process, but we have come a long way from an absolute on that. Your free speech and free press rights are also limited, not absolute. The Government “infringes” (limits, qualifies) many of our rights. You are confusing issues here, and know not of what you speak.

        Background check loophole seems to fit right in with what you are saying, since it is a misuse of the right to bear arms that puts guns in criminals hands through that loophole. Do you think the 2nd amendment prohibits background checks? Is that an attack on your right to bear arms? If you have nothing to hide, why does it matter if the government wants to make sure you are safe with a gun?

        Why get so angry? It doesn’t seem like VP said anything offensive. You get all pedantic and apoplectic, but then your point gets lost IN ALL THE STUPID CAPITAL LETTERS!

        How about calming down so people can actually conversea?

        • Ballistic45

          No, we allowed ourselves to give them up, how stupid we were….. How arrogant you are… Tell this mother she is wrong: http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-one-girl-who-understands-real-gun-control/, tell this girl she has no right to protect herself.. Tell her she is not mature enough to handle a gun and therefore should have no access to one…

          • valley person

            None of your rights are absolute, including those in the 2nd amendment. That is a legal and historical fact.

            And your right to be armed has to be weighed against the right of 6 year olds to be relatively safe in their neighborhood school.

          • David from Mill City

            In terms of guns and the uses that they are put to, the use of a gun to cause the horrific and regrettable tragedy in Newtown was a major aberration. In the same way as the use of a Chrysler Imperial to kill 23 people in a mass killing in Reno was a major aberration from how automobiles are used. The purpose the guns in Newtown were put to was well out side of the normal manner guns are used in the United States. The fact it was an aberration does not mean we should do nothing, but only that the fact it is an aberration needs to be considered as we look for a solution. Just as it would be unreasonable to impose a ban on the sale or ownership of Chrysler Imperials as a means of preventing a repeat of the mass killing in Reno, it is unreasonable to impose a ban on the sale or ownership of a type of gun because a demented individual used it to kill in Newtown.

            I do realize that some of you do not see a use for “Assault Weapons” that you deem acceptable, that is within your rights as individuals to have a personal opinion and to voice it. But that personal opinion is no more a justification to limit a civil right then the opinion of a lunch bar owner as to the status of blacks is justification to deny them service. Nor was the opinion of people as to the extremely objectionable utterances of the KKK or American Nazi Party justification for denying them the right to peaceably assemble and march.

            I am not saying that our Civil Rights are absolute and cannot be limited. What I am saying is that the burden of proof in regards to imposing a limitation on a Civil Right rests with the group advocating that limitation and not those who’s rights are to be limited to show that they shouldn’t be limited. To date the main reasons I have heard to justify the banning of “Assault Weapons” is that they have been used to kill people, they are Military weapons that do not belong in the hands of the public and/or that the speaker does not see the need for them. None of these reasons are in fact significant enough to justify the imposition of a limitation of a Civil Right on the population as a whole.

          • DavidAppell

            Bullshit. The US has experienced a rash of mass shootings in recent years. Most Americans are sickened by it, and fed up with it. And we are fed up with your denialism as well.

          • Ballistic45

            Look it up, except for Gabriell Giffords assassination attempt and many wounded and killed at a Tucson supermarket gathering, all Mass killings for the last 20 years have been in “Gun Free Zones”, it turns out that “Gun Free Zones” just disarmed those who became targets….. It doesn’t take a genius to know if your hell bent on killing as many people as possible, find the most vulnerable and defenceless… Gun Free Zones provide just that…. All Israeli teachers are armed with full automatic weapons, not because they are at war, they are not, but they are vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks.. Tell me, what’s the difference between a Terrorist attack and and an attack of a demented person? The results are the same… And you want teachers to throw their bodies at the oncoming bullets.. How wonderful you are….

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t care. There are too many guns in America, especially high-powered assault weapons. Get it?

          • David from Mill City

            You are entitled to your opinion. I find the total number of guns as having limited if any impact on the problem we are attempting to find a solution for. In the case of the events in Newtown the only guns that had any impact are the three the killer used, not the other 299,999,997 that were not. In 2002 it was the 9369 guns used in murders that had an impact not the nearly 300 million that did not.

            With 300 million or more guns in the hands of the public, attempting to stop 10,000 gun murders by eliminating all guns is not rational and trying to do so by only eliminating a few is even more irrational. As irrational as believing that banning some guns based on what they look like will have any meaning ful impact on the problem. The problem is guns in the hands of those who want to use them to harm others, not the vast majority of guns that are not being used to harm people. And our efforts would be much better spent identifying those people want to use guns to murder or harm other people and keep guns out of their possession and are more likely to be successful then your ban most guns approach.

            Oh, and by the way, as anyone knowledgeable about firearms and their development knows the terms “high powered” and “assault rifle” are mutually exclusive. One of the significant characteristics of military assault rifle designs is the use of an intermediate powered cartridge.

          • DavidAppell

            >> In the case of the events in Newtown the only guns that had any impact are the three the killer used, <<

            What an absolutely moronic comment. Do you really think such idiocy makes any difference? Are you so desperate to keep a gun in your house that you will write absolutely stupid things like this?

            No wonder you don't write under your real name — your thoughts are so baldly stupid and self-serving that no one can possibly take you seriously. Jesus Christ.

          • David from Mill City

            As you seem to miss the point I was trying to make, let me put it yet another way. Of the over 300,000 million guns in the United States less than 10,000 are used in any given year to commit homicide. The single most significant difference between those two groups of guns is not their design, action, configuration, or chambering it is the use that the gun was put to. And the controlling factor there is the person using the gun. People using guns properly are no threat to the rest of us. The threat comes from those people using them to murder. Given that our resources are limited, it seems to me that preventing random mass killings by dealing with potential mass killers rather then the implement they choose to use is the best use of those resources. We do that by fixing the flaws in the “instant background check” system, giving away lockboxes for pistols in addition to gun-locks, by creating reasonable affordable firearms storage requirements and making them mandatory, by creating a mental health system that really works, by limiting the disincentives associated with seeking help from that mental health system, by identifying the factors that cause someone to want to commit mass or serial murder so maybe we as a society can stop creating new ones and lastly by removing the incentives we are currently providing to some mass and serial killers.

          • DavidAppell

            David: It is you who is missing the point.

            I don’t care how you parse the statistics. The slaughter of schoolchlidren must end.

            You have no need for assault weapons. Get it? That’s all.

          • Ballistic45

            Liberals don’t care who gets killed, adults, kids, who ever so long as their agenda is pushed forward by those deaths….. Who is it that supports the sacrifice 3000+ kids a day in abortions to garner the women’s vote.. Who came up with ‘Gun Free Zones’ knowing full well these zones are nothing but Killing Fields to deranged mass murderers and being so would guarantee innocent lives being lost so they can push their gun grabbing agenda in the aftermath.. Who is it that forced the selling of guns to the Drug Cartels knowing people would be killed on both sides of the border and using that slaughter to blame gun availability in the United States and again push for gun controls.. Who is it that supports UN treaties to Circumvent our Constitution and Rights that were put into place by founding fathers to save lives and property… Liberals create Crisis situations like, Gun Free Zones, Forcing gun dealers to sell to Drug Cartels knowing full well and WANTING deaths to occur to give credence to their gun grabbing agenda… It is Liberal Union goons on twitter threatening anyone with violence if they oppose their Liberal agenda.. It is Liberal Black Panthers standing outside voting places with clubs.. It was Liberal Union Goons assaulting Conservatives at town hall meetings.. It was Liberals who threaten riots and violence if Obama lost the election… It is Liberals on talk shows and interviews who advocate arresting and silencing conservative opposition… It’s not law abiding gun owners you should fear.. It is people like David and the other Liberal Lemmings you should keep an eye on.. If David and Liberals really wanted school children not to be “Slaughtered” then they should quit putting them in a shooting galleries called “gun free zones”…. But that is not going to happen because ‘gun free zones” has for 20 years proven to work in getting people killed without the means to protect themselves, just what the left PLANNED and WANTED to happen to support their gun grabbing agenda… I hope followers of these comments see David and other liberals like him as they are, Violent, Careless, Exploiters who use criminal actors and mad men to do their killing in the Killing Fields they themselves have created… Human life means nothing to them, never has… Their need to control others means to much to worry about the lives lost in getting to their goals… I’m done with this thread, I leave it to the readers….

          • valley person

            Keep changing the subject. Abortion? Please.

          • David from Mill City

            Mr Appell

            I am fully aware of your position regarding “Assault Rifles” and your need to have them removed from private ownership. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that banning what is commonly referred to as “Assault Weapons” will not affect the number or availability of weapons which as Valley Person has described as “guns that are designed to discharge rounds at high rates of speed, with large capacity, and with quick reloading.” That is because the Clinton Assault Rifle Ban did not restrict guns with that capability, and the same political and firearms design factors that were present then, also following a horrific school shooting still exist.

            So go ahead, ban the so called Assault Weapons, but just don’t expect it to make school children any safer.

          • DavidAppell

            Then clearly we need an even stronger ban than Clinton’s, and a buyback program, and stiff jail sentences for anyone caught owning an assault weapon.

            It’s a start — and all I’ve heard from you are denialist parsing of statistics and reasons why any idea won’t work. It’s absurd that American’s can’t go to school, a movie theatre, or a shopping mall without fear of being slaughtered.

          • DavidAppell

            David: You still don’t get it.

            I don’t care what you think. No one needs an assault weapon. That ownership must end.

            It’s that simple. Do you get that?

          • DavidAppell

            There is a Chinese proverb: the best time to plant a tree is 100 years ago. The second best time is now.

            So there are 300 million guns. Ban them, and in 10 years there will be 280 M. In 20 years there will be 240 M. Throw gun owners in jail. Make the penalty for gun ownership very, very stiff. It certainly won’t eliminate them, but it will reduce the slaughter of 6 year olds, about which none of you people seem to care at all.

          • David from Mill City

            You are off by about a factor of ten in your time estimates. Fire arms made in the 1700 and 1800s which received minimal care still function. Given the higher quality materials that modern weapons are made of they are likely to have an even longer functional life span and “Assault Rifles” because they have no wood parts will very likely last the longest.

            As to your second point I do care, that is why I want laws that work not just feel good. I also grasp something you seem to have missed, the perpetrator in Newtown could have killed just as many people just as fast and just as horrifically using a sword, machete, chainsaw or gasoline I recognize that we need to deal with all mass killings not just those were an “Assault rifle” was used. Because that will prevent the slaughter of more 6 year olds.

            And as to a comment you made in a different posting regarding my use of a “nom-de-plume”. I chose to do so because that seems to be the norm on this and similar blogs. I commend your courage in choosing to use your full name. And for the record, my given name is David and I do live in Mill City and with the exception of the Huffington Post “David in Mill City” is the nom-de-plume I use for all political postings. I would use it on the Huffington Post but they will not allow me to change it to reflect my current city of residence..

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t care. I don’t care about your parsing of the statistics — I am tired of innocent people being killed. Why are you?

          • 3H

            That is just homicides. That number does not count shootings that did not end in death, accidental shootings or suicides by gun.

          • valley person

            The US has 3 times the death rate by gun than any other industrialized nation. We lose more people to guns every year than to all years combined with respect to terrorism. We were distraught over 4000 soldiers killed in Iraq, but we lose that many to guns every few months right here at home.

          • Ballistic45

            Finally David, you tell the Liberal truth, YOU DON’T CARE…. All you want is the control of others Rights to self defence, you will use any tragedy to get to that goal, its not about anyone’s safety really, it is the goal of disarmament… And again David the ONLY assault weapons are in the hands of truly bad guys like the Mexican Cartels that Obama allowed sold to and have killed hundreds, cartel run gangs, police, military and LICENSED Citizens…. True ‘Assault weapons have been banned sense 1934… ((It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for
            civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department.
            Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.)) All M15-M16-SKS-AK47′s and there nockoffs for sale to Civilians are SEMI automatic.. They look mean but are not assault rifles.. A professional would not use one in any kind of real assault situation.. Period… But thank you again David for you admission, it again shows that Liberals will exploit any tragedy for political gains and increased controls… And it is driven home by Obama’s attempt to show sorrow with that fake tear swipe.. Thank you….

          • DavidAppell

            You do not need an assault weapon. Period. Deal with your paranoia — get professional help if you need it. You are not in a war and you do not need an assault weapon.

          • DavidAppell

            Certainly, we will “exploit” this tragedy in order to prevent the lives of innocent people, especially children. This is exactly the time to exploit it, to enact new laws, to curtail paranoid people like you (and Nancy Lanza) who cause so much harm. You better believe it — we will get your ridiculous guns.

          • David from Mill City

            In terms of the total number of guns in the hands of the public, the number of guns used in homicides in a given year is statistically insignificant. In 2002, according to the UN, there were 9369 people murdered with a gun. For the purpose of this calculation I will assume that a different gun was used for each killing, that is 9369 guns which for ease of calculation I will round up to 10,000. It is estimated that there are 300 million guns in the United States. Those 10,000 guns are only 3.333333333333333e-5 % of the total number of guns in public possession. A percentage so small the calculator on my PC can not express it conventionally.

            9369 deaths are not insignificant nor for that matter is a single death. And it is well worth our time, effort and money to work to reduce that 9369 to as close to zero as we can get it. What is not rational is to single out an item, which in terms of the total number of those items in existence, is improperly used is so insignificantly.

            The problem is not guns. The problem is a few people using guns improperly. Our time, money and effort would be much better spent identifying those people and preventing them from getting their hands on guns and for that matter any other destructive device then in limiting the rights of people who are not using their guns improperly.

            To use analogy I know you dislike, but which is still valid, banning guns to eliminate gun deaths makes as much sense as banning motor vehicles to eliminate drunk driving deaths. That is no sense at all.

          • valley person

            You are parsing statistics. We lose more Americans every year to guns than we have lost to all terrorist attacks in our history. Yet we take measures to defend against terrorism, and refuse to take measures to reduce gun deaths, most of which occur in the home, and having nothing at all to do with self defense.

          • Ballistic45

            Illegal aliens cause more deaths to U.S. Citizens in car accidents and Crime than have been lost in all Terrorist attacks also, but I don’t see any liberal push to stop illegal aliens from entering the country, Nope, ya wanna get their vote so you support them….

          • valley person

            Obama has detained more illegal aliens than Bush ever did. And illegal immigration is way down from where it was under Bush.

          • DavidAppell

            You keep trying to parse all this up. I don’t care. Many Americans don’t care. We are sick of the mass shootings in movie theaters and elementary schools. Do you understand that???

          • David from Mill City

            Ok, please explain exactly how you propose to get a proposal to remove approximately 300 million guns from private ownership through Congress? And assuming you pass that hurtle how you propose the government accomplish that task? I am particularly interested on how you convince millions of law abiding gun owners that giving up granddad’s hunting rifle or the 100year old pistol he brought back from the World War is going to prevent future mass killings? Alternatively, would please explain how banning a few guns based on how they look will prevent future mass killings?

            I know millions of Americans are sicken and appalled by the recent killings, I am one of them. I also realize that these feelings can be used to effect meaningful effective changes. The horrifying deaths of those innocent children created a body of political moral capital that can be used to get something done. I do not want to see that high cost capital being wasted on some feel good proposal that will not have any appreciable effect.

          • DavidAppell

            Simple. Owning an assault weapon will be a felony. If you’re caught with one, you will get a stiff prison sentence. Turn in your weapons or go to prison.

            It’s worked in Australia. It will work here.

          • David from Mill City

            Currently it is a felony in most states for a convicted felon possess a gun. Yet convicted felons still carry and use guns to kill people and commit crime. As that law has had little effect on criminal behavior what makes you think an ban on “Assault Weapons” have any greater success? And even if you are not a felon, how much threat is a prison to someone who expects to die in the process of completing his death run?

            As to a turn in, do you have any idea how many millions of dollars it will cost to buy back those guns currently in private ownership. The government may or may not have the authority to demand people turn weapons, but even if does it will have to pay market value for them, just as the have to in any other condemnation.

            There are a lot of differences between the United States and Australia. The most significant difference in this case being that the Australian Government had a list of most all guns in private ownership and who owned them. There is no such list in the United States. So no it will not work here like it did there.

            And regarding Australia, I keep hearing reports that the number of home-invasion robberies and other violent crime has risen since the gun confiscation and that criminals are still using guns to commit crimes.

          • DavidAppell

            This isn’t about hunting rifles — it’s about assault weapons. Learn the difference, or else be sent to prison.

          • David from Mill City

            There is no meaningful difference between a Bushmaster “Assault Rifle” and a Remington Model 740 Woodsmaster a 54 year old hunting rifle. Both rifles have semi-automatic actions and removable magazines. Both are capable of shooting a large number of bullets fast. And the Woodsmaster is not the only semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun currently available.

            The only difference between what you and the media are calling Assault Rifles and any other Semi-Automatic rifle is how they look.

            Oh, I am not worried about prison, I do not own a “Assault Rifle” If I was to get back in to competitive shooting I might consider a Colt AR-15 with a competition quality barrel. But other wise I think they are a silly waste of money.

          • valley person

            No one is proposing removing 300 million guns from private ownership. What some are proposing is making some of those guns illegal to own. If a law like that were to pass, presumably it would include a buyback over a period of time, after which remaining owners would be law breakers.

            What will reduce the risk of mass killing is to limit the availability of guns that are designed to discharge rounds at high rates of speed, with large capacity, and with quick reloading. Better background checks and a waiting period would also help a lot, and would not trample anyones rights.

            If you are truly sick about what happened, and you are a gun advocate, then you need to step up and offer real solutions. Otherwise the next time the blood is on your hands.

          • David from Mill City

            VP, I fully understand what your goal is, one of the points I have been trying to make is that the Assault Weapons Ban everyone is talking about will not accomplish your goal. Strange as it may seem, the “Assault Weapons Ban” did not limit the availability of “of guns that are designed to discharge rounds at high rates of speed, with large capacity, and with quick reloading.” as you describe them. It made them much more expensive, it changed how the looked slightly and for a brief time hard to get but it had no lasting effect on the availability of the guns you have described.

            The reason for this failure is two fold, first because it “grandfathered” in all existing guns currently in the ownership of manufactures, wholesalers, dealers and the public. It continued to be legal to buy and sell those weapons already in the United States. Second, it attempted to ban the future sale of guns by listing some by name and others through a list of cosmetic features, none of which effected the speed that weapon could be fired or reloaded. Many of the manufacturers of the prescribed weapons just changed the name or designation of their product and made a few cosmetic changes, bayonet lugs were removed, flash suppressers were replaced with muzzle breaks and pistol grip stocks were replaced by thumb hole stocks and the new legal weapons were put on the market, at a higher price. The whole process took about two or three months, though it appears that market demand made them hard to get for about a year. In short the law did not limit the availability “of guns that are designed to discharge rounds at high rates of speed, with large capacity, and with quick reloading”as you describe them. The main effect of the Assault Weapons Ban’s expiration was that the weapons that looked more like military rifles returned to the market.

            It is my belief that the original “Assault Weapons Ban” was an honest attempt by welling meaning politicians to address a problem they saw and not a sleazy fast one put passed to get a political advantage. That it failed for three reasons, first because the drafters of the legislation did not understand what they were trying to legislate. Second, because the weapons they wished to control are not really a distinct class of weapon but rather an artificial construct of the news media to designate a group of guns based on their military like appearance. And Third it was limited by the political realities of the day. Most specifically the inclusion of recognized hunting and sporting guns in the ban was a non-starter as was any attempt take existing weapons out of private ownership. It is my perception that those two political realities are still with us, so I have little expectation that any of the “Assault Weapons Bans currently being drafted will be any more effective.

            The reason I keep going back to that 300 million gun number is that, depending on the parameters set regarding the volume of fire (i.e. speed, number of bullets and duration), a majority of that 300 million guns are capable of being used to put a large number of bullets down range quickly. It is not how they are intended to be used, what they were in tended for or in terms of accuracy what they are good for, but it is a capability they have. So if your approach to reducing mass gun killings is to remove from public ownership any gun capable of putting a lot of bullets down range fast, to be affective you are talking about taking around two to three hundred million guns out of private ownership. And included in that 200 million plus guns are millions of 60 year old hunting rifles, 100 year old family heirlooms, antiques and historic collectors pieces. Frankly, I do not believe that a ban of this scale is politically possible, and that if you did get it passed and the tens of billions of dollars appropriated to fund such an undertaking that it would be effective in taking weapons out of the hands of criminals and whackos.

            As to your last point, I have proposed things I believe would be effective in reducing the number of mass killings including those where a gun was used. I would focus on the perpetrators of these horrific acts not the implements they use. With two exceptions, most of my proposals do not fall into the quick fix category and would require time, money and in some cases research to be effective.

          • valley person

            I’m sorry David, but guns, especially those designed to kill people, when they actually are used to kill people, can’t be compared to cars, which are designed for transport.

            The “burden of proof” is on those who claim a 2nd amendment right to a modern, high capacity gun designed to kill many people at close to mid range with as few reloadings as possible, when those weapons are being used to kill 6 year olds in their schools.

            You don’t have a civil right to any particular weapon. You may have a civil right to some weapon, at least according to the supreme court bare majority. But even Scalia said gun ownership could be regulated, including regulations that keep certain guns out of certain hands,

        • Ballistic45
          • DavidAppell

            How many mass shootings does the UK have?

          • DavidAppell

            This is a typical denialist tactic: claim that because something is (or is not) a problem elsewhere, there is no need to solve it here, or anywhere. You see it all the time with climate change deniers: because it was a cold winter in New England, or a year without a major hurricane, or because Omaha hit a record low temperature last week, manmade climate change can’t possibly be true. It’s a standard tactic use to try and persuade unthinking people.

      • Joe

        Way too much common sense here for the lib to understand. Emotion is how they roll, not reason and logic.

        • valley person

          Emotion is expressed by using ALL CAPS to EMPHASIZE A POINT which is something you see someone who goes by the name BALLISTIC doing, not we LIBERALS!

  • David from Mill City

    The private sale “loophole” to the requirement that prospective gun purchasers be subjected to an “Instant Background check” is not in fact a “loophole” it is a specific provision in the law that, as I understand it, was demanded by law enforcement, that does not provide access to the Instant Check System by the public at large.

    This is a situation that needs to be changed. Members of the public selling privately owned weapons not only need access to that system but they should be required to use it. Additionally the seller should be required to keep a record of that sale including a picture of the purchaser and of the ID he used for at least 25 years.

    As to the “Instant Check System”, money needs to be made available to state and local governments so that the data base supporting the system is kept up to date. That all additions and deletions to that data base are made in a timely manner. And that every individual who should be included is. And that doing this is required of all states and local jurisdictions

    Additionally the “Instant Background Check” requirement needs to be extended to the sale of ammunition, black powder, and reloading supplies.

    • LibsDeserveDeath

      Good luck with any of that. In Nevada and Arizona they have gun shows where you can literally buy any sort of gun you want short of heavy military armaments – and NO I.D. checks of any kind.

  • Bob Clark

    Here’s a solution from left field maybe attractive to the pansies: Trained police dogs inside school buildings to detect and guard against armed intruders. Much less expensive than the NRA proposal, and it is not as scary to the pansies. I think the only way the NRA proposal flies financially is if a stiff tax is placed on all gun sales, or additional surcharge on gun permits.

    There you go. Admittedly, though, I am a bit out of my field when it comes to guns. But I am lost spiritually, between the Gun nutters and the absolute gun control naive pansies.

    There’s also maybe hi-tech security robots. Could be a school project for students: design a robot to save humanoid lives. Necessity is often the mother of invention after all. (Greed fuels the innovative trick, too.)

  • Pingback: TrackBack

  • Pingback: cozy cove

  • Pingback: notepad bluebox

  • Pingback: banana blue

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)