Biden Says He's Banning Assault Weapons and Magazines...

[Skans]

The Bump Stock Ban is incapable of re-writing the definition of machine gun. It takes a legislative action to change the definition. The ban is only an administrative interpretation.

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

No, sorry, he didn't. The person who coined the term "assault rifle" was Adolf Hitler, in 1944.

True. Sugarmann was the one who expanded the definition and gave the term the meaning it has in anti gun circles today.

[thallub]

The Democrat party is very fragmented with groups pulling in all directions. . Passing gun control legislation is a primary goal of the Democrat party. Yes, Biden is pandering to the rabid gun controllers.

Bill Clinton had assistance in getting the AWB through congress. Former presidents Ford, Carter and "The Gunowners Champion" himself,; Ronald Reagan';shilled for the AWB. The AWB passed the US House after two Hose members changed their minds and voted for the AWB after personal appeals by Ronald Reagan.

[44 AMP]

Never heard about Regan being involved. No idea if its true, or not. I do know that Jay Inslee (then a house member) claimed he was the deciding vote. Inslee is currently the fuehrer...pardon me..., the Governor of Washington.

[Drm50]

You waste your breathe trying to inject logic into gun control debates with them. Don’t look for any, it’s not there. By the same token the people actually behind this stuff know exactly what they are doing. They equate guns to the hunting mode which they know is not their issue. Neither is them crying and wringing their hands over victims of mass shootings and other senseless gun violence. Everything the Left is doing is the groundwork for Central Government. The citizen can’t be armed for this to happen. Those in control know this, that’s why it never stops. If their movement keeps accelerating faster than they can maintain majority control of the American Govt. they will find out what the
2nd is really for. Like one more “ questionable “ election.

[44 AMP]

There is a significant difference between injecting logic into the gun control debate (because, logically, there shouldn't BE a debate) and those in power doing what they want to just because they think they can, and can get away with it.

[natman]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

I am so confused why a party that is so soft on crime is obsessed with taking guns from law abiding citizens. ....... Makes one think this has less to do with safety and more to do with old fashion politics.

According to the FBI's 2019 crime statistics, there were 364 murders committed in the US that year using rifles. That's ALL rifles of all kinds. They don't keep statistics for "assault rifles", but given the hundreds of millions of other kinds of rifles out there, it's unlikely that it's more than half. Let's call it 200 to be generous. This is tiny compared with the 1,476 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments". Just to put it into perspective, there were 600 murders committed using fists. So the odds of being killed by someone punching you are three times as high as being killed with an "assault rifle".

Yet attacking "assault rifles" is a cornerstone of Democratic gun policy. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15!". Why are they making such a big deal about them if they are so rarely used in murders?

First and foremost is to generate an atmosphere of fear from which you can only be saved if you vote Democratic.

The second reason is that the Supreme Court has declared that weapons "commonly used for lawful purposes" are protected by the Second Amendment. AR-15s are commonly used for lawful purposes. They are also used in a very small percentage of crimes. So why are the Democrats so determined to ban them? Because they desperately want to establish some way around the common use protection. Once they've done that, more and more guns will be classified as "assault weapons". First all semiautos. Then bolt action "sniper rifles". Etc, etc. This is entirely consistent with a long established strategy of incrementalism as manifested in Democratic anti-gun states like California, New York and Illinois.

So given the near certainty that assault weapon bans are going to be found unconstitutional, why are so many Democratic states rushing to pass them? So that when the bans are over turned, they can claim "We tried to save you, but that nasty old Supreme Court doesn't care about your children" and use it to try and pack the court.

[thallub]

Yep, Republican gun owners fail to wake up and realize hey're being played by their political hacks. Several times Republicans have controlled congress and the white house. they made n l ttle or no effort to roll back gun control. Now That Democrats run it all the Republicans in congress are whining.

[44 AMP]

I would point out that the Democrats "ran" Congress (were the majority) for 40 years and didn't lose that majority until 1994 when they passed the Assault Weapon Ban in the summer of an election year!!

They are going after "assault weapons" etc. because crimes done with those guns are hugely dramatic, where regular crimes aren't.

A dozen (or however many) people killed in urban Chicago, done by multiple shooters mostly with handguns over several different locations is just another weekend, and barely get mentioned more than a day or two in the news.

One wackjob gunning down that many people, in one place, using an "assault weapon" gets reported on for WEEKS. The same thing happening when an assault weapon isn't involved doesn't get nearly the same amount of press coverage.

Remember the Virgina Tech murders (2007) ?? One guy killed 32 people (and wounded another 17) using a pair of handguns.
Ancient history now, but the point is that it doesn't take an assault weapon to commit mass murder. All it takes is the will to do it. Banning a TOOL doesn't stop anything other than the use of that specific tool, IF it even stops that.
Gun banners would have us think otherwise.

When they do get something banned, and it doesn't stop the killings, what is their response? "we didn't go far enough" or "its just a necessary first step" and they seek to ban something else, pretending that THIS time, it will be different.

There's a popular definition of insanity these days that goes "insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results".

Under that definition, gun control advocates are insane.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

They are going after "assault weapons" etc. because crimes done with those guns are hugely dramatic, where regular crimes aren't.

Exactly. This is where emotions are in control more than common sense. There is no doubt that hi-cap, semi and fully auto firearms can do more damage in a shorter amount of time than Grandpa's old Bolt action Savage or model 10. Thus they are targeted more by the anti's than Grandpa's old Bolt action Savage or model 10. Doesn't make it right.

[rc]

Biden is likes to talk big. If guns were like pop corn, he might have a chance.

[5whiskey]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post

They are going after "assault weapons" etc. because crimes done with those guns are hugely dramatic, where regular crimes aren't.

Exactly. This is where emotions are in control more than common sense. There is no doubt that hi-cap, semi and fully auto firearms can do more damage in a shorter amount of time than Grandpa's old Bolt action Savage or model 10. Thus they are targeted more by the anti's than Grandpa's old Bolt action Savage or model 10. Doesn't make it right

I actually assign a much more nefarious intent to SOME gun control proponents than the drama and news coverage revolving around mass shooters. I sincerely believe that there is a faction at the very tip top of the anti-gun movement who want citizens disarmed of weapons capable of defending against a standing army. We're all of these weapons taken away, there would be little stopping a standing army from steamrolling through the US if some form of hostile takeover of the government resulted in armed resistance.

I'm aware that there are arguments against this logic. A standing army has tanks and close air support, whereas a simp,e armed populace doesnt. Well... the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan also did not have those combined arms, yet they played the attrition game quite well and killed a lot of Americans in the process. High casualty rates will only cause pressure for a state actor to capitulate in this scenario. A semi-auto ban will help keep those casualties down. Additionally, we're said hypothetical hostile takeover to occur, you would likely have entire military units defect and resist as well. There's not much argument against that, as I believe it would likely happen.

At any rate, removing effective weapons of resistance from citizens hands would, in fact, remove a MAJOR hurdle to future hostile government actions. I believe this motivates a select few in the gun control community. The rest, who are true believers that mag limits and AW bans will lower the murder rate, are little more than useful idiots to the big dogs of the gun control scheme.

And no, I don't wear tin foil hats. I don't fantasize about prepping or mad max scenarios. I still believe there is a contingent within political parties that would find it awful convenient if the 2nd Amendment wasn't a factor in the calculus of potential future government actions.

[rc]

All of these proposals in various states are coming from the DNC and their associated organizations.

[44 AMP]

All of these proposals in various states are coming from the DNC and their associated organizations.

And have been for some time. I don't remember clearly how long ago it was, but I remember hearing that the DNC made gun control one of their official party planks.