No Assault Weapons Ban, No Problem?
Congressional Democrats say the firearm legislation set to be proposed next month won’t include a ban on assault weapons. What would you think of any legislation that left out such a ban?
Photos
United States senators next month will consider firearm legislation that may not be as loaded as some would hope.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the gun legislation to be debated next month will not include a ban on assault weapons. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said that including such a ban would reduce the votes needed to overpower the will of Republicans aiming to keep the Senate from considering the matter.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to push an amendment focused on banning military-style weapons, the AP reported, though the Democrat’s proposal does not seem to have enough support behind it.
Some of sought a ban on assault weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn. But talk of such a ban has drawn criticism from groups like the National Rifle Association.
Related News:
Should federal gun legislation include a ban on assault or military-style weapons? What kind of gun laws would you want to see Congress approve?
Share what’s on your mind with us, and then return here to see what your neighbors in Cobb, Douglas and Paulding counties have said.
S Palmer
8:53 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I think that we cannot or do not enforce the laws we have today on the books. Why add new laws. I, as a Veteran, do not believe that guns get up in the morning and decide to go kill someone, it is the crazy person that owns that gun. He is the one that pulls the trigger. If we did not have guns, it would be something else like baseball bats or some other crazy item that can hurt someone.
Pam J
9:21 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Okay, once again, they are not going to take your guns away from you. They were just going to ban the sale of assault weapons. And, once again, why does a normal person need an assault weapon? Nobody has answered that question and all I get is rantings and ravings about how the government is going to take my guns away. Common sense went out the window with this one. And before anyone mentions gun collectors and how they just like to have those guns in their collection, let's remember the apartment that was broken into last month where the assault weapons were stolen from one such collection.
Observer
11:20 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Pam J,
Do you know what an assault weapon is? Can you give us a definition? See, that is the problem. Let's tag all things that we want to ban by labeling them as assault "things". There could be "assault knifes" and "assault bats" as well as "assault hammers" or even "assault cigarettes" and "assault soda".
What a stupendous word "assault" is, anytime someone disapproves of something that someone else uses or consumes it could be labeled "assault" or better yet "for the children" and immediately be banned.
Greg T
11:02 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
NYTimes article by Wendy Button is asking that we take away her right to own a gun.
Gov, Ed Rendell called gun owners "looney, nuts, off their rocker."
Daily Kos article says, "Yes, Mr. President, Take Their Guns Away."
Did you not see what Dianne Feinstein passed in committee?
Here's the language in Oregon's gun restriction bill,
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall, within 120 days after the effective date of this 2013 Act, without being subject to prosecution:
(a) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state;
(b) Sell the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for lawful sale or transfer under subsection (2) of this section;
(c) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a law enforcementagency for destruction;
(d) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable;
"They" are interested in taking away our guns.
Margaret Thomson
11:12 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
absolutely right!
Karen
2:46 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
What most think of as an assault weapon is a firearm with multiple clips that hold multiple bullets. Why do I think "assault" weapons should not be banned is this: Do you remember the Sharon Tate murders? There was 3 or 4 crazies that broke into her home and murdered her, her unborn child and others in the house. Let's say the same happenes with 3 or 4 entering your home and they all have "just a regular" gun that holds 6 bullets: those 3 or 4 people have ammo power of 18 plus bullets. If you just have a "regular" gun then you are history, you need the multiple bullet capacity to protect yourself/family/friends. If all you have is one gun, 6 or 8 bullets, they have the advantage over you. It gives you the advantage if you need it. Have you heard the stories about the idiots using bath salts as drugs. Ask any policeman about those people, they don't feel pain, they keep on coming at you.
Ter Bear
2:55 pm on Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Pam you have it all wrong. These are not assault rifles they are sporting guns and are the second most gun used for hunting after a shot gun. You say no one needs one, well this is a free country, no one needs beer or smokes and they kill far more people then guns. Sporting guns are NOT used in most shootings in fact they are used only about 2% of the time. You want to ban something based on how it looks and not on what it is. What it is, is a gun just like all other no more no less.
Marlene Mitchell
9:48 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
PamJ,
I think one of the words used in the article above is "military-STYLE" I haven't read anywhere the clear definition of what that really covers....and sad to say that the people pushing such a ban have no idea either. That's a problem for me. My,my, my..."A normal person"! I guess you can offer us a definition of that too???
Why not put your energy into demanding that the current laws be upheld and not take the path of least resistance and make the honest law-abiding public pay for the crimes of others. That, my friend, would be the normal path to take.
Carl Pyrdum Jr.
9:58 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
By virtue of the simple minded definition, all firearms are assault weapons. Their purpose is to assault someone or something. Therefore, deciding to brand a specific group of weapons as assault weapons is neither original in thinking or honest in representation. It is a dishonest attempt to demonize objects and people for the sole purpose of alienating the minds of the less informed and the ill informed for their own political agenda.
If we as a nation truly want to ban the real assault weapons in America? The true assault weapons responsible for killing our children by the millions in America every year? Then we should begin by banning the surgical instruments employed in abortion clinics across this land to assault and murder the unborn in the daily wholesale slaughter of innocents .
Those medical instruments used everyday in abortion clinics all across this country have taken the lives of roughly 40 million unborn children over the past forty years in America. Where is the clamor to ban those assault weapons? Where is the same self righteous and and self appointed moral indignation applied to firearms when it comes to demanding that the weapons legally used to kill millions of the unborn babies be banned. Who is demanding that the true assault weapons and the real weapons of proven mass destruction be removed from our society and banished from our presence.
I would rather see a ban on those who assault my intelligence with their own ignorance and stupidity.
Ter Bear
2:55 pm on Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Well said, thanks
David
10:26 am on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Proponents of gun control need to think a bit about their strategy and terminology. The fear/panic/hysteria approach is not working out. If they get wild and crazy, and try using logic, the first step might be to drop the hyperbole -- e.g. "Assualt Weapon"; "Military-Style Assault Weapon". Alternatively, let's ban camouflage clothes - they too are "military-style". Any item used for assault is by definition an "assualt weapon": shotguns, rifles, pitols, knives, swords, bats, slingshots, forks, pens, pencils, even a Lexus SUV. Recently I have obtained a Weapons Carry License, 2 semi-automatic pistols, and ample ammuniction for both. I may buy a Bushmaster AR-15, with 30 round magazines, that uses NATO 5.56 cartridges. I have never owned a gun since I was a boy, hunting squirrels with a .22 rifle (8-round magazine). These purchases are solely in response to those who think the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean much, and who seem to think they'll do a better job of taking care of me and my family than I will. Their heavy-handed approach and blatant appeal to hysterical reaction after every death involving firearms forced me to think about the issues, and conclude that they are misguided on both. The 2nd amendment is important, and I might not locate an armed police officer soon enough if I ever need one in 2-3 minutes. So, am I "abnormal"?....Maybe becoming a tad paranoid, but still within normal tolerances for today's world, I think.
Pam J
1:00 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Okay, for the sake of argument here, the ban was going to include all weapons that can fire more than 10 bullets at a time. Unless several people are breaking into your house at one time, you probably don't need more than that. I know that assault weapons can apply to a lot of different guns and rifles, but I think they are just trying to limit the number of high magazine weapons out there. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but apparently I seem to be the only one who thinks there should be limits to what the average person should be able to own. "Normal", to me, means the person next door to you or the person just down the street. And hopefully people with all of their brain cells intact. I can't believe that anybody is even questioning my useage of "normal". I assume that all of us commenting on here are normal people. And since I guess we always assumed the 2nd amendment refers to guns, I don't see the point in bringing knives, swords, pots and pans, forks and other various things into the mix. So, do all of you want to own a weapon that can shoot 11 or more bullets at one time? Expecting an invasion by another country?
Observer
3:09 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Semi-automatic rifles have been around for over 100 years and only now they are a problem?
Rifles (of all types) are used in approximately 3% of all homicides. Approximately 60% of all homicides at committed using handguns with the majority of those being revolvers (non-semi-automatic).
The elephant in the room that is being ignored by the anti-gun crowd is - why is the vast majority of gun related homicide being perpetrated by urban blacks on other urban blacks?
Pam J
5:16 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I'm going to give up because everybody who doesn't agree with me won't give up. Carry on with your lives.
Ter Bear
2:59 pm on Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Again you don't know what your talking about. On average the hit rate for police in a shooting is 17% so how many rounds of ammo does one need when someone is shooting back? You make it sound like the bad guy is just going to stand there, no they move around and shoot back...hell I want 30 rounds in that case. The the way guns are used 180,000 times a yr to defend oneself and or their family.
Face it Pam you just don't like guns PERIOD. Well I don't like smokers put I don't think it should be banned.
Lowell
10:30 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
No one "needs" a car that is designed to cruise comfortably at well over 100 MPH. By this logic, we should ban BMW's, Mercedes, Corvettes, etc. because no one "needs" them and they are very capable of killing large groups of people when used recklessly. In truth, it is nobody's business what car or truck I or anyone else wants to drive. The public interest only enters in when it is used recklessly or illegally. Solve the actual problem instead of wasting time letting politicians jack you around lying about doing something that will protect you when in fact they are stripping your protection from you.
Jerry
11:05 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The federal government needs to stay out of gun laws and let the states pass any laws.
Brian
11:35 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Personally, I don't think people need semi-automatic with more than a few rounds per clip, however constitutionally they have to allow it and any legislation that impedes peoples' rights to bear arms will be stuck down as unconstitutional, because you can't legislate constitutional amendments. They have to go to referendum in all 50 states.
Ter Bear
3:01 pm on Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Brain I don't think you should be telling me or anyone else what we should or should not have. I didn't fight for my country to be told how many rounds I can carry.
Brian
11:45 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Btw, the 2nd amendment was created for a very good reason - the interpretation was it was meant, among other things, to allow us to defend ourselves and protect ourselves from an overly oppressive government (as well as general protection from intruders and animals). The only legal way, I believe, you could remove the right to carry semi-automatics would be to block importing/manufacturing such that even police and military cannot bring them onto domestic soil. However, what's already here cannot be blocked from use or re-sale. It's already grandfathered in. Additionally, you couldn't block manufacture/sale of some simpler forms of firearms since that would again be impeding of the right to bear arms. Anything along those lines would be struck down in court. There is, however, no "right to bear semi-automatics" so long as the government didn't have better arms than we do and it was handled at the manufacture end, not at the re-sale/use side since that'd be impeding.
Note by semi-automatic, I specifically mean guns with 15+ bullet clips. Not 3-round guns or 6-shooters.
Observer
7:54 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
"Note by semi-automatic, I specifically mean guns with 15+ bullet clips."
You do know that that isn't the definition of semi-automatic, which refers to the firing mechanism, not capacity. Also, modern firearms do not use "clips" they use magazines. And yes, proper terminology does matter, because that is what the people who want to restrict gun ownership rely upon, the misunderstanding and misuse of terminology to ban guns by portraying them as something they're not.
Jennifer
7:44 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I don't even own a gun, but I don't think we should ban them. The bad guys don't care what the rules are. They will still have the big guns regardless of the rules. This discussion is silly really. They young man in the Sandy Hook horror was acting out a video game. It had nothing to do with the particular guns he had, but with the fact that no one on the schools grounds was armed to protect these children. The police will never get there fast enough to protect us or our children.
I also agree with the post above. We are free people because we are an armed population. Take that away and the you never know what gov could do to us. Maybe not today, but never forget that Hitler was elected.
Margaret Thomson
11:14 am on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Senate Republicans have gutted the bill anyway, with 2200 weapons specifically excluded from the ban. Where's the compassion for past and future victims? Who's more important, people or the NRA ("not responsible for anything")? Obviously, for our politicians, the answer is the NRA.
Observer
12:13 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
"Where's the compassion for past and future victims"
Where's the respect for the constitution? What's more important our rights and liberties and our future as a free people or the passage of a piece of legislation that is nothing but an emotional sop to people who want to think of themselves as superior to the bible-toting, gun-clinging masses.
Greg T
3:34 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Where's the compassion for the past and future victims of criminals who are attacked before police can arrive?
Schools are gun free zones already. Gun free zones haven't worked. Connecticut had some of the most restrictive gun laws; that didn't work. Chicago, New York...
Violent crime hasn't decreased when guns are removed from society. Criminals merely change their choice of weapons. Of course, in America it will be nearly impossible to remove all guns from the populous, therefore it will leave guns in the hands of criminals and not the citizen. Now, is it fair to only arm the criminals and police? Because banning guns in America will only ensure that the citizens cannot defend themselves and are vulnerable during the response time of the police. Since the police are not legally required (and cannot be sued for not responding to 911 calls according to the Supreme Court) to respond in a specific time limit then we don't really know how safe or fair things are.
Say what you want about fair and safety, but the Supreme Court and our own municipalities will not and cannot be held accountable for the safety of the citizens. Is that really fair?
Pam J
5:15 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
Observer, so you care more about a piece of paper than human life? If you look at a list of the amendments, you will see that several have had changes made to them over time. Primarily, prohibition. Something needs to be done to prevent mass killings. The shooting in CT could have easily been prevented if Nancy Lanza had not been allowed to buy guns because of her son. What scares me even more is that the only reason Adam was not allowed to buy any guns (and he tried) was because he was 20 years old and he had to be 21. He would have been able to buy guns when he turned 21 probably because he most likely did not have any criminal background. Just a crazy in the head background, which they obviously don't check. I believe in the 2nd amendment, but something needs to be done and it won't be because everybody thinks their 2nd amendment rights are being trampled over.
Lowell
5:29 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
Pam J:
You obviously simply pay lip-service to "belie[f] in the 2nd Amendment" from what you say. "a piece of paper"?? Really? Hundreds of thousands have suffered and died to "preserve, protect and defend" that "piece of paper" as you call it. Disgusting. It's not the paper, it's what is written on it that is important.
The key here is nothing proposed would prevent these killings. The mother in this case did a poor job of taking care of her firearms and she paid for it with her life. She should have been the line of defense here. Even with highly responsible sons in my house, they never had access to my locked steel gun safe.
There's nothing special about the guns some folks want to ban, except to some people they look scary. Any functional attributes can be found in other firearms that would not be banned and none of those features played a part in the killing per se. It's a senseless "feel-good" law for people who don't really understand much about firearms, but what "to do something [anything]" to fool themselves into thinking they've somehow helped the situation. The problem is not "guns" or "gun violence". The problem is "violence." We need to address the actions and causes behind violence that make it so much more "accessible" to everyone than it was 30 or 50 years ago or even 70 years ago when kids brought their guns to school so they could hunt on the walk home and my mom was on her high school rifle team. It's not the guns that have changed. We have.
Ter Bear
3:04 pm on Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Are you kidding, so called assault guns are used in 2% of shooting with around 12,000 murders by gun that means about 220 people a yr are killed with these types of guns. Hardly the big picture. So we ban the guns used in 2% and the other 98% must be ok. Your a joke.
Marlene Mitchell
4:16 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
I have quoted this before and it seems appropriate for this thread. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."
Greg T is correct.....and it needs to be said over and over until people finally get it.
Charles Schwable
4:32 am on Monday, March 25, 2013
It is a futile subject with American or even Georgian's who think of their rights to own a gun! there will be senseless more killing or kids like in Brunswick killing babies, we all nee to go to 3rd world countries and see how they despense justice before we claim our rights!
Greg T
10:03 am on Monday, March 25, 2013
It is a futile subject with gun restriction advocates to discuss actual root causation of violence because they take the simple minded approach of blaming an inanimate object instead of the wielder. One can think for themselves, the other cannot, irony at its best. A moral and just citizenship remains our only hope for a free and peaceful society. Restricting freedom for the better good is an acknowledgement that we've failed to produce good citizens and therefore must rely more increasingly on laws to fill the void.
I've been to 3rd world countries and others. Owning a gun can do just as much good as bad. It comes down to the people who make up those countries. Despots in these countries have used gun restrictions to maintain power.
Russia and Mexico have extreme gun restrictions and their violence is double that of the U.S. If guns were the problem then gun restrictive countries would be the safest places to live. Correlation does not mean causation. Lower gun violence does not mean lower violence overall.
Japan didn't attack the American homeland in WWII because the average citizen owned guns. One cannot take our freedom and liberty for granted nor that we will live at peace with our neighbors forever. Gun rights affects more than domestic violence. History is a guild to the future. We will be attacked by another army, to believe otherwise is a an unnecessary and possibly fatal mistake.
Pam J
2:03 pm on Thursday, March 28, 2013
I think we can agree that just about every mass killing has been done by guns. Not by knives or swords or frying pans. So let's just sit back and not change anything. Then we can just wait for the next mass killing and hope and pray that you or any of your loved ones are not part of the equation.
Greg T
2:11 pm on Thursday, March 28, 2013
That is a good point. Can you also agree that there is another group of people who commit mass murder yet don't use guns? Ever heard of suicide bombers? Just saying that taking guns away doesn't take violence away, or mass murder. Timothy McVae (spl?) in Oklahoma?
Lowell
3:38 pm on Thursday, March 28, 2013
Pam, why must the answer be your solution or no solution? That's rather closed-minded. My problem with nearly all the proposed laws and changes is that, in fact, they would have done nothing if already enacted to change any of the mass shootings that are causing all the hand-wringing. Come up with something that actually addresses the problems and would have saved the victims and you'll get more support.
Pam J
11:01 pm on Thursday, March 28, 2013
I agree that there are other ways that people are being killed, but a bigger number is by gun. Unless you include planes flying into buildings. But that's terrorism. But the last time I looked, having and making bombs is illegal. Guns are not. The kids at Columbine were making bombs and I think they set a couple of them off, but everybody that died did so by gun. And Lowell, the only solution I have "proposed" is wider background checks. Is that wrong?