Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2003 | Unknown

[Mini-14]

The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

[Tancredo Fan]

And not a peep from the malcontent Tancredo cult on FR, while Tancredo is employing illegal Mexicans to redecorate Congressman's Tancredo's basement in his house in the Denver area.

What's the deal, Dane... do you think that if you repeat those bogus charges enough they'll become true? LOL!

[Technogeeb]

First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything

Yes it does. Other than violating the fundamental principle that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", it also puts an absolute limit on magazine capacity. That means government bureaucrats get to have as many rounds as they want, while ordinary "civilians" (the term citizen being obsolete) can only have 10 rounds. It is a framework to get people used to the idea of such restrictions; and after the public becomes accustomed to the concept, they can lower the magazine capacity down (such legislation has already been proposed) until finally only single-shot weapons are allowed (after which, they too will be restricted, and then banned).

[Tancredo Fan]

And look at all of those Mexicans that he has welcomed into the former United States of America, who will vote for him next election.

All those leeches won't vote for George. They're too busy bankrupting the country and drooling over Daschole, that traitorous louse Pelosi, and Gephardt. George had better do something about these droves of bloodsuckers.... and soon.

[Technogeeb]

No big deal, for under $50 you can buy a kit to convert a semi-auto to full auto.

No you can't. Possession of all the parts to convert a firearm into a full-auto firearm are themselves classified as a fully automatic firearm. They require the same paperwork and tax procedure that purchasing a fully automatic firearm does, and that procedure (for non-government agencies) was essentially abolished by an amendment to the McClure-Volkmer act in 1986.

You are confusing spare parts kits with conversion kits, or you are talking about illegal products (such as drop-in autosears, possession of which without the tax and paperwork is a felony).

[Henrietta]

"I am not interested inassault (sic) rifles and this is not an issue on my radar screen."

Or, more accurately: "I am not interested in my freedoms and this is not an issue on my radar screen."

[Dane]

What's the deal, Dane... do you think that if you repeat those bogus charges enough they'll become true? LOL!

LOL! Tancredo Fan. No rebuttal about reply #295 on how the Justice Dept's. plan to use local police dept.'s to control illegal was scuttled and how there was not a peep from Tancredo.

You all are so transparent. You and your master Trancredo, just like Hillary, depend on emotion for keeping an issue alive.

[Technogeeb]

and that procedure (for non-government agencies) was essentially abolished by an amendment to the McClure-Volkmer act in 1986.

Correcting myself; the procedure for new manufacture (post 1986) was banned. It is still legal to purchase full auto firearms (and conversion kits) manufactured before that date (although those too must go through the paperwork process and payment of a $200.00 tax).

[honeygrl]

why do so many here seem to want assault weapons anyway? aren't pistols and rifles enough? How does the law define assault weapon? Is it too broad or something?

[oyez]

Say good-bye to a TON of votes.

Fine go vote for Barbra Boxer and Hillery Clinton. Write the Whitehouse instead.

[Shooter 2.5]

When he said that he would sign it if it reached his desk, the gun club that I shoot at and others like them took that as a challenge to get as many pro-gun candidates elected in the last election.

I think we did pretty good but we have to start those letters and phone calls to make sure they're reminded who elected them.

[rintense]

Besides he owes me almost three cases of beer an needs to earn his keep.

I've learned a lot buy reading this thread- mostly that I am missing out on a lot of good bets.

[chnsmok]

Speaking for myself. The Constitution says that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The government says that I can own guns that don't look nasty if I pay a fee and give them my name etc. I think the Constitution is right.

Also, the 2nd amendment isn't about self-protection or hunting. It is about defending ourselves from a tyrannical government. See above.

[sheltonmac]

"I don't worry much about the assault weapons ban; it is when they get into other things that I get concerned."

Tyranny has to start somewhere. If most Americans don't worry much about the ban on "assault" weapons, then it's that much easier to ban something else.

[Henrietta]

"There's a difference between being anti-gun and not wanting people to be toting around machineguns, assault riffles, and other such guns."

Really? Do explain!

You might educate yourself about the functional difference between your average deer rifle and so-called "assault rifles" targeted by the anti-freedom crowd before jumping in, here. Just a suggestion. You know, to save you some embarrassment.

[sheltonmac]

Imagine how the war in Iraq would have progressed if the government actually had to abide by the same laws it forces on everyone else. I mean, if the "assault" weapons ban is good enough for John Q. Public, then why isn't it good enough for the U.S. military?

[rintense]

You might educate yourself about the functional difference between your average deer rifle and so-called "assault rifles"

Ok, I'll bite. I am curious what the difference is. As someone who is pro second amendment, it would help me make an informed opinion on such an issue to understand the difference between the two, as well as why anyone would need an assault rifle. Thank you.

[Timmy]

All right. I got a bunch of replies to my post that the "assault weapons ban" does nothing. Most of them were quite nasty and insulting. Go figure. But the ONLY thing that anyone could come up with that the ban bans is ammo clips greater than 10 rounds. That's it? A bunch of you people are threatening to kiss off Bush over THAT? And that with the full knowledge that there are thousands of the large clips available all over the country legally for low cost?

Let's see. Bush has appointed John Ashcroft as AG, who in turns has, for the first time I know of, taken a stand that explicitly states the second amendment applies to individual rights. He has joined the Emerson case that stated same. Bush (and Ashcroft) support the right to conceal carry, again the only President and AG in history to publicly take that stand.

And there are folks here who are gonna support the Dem candidate (that's what you do if you don't vote for Bush) over this one item? . . . shaking my head . . . And I thought the folks are DU were unreasonably radical.

[PatrioticAmerican]

No votes for RINO, ever.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., will introduce a bill in the coming weeks to reauthorize the assault-weapons ban. "

Bush and Swintein agreeing on anything is bad news.

[chnsmok]

OK. Since no one has replied, I will attempt this. No expert on calibers etc. An assault rifle as defined by Diane is a deer rifle with ulgy things on it like bayonets, flash supressers, folding stocks, etc. And therein lies the slippery slope.