Skip to main content

View Diary: Reid vows to bring gun bills to Senate floor. But he needs a push for assault weapons ban to succeed (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Assault weapons ban (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theboz, sargoth, joe from Lowell, MPociask

    I suppose this has already been relentlessly discussed, and if so I apologize for missing out. But for the purposes of proposed legislation - what exactly is an assault weapon?

    •  Stuff that looks cool (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sargoth, joe from Lowell, MPociask

      Most likely it will be based off of the old one.

      •  Sad, but likely true. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Quoting from memory, the AWB covered weapons that had any two of the following: 1) Flash suppressor, 2) Collapsible stock 3) Bayonet mount, 4) Ability to accept a high-capacity magazine.

        After this passed, the smart folks at Bushmaster took a  (now "banned") semi-automatic M-16, removed 1,2 and 3, but kept 4.  That's where the AR-15 came from - totally legal.

        I do have to agree with our friends on the right about one thing: The Assault Weapons Ban was little more than a "Ban on scary-looking weapons".  There are -plenty- of semi-automatic hunting rifles that take the same ammunition and have the same rate-of-fire (bullet per trigger squeeze) as an AR-15.  Banning the AR is pointless.

        The most reasonable solution I can see, is to ban the high-capacity magazines.  Arguably, I'd say leave the guns themselves alone.  Tighten their sale and import regulations. Close the private seller loopholes.  Then tax the CRAP out of ammunition beyond the first x rounds.  One box of ammo is enough to protect a home for 30 years.  Provide incentives to states to compensate hunters for this additional surcharge when they purchase their tags for the year.  Waive the fee for shooting ranges, with the stipulation that the ammo must either be discharged on range, or sold back to the range before the shooter leaves.

        •  While your view that the previous AWB... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          navajo, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

          ...was worthless because it didn't ban all rapid-fire semi-autos and was mostly about cosmetics, you've got some things a bit confused.

          • Specific semi-auto "assault" firearms were banned in 1994, not just the AR-15

          • The AR-15 was not derived from the M-16. The selective-fire AR-15 came first and was modestly redesigned and transformed into the M-16 in 1959. The civilian market, semi-automatic version of the AR-15 that we are today familiar with was first sold 50 years ago, in 1963. They had pistol grips, collapsible stocks and bayonet mounts.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:59:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I hope that gun reform advocates (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sargoth, Phil S 33

        Of which I count myself, understand this point.  The assault weapon ban largely functions to ban weapons that look scary.

        The AWB is just a distraction from the real discussion we should be having, which is: what types of guns does it make sense for people to be able to own without any type of regulation?  where should we draw the line?  once that line is drawn, what do we do to eliminate/buy-back/heavily regulate the guns that are too dangerous?  

        And throughout that discussion, we should remember that gun violence happens every day, not just when the national media covers it, and that it usually happens with a handgun.  

        •  That's my problem with an assault weapon ban (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The real assault weapons used on a daily basis in this country are pistols.  Not expensive military grade pistols either, but as cheap as possible usually 9mm pistols that will never be made illegal.  The exact same guns (or more expensive ones) are also primarily used for self protection.  I personally do not advocate for a ban on pistols, but at least I could understand the logic in it as opposed to a ban on assault weapons which are a small part of the problem.  While it wouldn't address mass shootings, I think we'd save more lives of kids by Obama coming to bat for passing a law to require handguns to be stored locked up and penalize people who leave them in nightstands or under pillows, for example.

    •  Here's what Feinstein's ... (7+ / 0-)

      ...proposal would do (this is a draft):

      Guns that would be banned from manufacturing, sale, transfer (including as gifts) and import:

      • 120 named firearms

      • Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic (a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, thumbhole in the stock)

      • Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with fixed magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds


      • Grandfathering of banned weapons that were legally possessed on the date of enactment. But these must be registered.

      • 900 named weapons used for hunting or sporting

      • Antique, manually operated firearms

      • Permanently disabled weapons of whatever type

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:22:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site