• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Obama Supports New Bid To Ban Assault Weapons, Close Gun Show 'Loophole'

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

commedieu

Banned
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...o-ban-assault-weapons-close-gun-show-loophole

President Obama has thrown his support behind a leading Democratic senator's effort to reinstate a ban on assault weapons — another sign that Friday's mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut has put gun control back on Washington's political agenda.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters this afternoon that Obama, who has long favored reinstating that ban but had not expressed support for a specific effort to do just that, now "actively" supports the effort by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein to craft such legislation.

The president believes it is "clear we haven't done enough" to stop the "scourge" of gun violence, the spokesman said.

According to Carney, Obama would also support legislation that closes the so-called gun show loophole that has allowed some weapons to be sold without criminal background checks of the buyers. And the president would like to see legislation that aims to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, Carney added.
Click to expand...


As correspondent Alan Greenblatt wrote for NPR.org earlier, "the federal government banned certain types of semiautomatic weapons from 1994 to 2004, along with high capacity ammunition magazines. The law specified 19 particular models that were made illegal." The law was allowed to expire.

One of the weapons used in Friday's attack, according to police, was a .223-caliber Bushmaster military-style rifle.
Click to expand...

ObamaShades.jpg


Edit;

Just for those entering...

These are the reasons that additional guns shouldn't be added to the list of already banned weapons.

- We already have people comparing the following to gun use;
1. Alcohol
2. Cars
3. Violence.



Edit;

4. Abortion
5. Starving children around the world
6. Afghanistan/Iraq
 
The problem is properly defining what an assault rifle is. Which is where this legislation will get hung up and stagnate.
 
Vyroxis said:
The problem is properly defining what an assault rifle is. Which is where this legislation will get hung up and stagnate.
Click to expand...

Other countries have no issues with this. They are banned in Canada. Usually refers to all automatic and most (if not all) semi-automatic weapons.
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
the word is purposefully vague to allow republicans to water it down so something might pass.
Click to expand...

It'll be a ban on automatic weapons with almost no (if any) restrictions on semi-auto's. I doubt it will even pass in that watered down state.

I don't know if anyone would stand in the way of banning extended magazines or closing the gun show loophole. I have a feeling they would though.
 
I'm a fairly pro-gun independent, but even I concede that something needs to be done. But is this kind of assault weapon ban really the answer? I do agree with the argument that even without 'military-like' rifles, a shooter can still do just as much damage.

It seems to me we need to make it harder to own any kind of firearm - regardless of whether it's a tricked out AR-15 or some .38 revolver. I firmly believe that every American should still have the chance to own a firearm if they want one, but make the background checks harder, or if you own a firearm make it so you have to take safety classes or re-register it every couple years. Try to cut down on the sheer number of guns that are just floating around out there.
 
As someone who is not against private gun ownership I don't know why they were ever legal in the first place. Who the fuck needs an assault rifle other than someone in the armed forces? Good move.
 
Lord-Audie said:
He doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Why would he back down?

NRA that powerful?
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/what-obama-can-do-guns-without-congress/60104/

Options for immediate executive action may include:

Incorporating more information in background checks, like a potential buyer's history of mental illness.
Sharing more information with state and local officials about gun purchases that could be illegal.
Keeping information on gun sales longer.
Limiting the importation of military-style weapons.
Click to expand...


PoweredBySoy said:
I'm a fairly pro-gun independent, but even I concede that something needs to be done. But is this kind of assault weapon ban really the answer? I do agree with the argument that even without 'military-like' rifles, a shooter can still do just as much damage.

It seems to me we need to make it harder to own any kind of firearm - regardless of whether it's a tricked out AR-15 or some .38 revolver. I firmly believe that every American should still have the chance to own a firearm if they want one, but make the background checks harder, or if you own a firearm make it so you have to take safety classes or re-register it every couple years. Try to cut down on the sheer number of guns that are just floating around out there.
Click to expand...

I don't mind anyone owning guns. But you are aware of the type that the general public that use weapons as tools, don't really need to own. A tricked out AR15 has a potential to do much more efficient target shooting, than a revolver. Those weapons, do not need to be available.

We are still going to have gun crime, but we can definitely use our common sense about the weapons civilians don't need access to.
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
your move, NRA
I'd say they have their work cut out for them after this kind of tragedy
Click to expand...

Problem is a ban such as this isn't going to do shit. We have an "assault weapons ban" in place in NY and someone can still go snatch an AR-15 at will.

ASSAULT WEAPONS
It shall be unlawful to possess any “assault weapon”
or “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” So called
assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to September
14, 1994 and large capacity ammunition feeding devices
manufactured prior to such date can continue to be
lawfully possessed..
“Assault weapon” is defined as:
A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:
• a folding or telescoping stock;
• a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon;
• a bayonet mount;
• a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate
a flash suppressor;
• a grenade launcher.

Manufacturers will simply make compliant weapons.

Funky Papa said:
And the definition was shit. It banned "scary looking" rifles which weren't any deadlier than other semiautomatic ones.

That said, the gun show loophole is a crock of shit and needs to go.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said.
 
The biggest school shooting was done with pistols. Assault rifles isn't really the issue, as you can't really sneak that in somewhere. The gun show loophole yes should be closed, you should only be able to buy guns at specific places, and they desperately need a way to keep track of mental health issues. I think there should be something done by doctors, if a person has a mental health issue flag them. When they go to buy a gun, see they are flagged (dont have to give a reason).
 
ugh. I really don't even want an AR-15 with a 30 round clip but now I kind of feel like I should go buy one while I still can.
 
LordCanti said:
It'll be a ban on automatic weapons with almost no (if any) restrictions on semi-auto's. I doubt it will even pass in that watered down state.

I don't know if anyone would stand in the way of banning extended magazines or closing the gun show loophole. I have a feeling they would though.
Click to expand...
Full auto weapons are already effectively banned though.

No issue with the gun show provision. There should also be increased standards for background checks.
 
Hopefully they're serious about this and take other options into consideration, I didn't think the past ban really made much difference.
 
Mammoth Jones said:
Problem is a ban such as this isn't going to do shit. We have an "assault weapons ban" in place in NY and someone can still go snatch an AR-15 at will.

ASSAULT WEAPONS
It shall be unlawful to possess any “assault weapon”
or “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” So called
assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to September
14, 1994 and large capacity ammunition feeding devices
manufactured prior to such date can continue to be
lawfully possessed..
“Assault weapon” is defined as:
A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable
magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:
• a folding or telescoping stock;
• a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon;
• a bayonet mount;
• a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate
a flash suppressor;
• a grenade launcher.
Click to expand...

right but at least it's something I guess
 
GoldenEye 007 said:
Full auto weapons are already effectively banned though.

No issue with the gun show provision. There should also be increased standards for background checks.
Click to expand...

You can still get them. Something about a private seller having the right to sell them to someone else, or something *insert Manos talking points*.

There are numerous youtube clips demonstrating this.

I agree though, the gun show loophole needs to be closed, and background checks have got to get more stringent. It wouldn't have stopped this particular massacre (he used his mothers guns) but it would have stopped others.

ChanHuk said:
What are the stats to deaths related to:

Tobacco
Alcohol
Medical malpractice
Firearms
Homicide
Click to expand...

Too many for all involved. Next question.
 
commedieu said:
I don't mind anyone owning guns. But you are aware of the type that the general public that use weapons as tools, don't really need to own. A tricked out AR15 has a potential to do much more efficient target shooting, than a revolver. Those weapons, do not need to be available.

We are still going to have gun crime, but we can definitely use our common sense about the weapons civilians don't need access to.
Click to expand...

Eh, that's debatable. In trained hands, sure, an AR-15 is more accurate and deadly, but I'm more concerned about psychos walking into the nearest theater/school/mall and spewing out lead. Automatics are obviously a no. And in this regard I think there's a solid argument against large-capacity clips as well. 30 rounds?? No. Sorry, but this is the America you live in now.

Again, I'm pro-gun, but anything about a firearm that goes beyond self-defense or hunting needs to be looked at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Barack Obama: "Aliens are real."
Opinion  2 3
104
335
IDKFA replied
Boots (New show about bootcamp) | Official Trailer
9
478
SomeNorseGuy replied
Anthropic: "No Claude for lethal weapons and surveillance". Pentagon: "That's a deal breaker"
7
86
Roni replied
What supporting actor/actress is your favorite in a show or movie?
49
751
ResurrectedContrarian replied
Dragon Ball Faces Ban Over New Texas Censorship Law
Business 
17
984
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Top Bottom