Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate gun control bill - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON — An assault weapons ban won't be in the gun-control legislation that Democrats bring to the Senate floor next month, a decision that means the ban's chances of survival now are all but hopeless. The ban is the most controversial firearms restriction that President Barack Obama and other Democrats have pressed for since an assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Rejection by Congress would be a major victory for the National Rifle Association and its supporters and a setback for Obama and the provision's sponsor, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.[/quote] [url]http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6157701-Assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-Senate-gun-control-bill/[/url]

[quote]White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Obama is not giving up on the assault weapons ban being added as an amendment. "We're going to work on this," McDonough said in an appearance on CNN. "We're going to find the votes. It deserves a vote."[/quote] Sure does sound like it's finished.

[QUOTE]"We're going to find the votes. It deserves a vote."[/QUOTE] Nah, it really doesnt.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;39974637]Nah, it really doesnt.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter though, because surely if it goes to vote it will flounder?

[quote]Since an assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.[/quote] I wasn't informed we where banning pistols.

So lemme get this straight. The AWB is dead but stuff like universal background checks and criminalization of private sales is still in?

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39974741]So lemme get this straight. The AWB is dead but stuff like universal background checks and criminalization of private sales is still in?[/QUOTE] At least it's a start. I'd rather have background checks than an AWB [i]and[/i] background checks.

The latter is complete bull in my honest opinion.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39974869]The latter is complete bull in my honest opinion.[/QUOTE] Avatar fits. Also, this is good. Let's hope it never passes.

I don't get what the problem with private sales regulation is. [url]http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/165476.htm[/url] [quote]Slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked; 16 percent of firearms were stored unlocked and loaded.[/quote] Jesus Christ. [quote]We conclude that approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions involved an FFL and hence were subject to Federal regulations on such matters as out-of-State sales, criminal history checks, and recordkeeping. A somewhat higher percentage of handgun acquisitions than long gun acquisitions involved FFLs. The remaining acquisitions, amounting to about 2 million per year, were off-the-books transfers in the secondary market.[/quote] Or in other words, 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. Or in fact, bringing in extra regulation to those stores already "over-regulated". [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2937134/[/url] [quote]Using a scripted telephone interview, we screened a sample of licensed retailers in California to assess their willingness to participate in the surrogate or “straw” purchase of a handgun; such purchases are illegal under federal law. Of 149 retailers who provided a response, 30 (20.1%) agreed to participate.[/quote] I.e, 20.1% of gun salesmen are willing to break regulations. Of course, finding valuable information is difficult given the following: [quote]Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url] This is unfortunate. The public can't access records about gun dealers following the law either. [quote]The ATF released many of the same documents included in the earlier package, but this time certain parts were not blacked out - including one that said ATF inspectors had recommended Badger Outdoors' license be revoked. No action was taken on that recommendation, and the business was sold. No documents in that package showed Badger Guns had been inspected since it opened.[/quote] [url]http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/80518462.html[/url] Isn't it actually worrying anyone?

That 40% figure comes from a telephone poll from 1994.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39975191]That 40% figure comes from a telephone poll from 1994.[/QUOTE] Is this literally your entire rebuttal? "One of the sources you cited is older than me" If you can provide a source that's less than 19 years old and gives a different figure I'd be glad to see it.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39975292]Most of your post is you reacting to facts that alarm you. Do you want us to critique the shocked expression we would imagine on your face?[/QUOTE] Give an argument as to why we shouldn't regulate firearms any more when they already seem horribly under-regulated. Also Ridges post was infantile because the only counterpoint it literally had was "your source is too old for my liking".

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;39974659]I wasn't informed we where banning pistols.[/QUOTE] Stop this. You are fooling yourself into ignorance. [url]http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226[/url]

Sobotnik man you gotta stop this; it's the same story with every single one of these threads. You're just not going to win.

[QUOTE=DevinWatson;39975387]Sobotnik man you gotta stop this; it's the same story with every single one of these threads. You're just not going to win.[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39975319]Also Ridges post was infantile because the only counterpoint it literally had was "your source is too old for my liking".[/QUOTE] It's outdated. 1994 was almost 20 years ago, with the introduction the first Assault Weapons Ban.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;39975557]It's outdated. 1994 was almost 20 years ago, with the introduction the first Assault Weapons Ban.[/QUOTE] Yet it's the only point he can call me out on? If he could perhaps counter the other points, or maybe even the content of the sources with perhaps something more up to date, his argument would be more credible than "One of the sources you used is outdated, therefore your entire post is worthless".

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;39975599]1. These firearms more likely than not are stored on private property, "regulating" this would require invading peoples' privacy to know about and to enforce it. Secondly, what if a firearm is being used for home defense? Or if you live alone and thus are putting yourself solely in danger? What if you sell firearms? What if you live in an isolated area?[/quote] I'm finding it difficult how wildly irresponsible you have to be to keep a unlocked and loaded firearm. [quote]2. People are selling their property and you can't have a federal eye ball caressing each purchase. If someone wants to give a person a weapon for nefarious purposes in secret, what are you going to do? Background checks are a burden of the innocent.[/quote] Because these people are willing to sell them illegally to people who are not qualified to to use firearms? Isn't this an incredibly obvious problem? [quote]3. People are willing to brake laws, that says nothing about whether or not they'll get in trouble for it and it doesn't take into account he honesty of the participants. There are people who do drugs, jay walk and pirate media and unless you're proposing a law that would somehow change their attitudes this point is moot.[/quote] I'm not sure what you are addressing here. People are breaking laws daily with regards to who can own or sell a firearm to who with little repercussions. Of course they are going to do that, nobody is doing a fucking thing about it. [quote]4. Private information about the sales of private property is being withheld, which isn't horribly problematic outright. If I'm reading it right it more or less requires that the police department of the area in which the gun retailer is located undergo law enforcement of said gun retailer, rather than having the beans being spilled like a tall glass of milk on top of a dryer.[/quote] Except the problem is that the withholding of this information rings alarm bells. [quote]No documents in that package showed Badger Guns had been inspected since it opened.[/quote] Does this not suggest that Badger Guns has been operating without proper regulation and regular inspections? [quote]He only said that source was outdated, he never said anything like "One of the sources you used is outdated, therefore your entire post is worthless". Last I checked it wasn't a cardinal rule of debate to address every single point all at the same time.[/QUOTE] The other problem with his post being that he does not expand on it to explain "why you are wrong on that point". If he expanded on it, and best of all, provided a more up to date piece of research refuting that, I would be pleased.

Sobotnik, must I spend a half hour typing a rebuttal for most of those points on my asshole touchscreen phone?

I support more regulation of private sales, but not outright restricting them. Some of the coolest guns I've ever seen/bought (my parents bought, I only buy knives because I'm under age) have been at private shows. It'd be a shame to have that taken away.

Having existed in the realm, dealing with firearms, having fired them, having gone to gunshows and purchased them from both stores and FFL owners, I can safely say that any legislature that the government pushes forth in regards to record keeping, background checks, or anything that draws further burden on the FFL holder, will simply be ignored. More than one FFL dealer has stated aloud that they'll simply "lose" the records or, have a "fire." Until the everyday person realizes that you aren't regulating guns, but people, these laws wont get anywhere. I ask you all this, where is the funding going to come from to have a police officer follow around every FFL owner to make sure they're doing the right paperwork? Where is the funding going to come for for any of this? We're 5 trillion dollars in debt, pushing for regulations that mean the inspection, added regulation, and alteration of something that affects over half the country. We can't even regulate the sale of burned CD's, much less guns.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;39975900]Sobotnik, must I spend a half hour typing a rebuttal for most of those points on my asshole touchscreen phone?[/QUOTE] Don't bother, I've done that far too often in the past, it's not going to accomplish anything.

Good. I see no valid reason to keep legitimate, safe, responsible gun owners from owning AK47s because a few morons can't control themselves.

I still don't understand this want for firearms in American culture. It's so dire and embedded to me. I can comprehend the want of freedom, and I suppose 'freedom for firearms' segues into that pretty easily, but why guns?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39975433]Why?[/QUOTE] Because Facepunch is full of gun nuts who will jump at your neck and tear it apart with facts if you ever disagree with them.

[QUOTE=Exploits;39978402]I still don't understand this want for firearms in American culture. It's so dire and embedded to me. I can comprehend the want of freedom, and I suppose 'freedom for firearms' segues into that pretty easily, but why guns?[/QUOTE] Because getting rid of guns is pointless and only hurts the innocent civilian. It basically treats everyone like criminals. Also, guns are fun

[QUOTE=DaWhatTheFox;39978421]Because Facepunch is full of gun nuts who will jump at your neck and tear it apart with facts if you ever disagree with them.[/QUOTE] Much of Facepunch are american male teenagers who think firearms are awesome. You wouldn't go to North Korea to try and argue why Kim jong il actually isn't a cool guy. [editline]20th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;39975557]It's outdated. 1994 was almost 20 years ago, with the introduction the first Assault Weapons Ban.[/QUOTE] Yes of course, but an amendment from 1791 isn't outdated :downs: [QUOTE=Vodkavia;39975292]Most of your post is you reacting to facts that alarm you. Do you want us to critique the shocked expression we would imagine on your face?[/QUOTE] Funny how the entire gun lobby is built on being alarmist. [QUOTE=The Economist]People kill people, but guns make it easy In that divided America, when exceptional horrors such as mass shootings prompt a search for exceptional causes, a growing number may turn their gaze to guns. That is why the NRA and allies offer an alternative narrative about America as an exceptionally violent dystopia, whose streets are prowled by mad or bad “monsters” that hand-wringing liberals refuse to lock up—so that good citizens need semi-automatics for what Mr LaPierre calls the moment when “glass breaks in the middle of the night”. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, talks of keeping an assault rifle against gangs that might roam unchecked after a natural disaster or cyber-attack. Fear is potent stuff: 48% of gun-owners told a new Pew Research Centre poll that protection is their main reason for owning a gun, up from 26% in 1999.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21573545-americas-gun-lobby-beating-back-post-newtown-push-gun-controls-curious[/url]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39979306]Much of Facepunch are american male teenagers who think firearms are awesome. You wouldn't go to North Korea to try and argue why Kim jong il actually isn't a cool guy.[/QUOTE] Implying Facepunch hive mind :rolleyes: I am a Canadian and I personally don't own any guns. I probably never will because I have no use for them. But I'm not going to support pointless gun bans. When a man gets drunk, tries to drive home and kills someone, no one blames alcohol or cars, they blame his drunk ass. But if someone kills someone with a gun, it's the gun's fault. I just don't understand this logic.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39979433]Implying Facepunch hive mind?[/QUOTE] Huh? I guess you've never worked with statistics before. Are you implying North Koreans are hive minded?