Mexico, huh? Any excuse to reduce our freedoms...

The assault weapons ban is a nonsensical. Almost all weapons made now are post-ban, and they're virtually identical to the preban guns. What defines an "assault" weapon is entirely arbitrary, anyway.

I'd be upset if this law had any teeth and wasn't just pandering to the base.

But they are so much fun! darn ban.

is he giving that half naked statue the stank eye?

"Before you get too worried that Obama is taking unprecedented steps to limit your right to bear arms, know that he just wants to reinstate the ban that expired in 2004."

This sentence makes absoutely no sense whatsoever. A ban is a ban is a ban... whether it be in 2004 or 2009.

I'm a gun owner myself I'm on the fence about this. Because I don't like bans on guns but who really who needs semi-automatic guns in the first place. And you'd be surprise how easy it is in some states to buy them. One of my friend's boyfriend is a total idiot who don't know how to shoot even from 5 foot distance owns 10 different types of guns including a semi. I'm still wondering who was idiotic enough to let him come near one.

This ban has nothing to do with banning semi-automatic weapons, Myst.

He then went on to say they would ban armor piercing bullets..... except they already are banned. (except in very rare "sporting" cases)

Hmm... maybe this guy should actually LEARN something about gun control before he spouts off at the mouth?

Add to that that Nancy Pelosi said No when she was asked if she talked to Administration officials about the ban.

Is there a reason individuals need to own "military style" assault weapons? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

""Before you get too worried that Obama is taking unprecedented steps to limit your right to bear arms, know that he just wants to reinstate the ban that expired in 2004."

This sentence makes absoutely no sense whatsoever. A ban is a ban is a ban... whether it be in 2004 or 2009.

It's worded poorly, but what I understood this paragraph to mean was that this is not a radical new idea Obama had but rather him reenacting a law that was already on the books but has lapsed.

Myst: I agree. Who needs an assault weapon? That's why this type of ban doesn't bother me too much. People just freak out whenever they hear about a ban because they think that this is the next step toward a total gun ban (which will never happen). If anything, sales on those types of guns should be at least restricted.

There are so many things that are stupid with this ban, not the least of which is that it bans magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

Why?

Because its the 10th bullet that does the damage?

It just makes no sense.

"Is there a reason individuals need to own "military style" assault weapons? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me."

There are plenty of reasons. And they can still manufacture them. They just take a bolt off the front so a bayonet can't be attached or add a loop in the stock instead of a pistol grip. It's pretty much a cosmetic ban.

That sounds like the same logic he's using to justify tax increases. It's not a real increase, just taking back prior cuts.

"A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose."

Roar-

I agree that was the sentiment of the sentence, but I think gun carriers would be appalled by it... kinda like saying, 'Banning alcohol isn't that bad since we did it once already.'

"Is there a reason individuals need to own "military style" assault weapons?"

Sporting, shooting competitions, collectors items, if you're in the military and you want to practice on your own time... those are just a few. Plus the definition is so broad that many firearms fall under it that really have no place in being there.

Additionally, the Dept. of Justice couldn't prove a statistical significance in decrease in gun crimes during the time the ban was in place.

So again I have to ask, what is the point?

Org - you are 100% right, so many manufacturers just tweaked little items so that it would be ok. But the firearm and access to it stayed the same.

Sweet, now about 75% of our collection will be illegal!

MM, I'm by no means an expert, but I believe anything made before the ban isn't effected by it.

I just have a question, in the constitution, it states that we have the right to bear arms to form a militia, right? In the off chance that we need to overthrow a rogue government. How can we possibly fight off our government when they won't let us have 1/100 of the technology that they have? Can someone answer this?

The way they classify weapons as assault weapons or not is PURELY AESTHETICS!!! It has NOTHING to do with how deadly a weapon is. Uneducated people just assume since the word assault is in there it must be way worse than other guns so they should be banned.

Haus, i agree the defination is to broad. I've seen guns that have no business being in there. Before I make my final decision on this ban, I would need to know exactly what type of guns that's fall into this category. Personally in my opinion I think there needs to be touch laws on owning guns. I love guns and my parents taught us how to shoot one since I was 12 however I too often see people who use them as toys or own them without even know to how to properly use them take care of them. My friend's boyfriend the own who I mentioned early, nearly shot his foot of once, when we were at a shooting range.

That's true, Mich...and since that's the case it will be easy to distinguish between guns purchased before such and such date. Stupid, idiotic law.

That's because gun bans aren't about guns, they're about not liking the kind of people who own guns.

tougher laws*

I think the wording of this article is really misleading. It's not so much that the "the administration will reinstate a ban on assault weapons" as that they're going to encourage congress to do so. Really big difference.

One, that picture is hilarious.

Two, the points about the ban being somewhat arbitrary seems to me like an argument for a stricter ban and more control, not less.

I was hoping you'd drop in Mariner. I always like your comments on gun bans.

ooooh Modus... interesting thoughT!

TS - Well part of the reason the ban was artbitrary is because such a small percentage of gun crime is by assault weapons. I think its under 10%.

Thanks, organic!

I was really hoping the administration would leave this issue alone for while and focus on all the promises Obama made in his speech. Alas, they've got to get everyone all in a tizzy.

I'd rather see tougher penalties on gun related crime than bans on specific guns themselves. JMO.

TS, only if you want to ban guns in the first place, otherwise you recognize the arbitraryness of it as a ploy full of propaganda to just ban something, anything.

Good point Hainan

I would agree with Haus, here in Philly all the murders are with handguns. Its rare you hear about something commited with a 'military style' gun.

So I mean, if you've got around 10% or less of gun crimes being comitted with an "assualt weapon" then doesn't it feel like you're punishing the responsible owner with this ban?

Would this ban even be constitutional now with that Supreme Court ruling?

Nice statue...LOL

Um, my hub will definitely be purchasing some firearms pretty soon. He's not liking where things are going with the gun rights these days.

Your right to freedom of speech is limited. You can't scream fire in a public place if there's no fire. There's no reason your right to bear arms shouldn't be limited so you don't have semi-automatics to just start blasting away people.

I wouldn't say that owning a gun is equivalent to yelling fire in a movie theater. Maybe shooting people would be similar, but by your analogy, it would be like banning speaking in a movie theater to prevent someone from yelling fire.

"Congress banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds."

Okay - seriously: who really USES these types of guns? They don't make sense for hunting, and it seems kind of odd to just *have* them to have them, imo.

Modus
They're not banning all guns so it wouldn't be like banning all talking. They're banning the most dangerous, unnecessary guns to prevent problems like stopping people from yelling fire would prevent panic.

Genesis, if you read the comments on this thread you'll see that they're not banning "the most dangerous, unnecessary guns". I think you' need to learn a little bit more about this ban (and perhaps about guns in general) before you celebrate.

Well I used to think like alot of folks out there who needs weapons like those. Check things out before you make a decision try going to you tube and checking out the new documentary (drug wars the movie) . When they have border town sheriffs willing to go on camera saying they have witnessed Mexican military escorting drug cartels to the border and could do nothing because they were so out gunned, I listen. This movie will explain alot. The main form of income for the Mexican government is drugs. They back whichever cartel pays the most. Like the man says in the movie without the money generated by the drug trade Mexico would go bankrupt in 2 years or less. Watch it and tell me if you lived in Jauerz and the cartel was doing to you what they are doing to them you wouldn't want at least a weapon that would give you a chance to protect yourself. I've changed my mind about alot ot things after doing some research. I really do believe now that an armed man is a citizen and an un-armed man is a subject. Think America

Michelann it's all a matter of perspective. Besides Hainan trying to overthrow the govt I haven't seen a use for semi-automatics mentioned in the comments.
After living in the city and seeing cops get killed and kids die after getting caught in the crossfire of a drug war there is no way I can say everyone should have an unlimited right to gun use.

Genesis, I lived in an area where several people were stabbed over a few months. I don't think banning knives is the answer.

Genesis, if you can't think of a use for a semi-automatic weapon, you don't know what "semi-automatic" means.

Hey biggest terrorist attack in American history was carried out with box cutters====we need to ban all of them.

So, the federal government doesn't do its job securing our borders, and then blames criminals crossing our borders to buy guns illegally as the reason for another gun ban?

Silly. I could see if they had renewed the ban in 2004. But we let it go out and for everything in the ban to become legal again then say "Hey, let's ban it again." What's the point. Most of us already have high-cap magazines and "assault" weapons, since the ban has been gone for five years. I like my gun collection. I've passed my background checks and I personally would like to buy more of the guns I have already legally obtained. Instead of them suddenly becoming illegal. If you want to ban something, ban something we haven't banned before. I mean really, what noticeable difference is there since the ban went out?

These guys are idiots! Gun bans aren't a help to the nation or Mexico. Criminals are going ot obtain their weapons, fully auto or semiauto, regardless of a ban or not. The thing that makes them criminals is that they don't abide by the law. Gun bans are only hurting those of us who abide by the law and use semiauto weapons at ranges for recreation. America and Americans are getting dumber and dumber every day.

They say that we have the right to arm ourselves if need be to over throw the government but the reason they want to put this and other bans back into the law is because they do not want us to over throw them when they start to take over this country and do stuff to real americans that they are going to do. I mean hell look the pres is not even a legal citizen. Well I mean he will not even produce a vault copy of his birth certificate but a certificate of live birth which the state of Hawaii will let alot of people do for their children that are not born there. C'mon now I have served for nine years now I have even given both of my legs for this country and now you are going to f*ck me out of the only thing that makes me some what happy. Lets start contacting our Congressmen and women as well as Senators to help over turn these laws when they come before them.