Assault Weapons Ban

M

Micahweeks

New member
Ok. On February 25, 2009 (just a few months ago), Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the Obama administration would be seeking to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. However, I have a few questions regarding this that I am hoping some who has done much more research than I have can answer.

1. The first job of any politician is to get re-elected (thank you Mr. Trim for that one!). Many propose that the reason that the democrats lost Congress in the 90s was because of people being extremely unhappy about the assault weapons ban. So, if Obama plans to get re-elected, why would he not distance himself from this issue?

2. If Obama is indeed going to push the AWB, what is he waiting for? It would only make sense to do it when his approval ratings are at their highest, indicating the most possible public support. His approval ratings continue to fall. If he were going to bring it before the Congress, what's the hold up?

3. Eric Holder claims that the reason for reinstating the AWB is to stop the flow of small arms to Mexico's drug cartels. He says that the Mexican police have encountered fully automatic assault rifle fire and hand grenades while attempting to stop the drug trafficking. Umm... how does the AWB stop that? Since when is any citizen capable of purchasing hand grenades? I don't remember any tax stamps that I can pay to get a frag grenade! For that matter, what FFL dealers sell automatic rifles to civilians? None around my town do.

4. Would it make sense to wait and see what effect, if any, the Washington D.C. ruling has on the crime rate there? If the crime rate in D.C. were to drop significantly following the ruling, Obama would have some pretty nasty egg on his face. Could this be why we've seen no serious, concerted effort to push the issue in the official sense, yet?
 
Obama himself has said several times that "I don't think we'll be able to do that" when asked about the AWB. It wound up being a long-winded response sympathizing with the anti-gun crowd, but ending it with basically saying that it's not feasible and political suicide (if you read between the lines).

The AWB isn't to be pushed for quiet some time, I don't think.
 
I believe you are right about pushing the AWB being political suicide. I still wonder how the AWB is supposed to help stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades, though. That one is just confusing to me.
 
As I recall, Holder was reprimanded for those statements. It doesn't seem like anything that they're going to be able or willing to push for. Its one of those topics that seems to (for the dems at least) have fallen out of interest.

And it wouldn't stop anything. And any serious politician would know that. I imagine that story is simply a device to convince the uneducated public to support them. Its a sad thing.
 
I don't think we have too much to worry about right now. - He would want to be re-elected.

If that happens, what about his next term?

Once he's in his second term, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's not like he's gonna care who he upsets, he's not going to care what people think of him, or how high his popularity rating is. Because, he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

They might be taking their time, or trying to be extremely quiet about how and when, But I guarantee they haven't forgot about us.

His second term is gonna be when we are all in trouble. Who knows? He could try to sign something into law next week.

The problem in Mexico is being used as an excuse to get all of this started. The first stepping stone. Take the blame off of himself, and put it somewhere else. He has to try to do something to get as many people on board before he attempts a AWB.:barf:
 
Last edited:
Y'all forget that the President can not make the AWB happen. If it passes Congress he can sign it into law. So it does not matter if he wants it this week or in 7 years, he has to convince Congress who hear an awful lot from their constituents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, Amen, but the president does have the ability to propose legislation for Congressional review. Several presidents have done this in the past. I was expecting as much from a man who was so vehemently supportive of the AWB when he was in Illinois. But, who knows? Maybe, for once in our lifetimes, a politician actually LEARNED from the past and decided that reinstating a failed piece of legislation wasn't worth being voted out of office at the next election. Maybe there is hope for the man? :rolleyes:

So the question has been answered about why I have heard nothing else from Obama about the issue. But, there is still the burning question of what Mexico police think the AWB is going to do to stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades.
 
Who would have thought he could take over the banks, limit executive pay, spend trillions based on printing press capacity, get a racist on the supreme court, fill a cabinet with tax evaders, nationalize the auto industry and turn over a large portion to the unions, bow to despots around the world, attempt to control the media thru fairness, redistrict based on Acorn's census, decide the investment positions of legit investors, ok Iranian nuclear power, personally back Chevrolet warranties, bash Israel, label 50% of US citizens as possible terrorists, have magazine editors call him God, get all roofs painted white, and still practice long-term selective hearing around domestic radicals. For now reason is out the window....he's just getting wound up good. If the teleprompter decides to inform him of some perceived firearm crisis...And so it is written, so let it be done. :)
 
Last edited:
So, if Obama plans to get re-elected, why would he not distance himself from this issue?
Click to expand...

Look at Obama's past gun record and his past support for much more restictive legislation than the AWB? Did that stop him from losing swing states with large NRA membership like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida? It didn't; but it almost did - which is probably why you see Obama being much more ambivalent on this issue. He can't step away from it further without looking like a hypocrite; but he can't really afford to continue his past policy eother.

2. If Obama is indeed going to push the AWB, what is he waiting for? It would only make sense to do it when his approval ratings are at their highest, indicating the most possible public support. His approval ratings continue to fall. If he were going to bring it before the Congress, what's the hold up?
Click to expand...

Without a Democratic Congress to back him up, Obama loses a lot of power. Some 67 Democrats in the House signed a letter opposing an AWB (primarily because that is the kind of thing that would cost them their seats in the 2010 midterm elections). Obama needs those votes for his post 2010 agenda and in the near term, making those Congressmen fall on their swords and accept an AWB is going to exact a high price on his current agenda.

Not to mention that if an AWB did make it through the House, Obama has just put his Senate Majority Leader and several prominent Dem Senators in a very awkward position of either publicly thwarting their party leader or facing a serious re-election battle in 2010. Also not a move calculated to win him support for his more controversial programs.

3.Umm... how does the AWB stop that?
Click to expand...

As we all well know, Holder was speaking out of the wrong orifice. I would wager that many of the weapons traced to the United States did not come from gun shows but was Foreign Military Sales from the U.S. government to Mexico's law enforcement and police that later ended up in the hands of drug dealers.

4. Could this be why we've seen no serious, concerted effort to push the issue in the official sense, yet?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. A more likely explanation is that pushing through legislation that is iffy on constitutionality (like an AWB) is best done when you have the Supreme Court stacked to your liking. Given the ruling in Heller, such a question would come before the same Justices who approved Heller. Nobody in the anti-gun movement wants that.

All in all, there are dozens of good political reasons not to have an AWB fight right now, even if you sincerely wanted such a law. On the flip side, the only good reason to have the fight now is that you don't believe you will ever have a better chance at it.
 
I would wager that many of the weapons traced to the United States did not come from gun shows but was Foreign Military Sales from the U.S. government to Mexico's law enforcement and police that later ended up in the hands of drug dealers.
Click to expand...


An you would be right, a while back there was a shootout between corrupt police and the military, pretty much all of the police in a particular town including the mexican Federales from that area worked for the drug cartel.

The weapons I saw which were confiscated were full auto M-16 of recent manufacture (FN) which are only availible to the military and police, and a whole bunch of what appeared to be FALs and HK 91s. While some of those guns ORIGINATED in the US (the factory is here) they sure didn't come from a gunshow or a private citizen, and FN sure didnt sell them under the table to mexican drug lords. The ATF knows full well those guns came from Mexican or US military arsenals or were sold legally to the mexican Police/military.
 
If the US gubmint wanted to keep selective fire M-16s out of the hands of the Mexican cartels, it'd ask the Mexican gubmint to stop its soldiers from deserting with their M-16s.
 
Who would have thought he could take over the banks, limit executive pay, spend trillions based on printing press capacity, get a racist on the supreme court, fill a cabinet with tax evaders, nationalize the auto industry and turn over a large portion to the unions, bow to despots around the world, attempt to control the media thru fairness, redistrict based on Acorn's census, decide the investment positions of legit investors, ok Iranian nuclear power, personally back Chevrolet warranties, bash Israel, label 50% of US citizens as possible terrorists, have magazine editors call him God, get all roofs painted white, and still practice long-term selective hearing around domestic radicals. For now reason is out the window....he's just getting wound up good. If the teleprompter decides to inform him of some perceived firearm crisis...And so it is written, so let it be done.
Click to expand...

Geez, when you put it like that . . . .
 
Obama's record is one of strong support for gun control. He never met an anti-gun piece of legislation he didn't like. Gun control is not his priority at this time but once he gets through his other campaign promise priorities I do believe he'll go after guns. It's part of his ingrained Chicago heritage.
 
I'm divided.

The thread (and the questions posed by the OP) is purely political. As such, it is off topic.

We have made some exceptions in the recent past to allow certain political threads, because of their utility and usefulness.

A good discussion on why firearms control is not on the immediate agenda of the Obama Administration, can have an educating effect upon those that are not aware, but use knee-jerk reactionism in commenting upon the issues.

Then again, it could just as easily spiral down into the hell-hole that was the old L&P forum.

I'll let this one run for a bit. It will be up to you, the members of the Firing Line, to keep your comments, and this thread, on the high road.

Failure to do so will result in not just the thread being closed, but also the individuals who could not control themselves, being banned from TFL.

You are warned.
 
I believe that the only reason he's not pushing the AWB is because Pelosi and others have stated that they will not support it. This I do not understand. They CLEARLY do support the ban. They have the ability to pass it, I believe. I don't know why they wouldn't. I'm glad, but I don't understand. I suppose it's probably because there may be a good number of dems who do not and will not support the ban and the leadership wants to look like a united party.
 
Failure to do so will result in not just the thread being closed, but also the individuals who could not control themselves, being banned from TFL.
Click to expand...
:eek:
Are all loss of control "felony failure to self control" or are there some "misdemeanors"?:D
Brent
 
My apologies, Anitipitas. I genuinely thought the thread would fall under the rules as it pertains to the AWB, since many believe it is a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. I misunderstood the rules.
 
Last edited:
I personally feel that if any AWB is to be reinstated, It will either be done late in the current term, or in the next term, depending on how favorable the current admistration is just prior to the 2012 elections.

I dont think that we'll get away scott free, so to speak, but I dont think we'll see UK style draconian gun bans, just yet.

Most important thing any of us can do is to write and call our representatives on a regular basis, and let them know just how you feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top