Biden Says He's Banning Assault Weapons and Magazines...
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
Why do you say that Biden is pandering to his constituents? He's got the nomination in the bag. He doesn't need to pander to his constituents. If anything, he needs to move to the center to gain popularity. He was extremely emphatic about banning semi-autos and magazines. I think that was his warning to all of us of exactly what his handlers want him to do. Will force him to do, if they get the votes in Congress.
Please explain how one could consider a DA revolver a semi-auto, without rewriting the definition of semi automatic.
Which doesn't mean they can't ban DA revolvers, though there is no current law at the Federal level allowing that, there was, between 1994 and 2004. And probably still is in those states that directly copied the 94 Fed AWB completely, minus the sunset provision.
The language I am referring to is the part that bans the Streetsweeper /Striker 12 shotguns. Those two guns were banned, by name, but the sleeper part is the language that says "or any other firearm substantially similar to..."
The mechanism of those shotguns is a scaled up version of the DA revolver mechanism. I believe that language was intentionally put into the law so that, when they felt the time was right, they would have a legal basis for banning DA revolvers.
The fact is that, the longer a bad law goes unchallenged, the more difficult it gets to get it off the books. Not impossible, but more difficult, the basic logic used to defend it is, "its been the law for years, you didn't have a problem with it then, why are you objecting to it now??"
I believe they put it in as a sleeper, with just that in mind, but the sunset provision of the 94 law spoiled that approach (but only through that specific law).
I believe their "evil plan" is to get rid of "assault weapons", then ALL semiautos, and THEN go after revolvers and other manually operated firearms, but of course I have no proof to offer, and you won't find any of the politicians admitting to it, and remaining viable politicians.
Look what happened during the Democratic candidates debates prior to Biden being chosen as their candidate. When Beto O Rourke announced, (live and on stage where it couldn't be covered up) that "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR15"...all the other candidates smiled, and said nothing. Biden stood there with his usual confused look and mumbled "I don't think that's Constitutional..." without much conviction or enthusiasm.
I believe the others just smiled, because while it was their goal as well, they were pleased that Beto was stupid enough to say it out loud, and that shot his chances right in the butt, big time. Indeed, within two days of announcing Hell yes, we're taking your AR15... Beto was no longer a candidate for the nomination.
Think that was just a coincidence?? I don't.
44AMP asked how I could possibly define a double-action revolver as a semi-auto. Well, let's start with the Striker shotgun. It was essentially a double-action revolver-type shotgun. Bill Clinton reclassified it as a Destructive Device requiring registration and ATF permission to transfer. Then, there's the old 1950's Dardick. It fed from a magazine into a revolving cylinder. Looks like a revolver, but could the Gun Grabbers define it as a semi-auto? Sure they could. Even in a conventional revolver, some of which have 8, maybe 10 rounds. For every action of the trigger, a new round is readied to be fired and then fired. No practical difference between a DAO semi-auto, or for that matter any semi-auto.
When Joe Biden can call your semi-auto rifle an Assault Rifle, Machine Gun, or weapon of war, they can certainly call your double-action revolver a semi-auto pistol.
When Joe Biden can call your semi-auto rifle an Assault Rifle, Machine Gun, or weapon of war, they can certainly call your double-action revolver a semi-auto pistol.
True. Sugarmann was the one who expanded the definition and gave the term the meaning it has in anti gun circles today.
The Democrat party is very fragmented with groups pulling in all directions. . Passing gun control legislation is a primary goal of the Democrat party. Yes, Biden is pandering to the rabid gun controllers.
Bill Clinton had assistance in getting the AWB through congress. Former presidents Ford, Carter and "The Gunowners Champion" himself,; Ronald Reagan';shilled for the AWB. The AWB passed the US House after two Hose members changed their minds and voted for the AWB after personal appeals by Ronald Reagan.
Bill Clinton had assistance in getting the AWB through congress. Former presidents Ford, Carter and "The Gunowners Champion" himself,; Ronald Reagan';shilled for the AWB. The AWB passed the US House after two Hose members changed their minds and voted for the AWB after personal appeals by Ronald Reagan.
You waste your breathe trying to inject logic into gun control debates with them. Don’t look for any, it’s not there. By the same token the people actually behind this stuff know exactly what they are doing. They equate guns to the hunting mode which they know is not their issue. Neither is them crying and wringing their hands over victims of mass shootings and other senseless gun violence. Everything the Left is doing is the groundwork for Central Government. The citizen can’t be armed for this to happen. Those in control know this, that’s why it never stops. If their movement keeps accelerating faster than they can maintain majority control of the American Govt. they will find out what the
2nd is really for. Like one more “ questionable “ election.
2nd is really for. Like one more “ questionable “ election.
Last edited by a moderator:
According to the FBI's 2019 crime statistics, there were 364 murders committed in the US that year using rifles. That's ALL rifles of all kinds. They don't keep statistics for "assault rifles", but given the hundreds of millions of other kinds of rifles out there, it's unlikely that it's more than half. Let's call it 200 to be generous. This is tiny compared with the 1,476 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments". Just to put it into perspective, there were 600 murders committed using fists. So the odds of being killed by someone punching you are three times as high as being killed with an "assault rifle".
Yet attacking "assault rifles" is a cornerstone of Democratic gun policy. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15!". Why are they making such a big deal about them if they are so rarely used in murders?
First and foremost is to generate an atmosphere of fear from which you can only be saved if you vote Democratic.
The second reason is that the Supreme Court has declared that weapons "commonly used for lawful purposes" are protected by the Second Amendment. AR-15s are commonly used for lawful purposes. They are also used in a very small percentage of crimes. So why are the Democrats so determined to ban them? Because they desperately want to establish some way around the common use protection. Once they've done that, more and more guns will be classified as "assault weapons". First all semiautos. Then bolt action "sniper rifles". Etc, etc. This is entirely consistent with a long established strategy of incrementalism as manifested in Democratic anti-gun states like California, New York and Illinois.
So given the near certainty that assault weapon bans are going to be found unconstitutional, why are so many Democratic states rushing to pass them? So that when the bans are over turned, they can claim "We tried to save you, but that nasty old Supreme Court doesn't care about your children" and use it to try and pack the court.
Yep, Republican gun owners fail to wake up and realize hey're being played by their political hacks. Several times Republicans have controlled congress and the white house. they made n l ttle or no effort to roll back gun control. Now That Democrats run it all the Republicans in congress are whining.
I would point out that the Democrats "ran" Congress (were the majority) for 40 years and didn't lose that majority until 1994 when they passed the Assault Weapon Ban in the summer of an election year!!
They are going after "assault weapons" etc. because crimes done with those guns are hugely dramatic, where regular crimes aren't.
A dozen (or however many) people killed in urban Chicago, done by multiple shooters mostly with handguns over several different locations is just another weekend, and barely get mentioned more than a day or two in the news.
One wackjob gunning down that many people, in one place, using an "assault weapon" gets reported on for WEEKS. The same thing happening when an assault weapon isn't involved doesn't get nearly the same amount of press coverage.
Remember the Virgina Tech murders (2007) ?? One guy killed 32 people (and wounded another 17) using a pair of handguns.
Ancient history now, but the point is that it doesn't take an assault weapon to commit mass murder. All it takes is the will to do it. Banning a TOOL doesn't stop anything other than the use of that specific tool, IF it even stops that.
Gun banners would have us think otherwise.
When they do get something banned, and it doesn't stop the killings, what is their response? "we didn't go far enough" or "its just a necessary first step" and they seek to ban something else, pretending that THIS time, it will be different.
There's a popular definition of insanity these days that goes "insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results".
Under that definition, gun control advocates are insane.
They are going after "assault weapons" etc. because crimes done with those guns are hugely dramatic, where regular crimes aren't.
A dozen (or however many) people killed in urban Chicago, done by multiple shooters mostly with handguns over several different locations is just another weekend, and barely get mentioned more than a day or two in the news.
One wackjob gunning down that many people, in one place, using an "assault weapon" gets reported on for WEEKS. The same thing happening when an assault weapon isn't involved doesn't get nearly the same amount of press coverage.
Remember the Virgina Tech murders (2007) ?? One guy killed 32 people (and wounded another 17) using a pair of handguns.
Ancient history now, but the point is that it doesn't take an assault weapon to commit mass murder. All it takes is the will to do it. Banning a TOOL doesn't stop anything other than the use of that specific tool, IF it even stops that.
Gun banners would have us think otherwise.
When they do get something banned, and it doesn't stop the killings, what is their response? "we didn't go far enough" or "its just a necessary first step" and they seek to ban something else, pretending that THIS time, it will be different.
There's a popular definition of insanity these days that goes "insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results".
Under that definition, gun control advocates are insane.
buck460XVR
New member
Exactly. This is where emotions are in control more than common sense. There is no doubt that hi-cap, semi and fully auto firearms can do more damage in a shorter amount of time than Grandpa's old Bolt action Savage or model 10. Thus they are targeted more by the anti's than Grandpa's old Bolt action Savage or model 10. Doesn't make it right.
I actually assign a much more nefarious intent to SOME gun control proponents than the drama and news coverage revolving around mass shooters. I sincerely believe that there is a faction at the very tip top of the anti-gun movement who want citizens disarmed of weapons capable of defending against a standing army. We're all of these weapons taken away, there would be little stopping a standing army from steamrolling through the US if some form of hostile takeover of the government resulted in armed resistance.
I'm aware that there are arguments against this logic. A standing army has tanks and close air support, whereas a simp,e armed populace doesnt. Well... the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan also did not have those combined arms, yet they played the attrition game quite well and killed a lot of Americans in the process. High casualty rates will only cause pressure for a state actor to capitulate in this scenario. A semi-auto ban will help keep those casualties down. Additionally, we're said hypothetical hostile takeover to occur, you would likely have entire military units defect and resist as well. There's not much argument against that, as I believe it would likely happen.
At any rate, removing effective weapons of resistance from citizens hands would, in fact, remove a MAJOR hurdle to future hostile government actions. I believe this motivates a select few in the gun control community. The rest, who are true believers that mag limits and AW bans will lower the murder rate, are little more than useful idiots to the big dogs of the gun control scheme.
And no, I don't wear tin foil hats. I don't fantasize about prepping or mad max scenarios. I still believe there is a contingent within political parties that would find it awful convenient if the 2nd Amendment wasn't a factor in the calculus of potential future government actions.