President Calls For Assault Weapons Ban

In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, President Obama today called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban as well as pass legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to obtain firearms.

The president said there are a number of “common-sense” gun control measures that Congress should take to reduce gun violence without violating the Second Amendment and, for the first time since the deadly shooting Sunday, he enumerated several steps he wants Congress to take.

“People with possible ties to terrorism who are not allowed on a plane shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun,” Obama said, referencing “No Fly, No Buy” legislation pending on Capitol Hill that would prevent any suspected terrorists on “No Fly” lists from buying firearms.

“Reinstate the assault weapons plan,” he added. “Make it harder for terrorists to use these weapons to kill us.”

“Otherwise, despite extraordinary efforts, despite all the sacrifices that folks make, these kinds of events are going to keep on happening,” Obama warned. “And the weapons are only going to get more powerful.”

Read the rest of the article:

I won’t even go in to how AR’s are not assault weapons (the AR stands for Armalite Rifle)….

4 thoughts on “President Calls For Assault Weapons Ban

  1. The Obama administration had a operation called fast and furious that gave the Mexican cartel machine guns that were lost in the operation. He should give up his secret service protection with there machine guns. Lead by example. All these people that want everyone else to give up there guns are surrounded by security paid by our taxes and they live in gated community’s. What Hippocrates.

  2. What about innocent until proven guilty. There is no trial before you are put on the no fly list. You do not get to confront your accusers. You are not notified that you are even on the no fly list until you attempt to fly. This is not the intention of our founding fathers.

  3. Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
    Document Title: Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault
    Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and
    Gun Violence, 1994-2003
    9.4. Summary
    Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs, which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes
    resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs. However, the grandfathering provision of the AW-LCM ban guaranteed that the effects of this law would occur only gradually over time. Those effects are still unfolding
    and may not be fully felt for several years into the future, particularly if foreign, pre-ban LCMs continue to be imported into the U.S. in large numbers. It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.
    96. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by
    the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Having said this, the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading. Nonetheless, reducing crimes with AWs and especially LCMs could have nontrivial effects on gunshot victimizations. As a general matter, hit rates tend to be low in
    gunfire incidents, so having more shots to fire rapidly can increase the likelihood that offenders hit their targets, and perhaps bystanders as well. While not entirely consistent, the few available studies contrasting attacks with different types of guns and magazines generally suggest that attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics with LCMs – result in more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks. Further, a study of handgun attacks in one city found that about 3% of gunfire incidents involved more than 10 shots fired, and those cases accounted for nearly 5% of gunshot victims. However, the evidence on these matters is too limited (both in volume and quality) to make firm projections of the ban’s
    impact, should it be reauthorized.

  4. The “No Fly List” is a list that contains little more than a name; there is no other identifying data.
    This is why, if your name is the same as the name of someone on the list, you can’t fly.
    Boarding an airliner isn’t a constitutionally protected right.
    Buying a gun is.
    Given this, using the no fly list to keep people from buying guns would not pass a court test on two grounds: too vague (not identifying who’s on the list properly) and illegally denying a protected right. (The legal definitions may not be exactly right, but you get the idea.)
    This doesn’t mean I think such a law won’t be passed (we have several illegal laws and rules now), but that it wouldn’t pass a court test.

    The assault weapons ban was a total failure; consider this: more AR-15 platform rifles were sole in the ten-year span of the ban than in the previous decade. This is because of a part of human behavior people often overlook: the more detailed you get in banning something complicated, the easier it is to get around the details of the ban, especially when there’s a demand for the end product being banned. We’ve seen this with drugs time and again, so much that there’s a name for the result: Designer Drugs.
    New York tried banning certain assault weapons; the people’s response has been rather spectacular in their failure to turn in the banned guns. The same with a ban on “Large Capacity” magazines. People tend to ignore laws they don’t like, especially when there’s no practical way to enforce the law.
    Several local LEO departments have publicly said they will not enforce such a ban. I can understand that; they are afraid of the results. They do not want to have to perform a SWAT raid on a neighbor’s home and have things go wrong, to enforce an illegal law. It’s easy to make such a law (or rule) when you don’t have to either enforce it or comply with it.

Comments are closed.