Obama Gets Gun-Shy

The sad fact is that anyone who purchases or posses firearms are capable of using them on other people under the right or wrong circumstances. Nobody uses a semi automatic weapon to hunt with and if they do they are not right in the head.

"In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008." Hehe Liars :)

""These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S.""

"Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World."

http://www.10news.com/news/19071202/detail.html

"....but in reality many of these high-powered weapons come from the U.S. government and are given to the Mexican military to fight the cartels."

4.3% WERE ARMS SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES TO INDIVIDUALS :)

1,247 of the 29,000 weapons :) A FAR CRY FROM THE INITIAL ESTIMATE FROM THE ATF of 647,000!!!!

LIARS!!!

We since the 90% number has been changed to <5% I guess we can all shut up about it now... The ATF used the 90% number to indicate "of those that were sent to the US to be traced" Which, come to find out, is <6% of all firearms seised. Why? Because ~94% are clearly "from another nation of origin" or mexico itself... :-P nanna-nanna-boo-bo You were wrong

1 Term Governor:

Republican Mitt Romney, signed a Permanent Assault Weapons ban in the State of Massachusetts.
---------------------------

Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban
- July 08, 2004

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

???Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,??? Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen???s groups and gun safety advocates. ???These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.???

Like the federal assault weapons ban, the state ban, put in place in 1998, was scheduled to expire in September. The new law ensures these deadly weapons, including AK-47s, UZIs and Mac-10 rifles, are permanently prohibited in Massachusetts no matter what happens on the federal level.

???We are pleased to mark an important victory in the fight against crime,??? said Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey. ???The most important job of state government is ensuring public safety. Governor Romney and I are determined to do whatever it takes to stop the flood of dangerous weapons into our cities and towns and to make Massachusetts safer for law-abiding citizens.???

The new law also makes a number of improvements to the current gun licensing system, including:

Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years;

Just finished reading the article. There is nothing "...wrong with the system." The "system" is the problem! The system is the Federal government. States (incl D.C.) that have the strictest gun control (anti-gun) laws have the highest homicide rates--Liberal gun-control does not decrease homicides and crime. Published data prove, beyond question, that states with the greatest percentage of citizens who carry in public have the lowest homicide and crime rates. Take away: get a gun; become proficient with it; carry it with you at all times; shoot the bad guy before he kills you. Thus endeth the lesson.

Isikoff and Smalley of Newsweek have demonstrated themselves to be ignorant: "...semiautomatic assault guns..." The weapons are either semi-automatic, or they are assault (fully automatic capable). Thus hinges the entire liberal argument. If a gun looks scary, they want to ban it. What a bunch of dumbasses! To quote a beautiful bumper sticker: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Screw Obama, Congress, and the H.R.45!

Am I the only one one who noticed the rifle used in the article ,was in fact an airsoft rifle.
That should have had in place a blaze orange saftey tip.that was mandated by the ferderal govermant?
And by removing the tip newsweek violated a fedral law..look close at the bottom for the magazine
you will see a wheel with serrations..used to load up the 6mm plastic BB's..more mis-information
fed to general public

I have been reading some posts and eventually had make a comment. So here goes. The 1994 bill included the 5 day handgun waiting period (which lapsed in 1998), a ban on a handful of semi-automatic rifles (and i think a shotgun "street sweepers"), a ban on manufacturing or importing new magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, and the federal background checks we are all familiar with. More facts, fully automatic guns have required registration since 1938. Furthermore, fully automatic guns have been off limits to citizens since 1986. 1986 law grandfathered fully automatic guns that people already owned, but said that no new fully automatic guns could be sold to civilians. Semi-automatic AR15s and AK47s (or whatever other SEMI automatic gun you want to name) has always been legal, and you could get brand new or used "high" capacity magazines (20, 30 rounds etc). 1994 ban stopped the selling of new "high" capacity magazines for 10 years (until 2004). Since then new "high" capacity magazines are available for purchase. They always were available of course (even 1994 to 2004) because you could buy one from someone who already owned one. By the way, everyone gets all nervous saying "oh no we gotta do something about these types of semi-automatic rifles that are being used by criminals. Well remember the DC sniper (granted they used AR15) although they could have easily used bolt action "hunting" type (for you gun grabbers) rifle and been just as effective. The criminals will just change their tactics a little bit.

The only problem we have in this country is we are too tolerant. Anyone who wants to play nicely, we are cool with you. If society together (yeah all of us), had guns, prepared properly to use them (criminals realize we are preparing btw), and told criminals that we aren't putting up with their bs things would change dramatically. Remember riots after Rodney King police officer trial. Asian market owners with semi-autos protected themselves and property while rest of LA burned. And gang members running the streets in LA or your town, out in the streets all day and that is where they stay because there is too much for law enforcement to deal with. Proof that government cannot protect everyone. Some people just don't have respect for life (see news, history of world, horrible crimes, etc, etc) and you can't negotiate with them. They just shoot you in the face without blinking. That is a reality, and if you don't think so your head is in the sand.

It seems that few are truely aquainted with the original "assault weapons ban".

you do realize that the ban was not on the gun, that same weapon identified by the name assault weapon was available in unlimited quantities during the so called ban, the ban was on the magazine, period!

If the weapon had a magazine(some call clip) that held only 10 shots, magically it is no longer an assault weapon.
The weapons that were produced prior to the ban were legal during the ban and could use a magizine of any capacity!

The real problem arises the day that the ban sunsetted, having been in the gun industry at that time I could help but notice that high capacity magizines became extremely hot selling items in extreme quantities.

What this means is that now wether or not the ban is reinstituted, there are literally billions of those high capacity magazines now available cheap from almost all gun type outlets, that simply that original "assault weapons ban" would be absolutely worthless.

I hate it when this happens....Blame the gun not the idiot using it....It would of made no difference if he had a shotgun except there wouldn't be anything left of his head...Anit gun people always debate this....They never bring any hard fact to the table....GUNS ARE BAD....THAT BLACK RIFLE LOOKS SCARY....BAN THEM ALL....they only use emotion.....If the kid had a hunting rifle it wouldn't be an issue....Yes it was a tragedy...I am sorry for those officers who lost there life.....But I hate it when they attack our second amendment right.....What if he was drunk and hit those cops in there squad car....Would you be calling to ban alcohol.....And like seven4zero said the so called "assault weapons" are far less powerful that a common hunting rifle....And they dont even make the Top ten list for guns used to commit crimes....So banning them will do nothing just like it did in the past...

No one cares how many people die using assault weapons or any weapon because the USA manufactures them and they put people to work. In the meantime insane people will cull our ranks with spree murders and reduce our numbers and lower the population. Women who wish to have abortions must be denied that choice. They have to supply more victims to keep the gun manufacures happy and prosperous.

For Dan Boren to claim that banning assault weapons is just a way for politicians to ban hunting rifles/shotguns is just nuts. I've never heard a politician suggest that hunting rifles should be banned or controlled. I'm in favor of gun control, but I don't favor banning hunting rifles. But the people who support the right to buy assault weapons because they need to protect themselves will ironically someday find themselves in exactly that position due to the failure of government to control such weapons.

The biggest concern in our country today is that voters are so evenly split between the right and the left that the nuts become the swing vote, making politicians cater to their desires, which is certainly not healthy for the country. I'm terribly disappointed that Obama has backed off of this pledge.

For Dan Boren to make the state that banning assault weapons is merely a scheme to take away hunters' guns in totally nuts. I have never heard a politician say that hunting rifles or shotguns should be banned. The greatest issue in politics today is that the country is so evenly divided between the right and the left that the nuts are the swing votes, so politicians have to cater to them. The people who support the freeflow of assault weapons because they may need them to protect themselves ironically may find themselves in exactly that position because of their stance.

Befor the news industry and the Obama Administration begin to insist "even gun onwer suport an assault weapons ban"-- a lie sure to come soon-- keep in mind the ey want you to only see how the firearm photoed is DIFFERENT from the fireaerm you may own.
That's how they fool you!
Rather look at how IDENTICAL it is to the firearm you own or buy!!!
Barrel? Reciever? Trigger? get it?
The lies are all about the "difference" between gun's amplified threw liecraft and platitudes as they WRITE THE LAW ON THE IDENTICALITY of this firearm to others so that other firearms get banned , too. And those not banned this time get banned next time! because they have a barrel, reciever. and trigger group.
The pen writing the words of the law zero imn on the identicality. Only the words of the liecraft to sell this idiotic ban expound on The Differences! To fool you.
Don't be fooled!
Gun control advocates only approve of a gun for hunting if it has no barrel, No reciever, No trigger and can not be loaded in any way.Tell you elected leaders to say NO to this deception.And that the " 90%" lie is 100% lie!

Damn, you Americans can be idiots. How can you love a tool for killing? The same goes for sword-lovers by the way. How can you argue with crime rates? That has nothing to do with the fact that a guy armed with an automatic, or well, semi-automatic gun can kill dozens of people by himself? You don't need many criminals this way.
How can you seriously defend all this and expect that the rest of the world, or at least democratic countries in Europe, will ever take you serious?
Personally, I've never believed in Obama's promises. And even if he'd have believed them, they were impossible. How the heck do you want to fight at so many fronts without making concessions that eventually, will lead everything to waste? 8 milliards for railway projects? A drop in the bucket.