Say it isn't so! But SoCo, you said Obama wasn't going to go after guns! You said we were all nuts for thinking he would do such a thing!

Oh...and what did I say back in November when the story hit the media claiming heavily armed drug cartels were getting their guns from the US? I said it was the media paving the way for gun control initiatives. And sure enough, it's the centerpiece of Holder's argument.

This is why people need to vote on substance instead of getting caught up in fad politics. The warnings on this issue were all too clear, and yet people buried their heads in the sand and voted for the guy anyway.

Here's a link to ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=1

Gotta run, have to buy a bunch of gunz.

I think deep down inside we all knew the new administration would reinstate the assault weapons ban. Question is are they going to try and make it a permanent situation. My personal feeling on this is if they want to have a discussion about assault weapons in the US fine, but don't use the situations of our neighboring countries as a tool to infrindge our own rights. They might as well be saying they are in favor of signing over our other rights by signing on with the UN in their latest treaty proposals.

So I wonder what they are planning on doing to solve the real problem after they screw the people.

From wiki:

"Folding stock
pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine"

"AWB advocates and opponents alike stated that the AWB allowed firearms manufacturers to make minor changes to make their affected firearms legal, and they both described the features affected by the ban as "cosmetic".[5][6]
Some manufacturers complied with the law by removing certain banned features. For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks or bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol grips. As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.
The BATF technology branch determined in 1994 that muzzle brakes were not impacted by the AWB, and that muzzle brakes on threaded barrels were not an assault weapon feature, so long as they were welded or soldered in place.
The law prohibited newly-manufactured detachable magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds manufactured after enactment of the law from sale, transfer, or importation. One effect was the increased importation from other countries of large quantities of magazines manufactured before the ban[citation needed]. Former Warsaw Pact countries had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants. Existing stocks of pre-ban American-made magazines were likewise exempt from the ban; this resulted in a brief surge in domestic manufacture of high-capacity magazines before the law took effect.
With the ten-round limit on magazine capacity in effect, and some form of concealed carry of firearms legal in over 38 states, manufacturers had an added incentive to design smaller frames at or below the ten-round capacity, thus replacing the previously popular 9mm and .45 ACP higher capacity pistols. Since they could no longer manufacture the popular 15- and 17-round magazines to consumers, continuing to market the large frames designed for such made less sense. Glock introduced their 10-round capacity 9mm semi-automatic pistol, the Glock 26, in August 1994, in apparent anticipation of the legislation. In 1995, the Kahr Arms company was founded; they debuted their ultra-compact 9mm pistol, the K-9. In the years that followed, all manufacturers of semiautomatic pistols followed suit, developing a large array of concealable ten-round pistols in various calibers, including 9mm, 10mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.
In March 2004, Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, criticized the soon-to-expire ban by stating "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994."[7]."

How is limiting high capacity clips and grenade launchers and bayonet's going to hinder your gun fun. I've stated before and I'll state it again the greater majority of people in our country don't have the maturity and or responsibility to possess weapons of this type and I personally feel safer when any tom, dick, or harry, can't stroll down to the store and get one. While I will acknowledge there are law abiding citizens who for what ever reason dig having military type automatic weapons and use them responsibly. There are also many unsavory types be they unstable substance abusers, white separatists anti-Government militias, terrorists, inner city gangbangers, drug dealers, who we shouldn't be making it any easier for them to possess these type of weapons.

I don't own machine gun or assault types of weapons and other then when I was a younger child and maybe teenager did I have a desire to own a machine gun after watching Rambo or Predator one too many times. I am familiar with the 'if you outlaw machine guns criminals will still get them' argument and here's my counterpoint. While very sophisticated criminals will get weapon like these no matter what. A ban like this will keep weapons of this nature from falling into the hands of many of the less sophisticated down to dumb ass criminals that can wreak havoc with these type of guns.

Seriously, where do you think the line should be drawn? Are LAW rockets and Stinger missiles the next 'fun' military weapon we can use for recreation?

I realize my statements given in a hunting and shooting environment will win me no friends, much to the contrary will make me hated, but this is my view on the matter and I've never been one to say things just to win favor with people around me. I realize you guys see things differently and that's fine and the ridicule and hostility will soon follow, but that's okay to.

In no way was I affected by the ban when it was in place, and probably wouldn't be as is. However, the government doesn't need to follow you're listed definition of assault weapon. I'm sure they will re-define that themselves, which is something to watch for. I do agree with you though. I don't see where I, or anyone I know, would NEED a weapon (or weapons) capable of carrying out strategic combative operations, but in the same line I just don't see how we should be involving the situations of another country to persuade our decision making process in determining our rights.

The problem with cutting away at the margin is that you just create a new margin. Reduce high capacity magazines to ten rounds, and ten rounds becomes the new high-cap mag.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about "gun fun." It isn't about hunting. It's about self defense. The current administration does not believe you have the right to defend yourself. If these things had nothing to do with self-defense, then perhaps we should restrict military arms to 10 rounds, too.

It's not up to the government to decide what you "need." People should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that shows any link to the '94 AWB and a reduction in crime. It didn't do anything. So if it accomplished nothing in the US, how is it supposed to affect crime in another country?

Those of you who are willing to stand by and let this pass because it doesn't affect you need to remember the words of Martin Niemoller:

They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;

They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;

They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;

Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.

Also, the original ban outlawed the further manufacture or import of high capacity clips. It didn't outlaw individuals owning them and made the value of these go insanely high for private owners who bought and sold with each other. I can see where the industry hated this, but it was a big boost for private owners and resale value.

The margin goes both ways if you don't have one the next step is an environment like Mogadishu or some frontier town on the Afghan/Pakistan border where you have armed enclaves with no law and fourteen year olds running around with the ability to deal death in their hands and no maturity in their brains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html?_r=2&hp

To my point.

Oh SoCo when are you going to learn that restricting 2nd amendment rights just simply won't work! Bans have been tried previously, both here and in other countries. Statistics show time and time again, that it simply does not help improve the crime rate. All it does is restrict law abiding citizens from owning those firearms.

The thugs will always find a way to acquire the guns they want. Mexico needs to fix their own problems and not blame the US. Here in the US we already have laws on the books. If border town gunshops are breaking the law, then ATF needs to enforce them.