Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Clinton Gun Ban Sunsets

The Clinton Gun Ban is no longer law. Today, I can legally purchase and own 15-round magazines for my two guns. And, honestly, that's about the only change as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, Kerry attempted to seize the moment to make some kind of point, but ended up falling flat on his face.

Presidential candidate John Kerry promised over the weekend that he would "take on the terrorists" who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 by forcing them to obey America's gun control laws. Kerry said laws like the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires today, were valuable "not just to fight ordinary crime but to take on terrorists."

I won't even comment on the stupidity of that kind of comment. And please, don't ask me to in the comments, because if you're so silly that you need an explanation as to why what Kerry said is D-U-M-B dumb, then, well…

More info here.

15 Responses to "Clinton Gun Ban Sunsets"

  1. Thank god Bush is keeping us safe by requiring all terrorists to show proper ID at the airport. šŸ˜›

  2. Terrorists have more to fear from a well armed American population than they do from a law. If they were worried about American laws, they would not attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

  3. It's sad that because the Bush camp has painted him as weak on terror, Kerry has to come up with this half-assed comment. No one has been very good at forcing terrorists to obey anything. Here's an idea. Instead of forcing them to obey our gun laws, how about forcing them to obey our "don't kill people" laws. That would probably be better.

  4. Bush supports the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban? Agree with the gun ban or not, it looks like Bush is nothing but a flip-flopper.

  5. Kevin, please don't post links to things that require subscriptions. Who said Bush supported sunsetting it?

  6. Because Kevin hasn't gotten back, and no else can be troubled to get the day pass, here's the Salon content, which is actually quoted content form the American Prospect.

    And to answer your question specifically, no one said Bush was against sun-setting the bill. In fact, Bush said numerous times that he was in against it. But then he allowed it to expire anyhow. And this is after making the promise that he "supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban" but would "work with Congress" to make sure it remained the law.

    Of course, Bush didn't work with congress at all. If Tom Delay is to be believed, Bush didn't even ask him about the bill.

    So much for Says what he means, means what he says President Bush.

  7. I don't really care what Bush said or didn't say. A useless law was eliminated today, and Kerry said stupid shit in an effort to who-knows-what. That's the only point being made here.

    Bush said he'd sign the thing if it ever got to him. It didn't even come close to getting to him, so he had nothing to do.

  8. Blaming Congress for not getting a bill to his desk is a pretty weak ploy. The exective branch has a lot of sway in the legislature, and when the president actually wants a bill brought to the floor he has no trouble getting it sponsored. When Bush wanted a gay marriage ban he got sponsors and asked them to submit the amendment.

    Saying 'well, it never got to my desk' is saying the president has no power to propose legislation and that's just not true. Bush is happy the bill never got to his desk, because then he can appease gun banners by saying it's not his fault, while not pissing off the NRA by actually continuing the ban.

    not that Bush is alone in this. Presidents have been using this PR angle for generations. When they want to get legislation put through though, they have no trouble bringing it to the floor. If this expiration was timed six months later you'd see some vigorous debate.

  9. Kevin, give it up man. It was a stupid bill, so I'm glad that the majority of Congress agreed with me and that the bill didn't get renewed. I'm not looking to assign blame for this. There's nothing for which to assign blame. A "good thing" happened.

    Bush said he'd sign it if it came to him. In other words, he'd sign it if the house and senate thought it was worthy. They felt it was not and he agreed. Basically, a good old "whatever you guys say."

    Why would he try to forcibly push a shitty bit of legislation through? I don't want him to. Be real, man. It was a stupid law, Bush did the right thing in not pushing it, and Congress did the right thing in not renewing it.

    Kerry, on the other hand, made a pretty stupid comment about it all.

  10. Eric, out of curiosity, was the bill stupid because it had so many loopholes (grandfathering of larger magazines, allowing generic M-16s, etc.) or because banning assault rifles, in and of itself, is a bad thing?

    What frustrates me are the people (not you specifically (yet?)) who say that the bill was an abomination because it was so riddled with loopholes as to be meaningless, while simultaneously lambasting the bill as violating their 2nd amendment rights. I fail to see how both views can hold reasonable amounts of water.

    Again, out of curiosity about someone whose views are very different than my own, do you feel that waiting period laws are useless infringements on your rights? Does the 'any criminal can get any gun they want anyhow' argument hold everywhere?

    Thanks. I'm seriously looknig for discourse, not just being told to 'give it up.'

  11. Since I probably didn't make my point very clearly above, I should state it more clearly: If the reason Bush and Congress didn't renew the assault rifle ban was because it was full of loopholes but Bush would have signed it if it came to his desk, then wouoldn't the right thing to do be to draft and pass a bill without the loopholes?

    If Bush claims he would have signed the bill if it came to him, is it because it's so full of loopholes that it wouldn't irritate the gun lobby? Would he sign similar legislation with closed loopholes? We'll never know, will we?

  12. Kevin (note that I've spelled your name correctly), I've already provided a link. Here it is again: http://www.awbansunset.com/.

    The bill was meaningless, but that didn't mean it didn't prevent certain things. It prevented me from getting a 15-round magazine, forcing me to settle for a 10-round clip. Why? For completely arbitrary reasons. It's prevented me from buying a gun with a folding stock. Why? Arbitrary reasons. In one case, a gun with a black stock was banned because it was "military-like" while the same gun with a wooden stock was allowed.

    It was a stupid law. Politicians looking to curb violent crime should look to solve the poverty issue, not control guns. Automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930s - this ban did nothing but arbitrarily ban certain guns and certain attributes of guns. How many of your tax dollars went to accomplish nothing more than to annoy people?

    Again, out of curiosity about someone whose views are very different than my own, do you feel that waiting period laws are useless infringements on your rights? Does the 'any criminal can get any gun they want anyhow' argument hold everywhere?

    The latter argument holds true pretty much everywhere. I agree with a reasonable waiting period for a variety of reasons, and nearly every gun owner is perfectly accepting of moderate controls. The trouble with bans and the like is that they're felt to be the first step on a long road towards a total ban. Which has nothing to do with waiting periods.

    If Bush claims he would have signed the bill if it came to him, is it because it's so full of loopholes that it wouldn't irritate the gun lobby?

    It would annoy the shit out of the gun lobby. It did and has for the past ten years. http://www.clintongunban.com/.

    If you want more, go elsewhere. I'm not moving far off of my main point: that what Kerry said was incredibly DUMB, and that I'm glad that a useless, senseless law is no more. If you want any more than that, you're more than welcome to email me privately or re-read any of the other gun posts I've made.

  13. The latter argument holds true pretty much everywhere.

    And people who are really intent on committing murder will do so anyhow as well. Should we abolish homicide laws? Yes, somebody who is really intent on getting an AK47 will be able to do so no matter what.

    Granted, some of the subsections in the AWB may have been ridiculous, but I also don't see what's so stupid about not wanting to open up the easy road to the acquisition of weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill people. An AK47 serves no purpose in hunting, it serves no purpose for target practice. The only purpose I've seen it serve is to rip dozens upon dozens bullets through the vests of police officers.

  14. And people who are really intent on committing murder will do so anyhow as well. Should we abolish homicide laws?

    That's a fairly inept way to interpret what I've said. I didn't argue that any law should be abolished because criminals will always be able to obtain guns. So your first paragraph is, seemingly, based on a poor reading of what I've stated.

    Most of the AWB was incredibly stupid, including calling things "assault weapons" which were clearly not. "Military-style" was the MO here. A gun with a black stock is banned, the same gun with a wood stock is not. Why? One looked "more military-style."

    I've stated that I believe in waiting periods, and Brian, you know better than to suggest that there is "no other purpose" for a "military-style" rifle than "to kill people." As for your last crack, well, it doesn't even deserve a response. You've probably never "seen" "it" do anything, and the AK-47 fires the same damn ammo as perfectly legitimate guns. And you know better than that, Brian.

    Now that the ban is over, as was the case for decades prior to and during the life of the ban, criminals still will not legally be able to possess these firearms. Law-abiding citizens, however, will once again be free to purchase semi-automatic firearms, regardless of their cosmetic features, for target shooting, shooting competitions, hunting, collecting, and most importantly, self-defense.

    I don't necessarily agree with the two words "most importantly" in the above, but that's what the NRA has to say. Cosmetic features. I could have owned (and still can) far "deadlier" and far more "powerful" guns than those (no longer) banned.

  15. Brian Christensen said on September 13, 2004:

    weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill people. An AK47 serves no purpose in hunting, it serves no purpose for target practice. The only purpose I've seen it serve is to rip dozens upon dozens bullets through the vests of police officers.

    This is bull. Almost any gun can be used for hunting. How much difference is there in the AR15 and AK47? Not much. 90% of the guys that I hunt with use AR15's and other similar assault weapons. So, when they are being put to good, legal use, why should we ban them? Because a few people have used these guns to commit horrible crimes? That is just stupid.


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.