Assault Weapons Ban removed from whitehouse.gov?

[X_Digger]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

now redirects to

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/urban_policy/

Which doesn't include the call to renew the AWB and repeal the Tiahrt Amendment

The only search results from Obama for 'assault weapon ban' results in questions re the Calderon press conference in MX. (And Gibbs' press briefings re the same.)

eta: Can anyone else do some searching? I'm happy to see it gone, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.

eta2: expanded title

[NightWatcher]

1. any call to renew the AWB or any other "gun grab" will unite the nutjob rw'ers

he's a genius if he forgets all about gun control this term. Wait till we have 70+ senators and a 3 to 1 ratio in the House

[SecularNATION]

2. This term?

He'd be a genius and Democrats would be smart if they dropped the gun control issue altogether.

[NightWatcher]

4. Once we have the Bully Pulpit, I think we should ram some things down the rw's throat

[thunder rising]

8. yes indeed, meet the new boss, we're everything you feared (and more)

[cliffordu]

12. I'm not RW. Why would you want to ram this down my throat??

[Pullo]

15. I'm also a registered Democtrat

with a Libertarian tilt.

I voted for Obama in part because I thought he was smart enough to avoid such landmine. Hillary would have stomped all over this flaming bag of dog pooh, IMO.


That didn't work out well in '94

[X_Digger]

18. Yes, let's piss off the 1/2 of gun owners who are not (R) too. n/t

[jody]

39. You forgot the :sarcasm: icon because you obviously did not mean that as a thoughtful comment. n/t

[jody]

11. If Dems had "70+ senators and a 3 to 1 ratio in the House" we would still have over 80+ million

gun-owners who could vote and there were 130+ million voters in the last election.

If you want a fight against the pro-RKBA community, let's get it on!

[benEzra]

3. Good news. (n/t)

[aikoaiko]

5. We are one important step closer to hearing, "No new Federal gun bans" from Obama.

I look forward to hear the White House talk about this "deletion".

[Tim01]

24. He'll never say that.

He chooses not to talk about it right now. If we can maintain this state, that is as good as it gets with President Obama and guns. His anti-gun history speaks for his preferred future.

[Howzit]

42. Who needs federal bans when you have access to international gun control?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn?iref=24hours

[anonymous171]

6. YES! VICTORY! nt

[1]

7. president obama is no fool. he is going to concentrate on what is important. go obama!

[Pullo]

9. Change.gov still has this to say:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/Urban Policy">Urban Policy@ change.gov


Can't wait to hear Helen Thomas grill Robert Gibbs on this. :-)

[jody]

14. Thanks for the link, looks like another CHANGE we can't believe in. I won't believe until Obama says

"I will veto any bill to renew the assault weapons ban and any bill that infringes on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

[Pullo]

16. I hear you n/t

[X_Digger]

17. Not sure I'd worry about change.gov..

The homepage basically says "we've moved to whitehouse.gov"

[medeak]

10. I must be retaaarded

as can't find anything in first link that speaks of guns period????

[Pullo]

13. That's the point, the entire gun control section has vanished

It used to be there under the 'Urban Policy' section.


btw, "assault weapons" are not machine guns. Firearms like the AR-15 specifically, are the most popular rifles sold in the United States. They are very common in competition and recreational target shooting, hunting, and home defense.

[medeak]

19. technically correct..but meaningless distinction

assualt weapons are designed premarily for warfare... it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger... it is NOT DESIGNED FOR HUNTING!

[beevul]

20. Uh-oh...

:popcorn:

[X_Digger]

21. All semi-automatics do that-

even ones with wood stocks and blued finish.

Remington 1100 shotguns


to

Remington 7400 big game rifles.

[Pullo]

22. Meaningless distinction, what in the world are you talking about???

it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger... it is NOT DESIGNED FOR HUNTING!

So does your husband's Glock(unless he has the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBjUDCyDCuI|Glock 18>), and it certainly wasn't designed for hunting. Here's a Browning BAR that also fires "as fast as you can pull the trigger"




Now, why should this AR-15 be banned, as it too was also intended for hunting?




Besides, hunting really doesn't have much to do with it

[medeak]

27. ewwwe.. am creeped out

you actually took the time to do a search of my postings. yuck! stalker! need to get the Glock out! LOL

[Pullo]

33. LOL, I just remembered your post in a thread on this same topic a few moments earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x220427#220450

hehe, best be weary of those lurking in the Gungeon :P


My best wishes to you and your husband, btw

[medeak]

45. no kidding

we're gun lovers but this place needs xanax. :-) thanks re wishes for hubby.. he hunted elk in Oct in area that restricts anything motorized.. for the life of me don't understand why bother to issue elk tags when you have to hike it out 20-30 miles..poor guy..he's handicapped enough!

[SecularNATION]

23. Hunting?

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Also, assault weapons which fire "as fast as you can pull the trigger" are not designed for warfare. Assault RIFLES are designed for warfare. Assault RIFLES, which are fully automatic and can fire an entire magazine with ONE pull of the trigger. So called assault "weapons" are not the same.

[slackmaster]

29. Nearly all firearms are based on military designs

Including wooden-stocked bolt-action rifles.

it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger...

So do revolvers and all semiautomatic firearms.

it is NOT DESIGNED FOR HUNTING!

You are parroting gun-banner nonsense.

[medeak]

44. gunbanning?

jesus chreeest.. have elk, rocky mnt sheep, desert sheep, and antelope hanging in my frigging pool table room.. going to Mule Deer dinner in an hour..been to and have donated to every damn Rocky Mtn Sheep, Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Chukar Foundation and Desert Big Horn dinner for 27 years as well and have NEVER seen an assualt rifle auctioned off for hunting. Think 300 Weatherby that can take an elephant down is sufficient. But if you need an assualt weapon to protect yourself or fight the armageddon that is supposed to happen from right wingers be my guest..good grief

[Pullo]

46. That 300 Weatherby is MUCH more powerful than an "assault weapon"

It would be overkill on varmints for instance, while AR-15's make great varmint guns. Its illegal to hunt deer and larger game with AR's in many states, because the .223 round they shoot is too weak.....perfect for groundhogs and such, however.




Just recently, http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/752367.html|an AR-15 was raffled off in Idaho>, netting over 10 tons of food for those in need.

[medeak]

49. oh dear gawd

husband bought my Mother's Day present tonight at Mule Deer dinner.... a fecking safari in South Africa. Dear gawd I hope there's a spa there... am totally gunnnnned out. You all have fun fighting over it all.

[benEzra]

48. How about target shooting?

But if you need an assault weapon to protect yourself or fight the armageddon that is supposed to happen from right wingers be my guest..good grief

How about target shooting? Four out of five U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, and so-called "assault weapons" are the most popular centerfire target rifles in the United States.


Camp Perry style competition (iron sights only)



F-class (benchrest) long-range competition, 300-1200 yards



IPSC competition


And yes, hunting (with the larger ones; this is a Remington R25 in .308 Winchester, I think):

[slackmaster]

51. Assault RIFLE, assault WEAPON, blah blah blah blah blah

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, my friend.

[aikoaiko]

32. Hunting?

Hunting? The 2nd Amendment was not written with hunting primarily in mind. It was written to ensure that the people could keep and bear arms to keep their state free from oppression (i.e., to defend yourself with lethal force if necessary). The abiltiy to hunt with an arm is only one part of that freedom.

Read the latests SCOTUS decision for more info. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[SteveM]

38. Umm, sorry, but you're wrong about that...

"assault weapons are designed primarily for warfare... it shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger... it is NOT DESIGNED FOR HUNTING!"

First, you have not defined "assault weapon" (you used the term, after all). The semi-auto carbines which the Brady bunch and other gun-controllers call "assault weapons" are no longer considered military weapons for the simple fact that virtually ALL standing armies and militia of the world no longer use them. These forces use FULL AUTO weapons. That is why the M-1 Garand, a semi-auto rifle of high power used by our troops in WW II, Korea and the beginning phases of the Vietnam War, are obsolete, having been replaced by full-auto M-16s and other full-auto weapons.

Second, semi-auto weapons have long been used for hunting -- I dare say well before you were born. These types have been employed for over a hundred years in the field as waterfowlers, upland game hunting and big-game hunting.

You should know that many former/obsolete military weapons find their way into the field as hunting weapons. The bolt-actions of the Spanish American War, WW I, WW II, Korea; the semi-autos of WW II (as explained above); The rolling block actions of post-Civil War conflicts, etc.

Incidentally, I own a semi-auto rifle made in 1905. It never saw action as a military weapon, only squirrel hunting.

[gorfle]

43. The second amendment was not designed for hunting, either.

The second amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Who do you think security is being secured from? It's other people. Not deer.

The second amendment is about shooting people, not game.

[CynicalObserver]

47. I find it interesting the democrats keep trying to push something

that clearly so many of their constituents oppose. There are far too many gun owners voting democrat for them to alienate their base, yet every time they get in power they want it. Clearly they don't like the idea of their tax serfs being armed. To me this is not a gop/dnc issue, it is a state vs people issue. Our rulers would prefer we be increasing less armed and more regulated in said arms.

[Statistical]

52. No military in the world uses "assault weapons" = semi-auto rifle firing weak cartridge

Nobody. Not one.

Militaries use assault RIFLES which are capable of burst or automatic fire. Well technically they are just called rifles.

Assault Weapons is about as meaningful as classifying only RED SUV as "assault vehicles" because they are used by military as tanks.

[BigBluenoser]

25. Good. Now we just need a reporter to ask a question about this.

eom.

[tularetom]

26. Do we ever get tired of this idiotic fucking debate?

I have two Remington 11-87's. They are semi automatic weapons.

I have the unfortunately named Browning Automatic Rifle chambered in 7mm Remington Magnum. In spite of the name it too is a semi automatic weapon.

I have several double action Colt revolvers manufactured prior to 1900. They too are semi automatic weapons (one pull of the trigger fires one round and more or less moves a second round into the chamber).

In spite of all the fucking hysteria I read here and elsewhere not one Federal Agent has ever appeared at my door to attempt to seize my guns.

Now I may not be as brave as some of you guys. If they DO come after my guns they won't have to pry them loose from my cold dead hand. I'm not stupid enough to attempt to shoot it out with the Federal Government. I don't have a fucking death wish.

But I am now 67 years old. I've owned firearms since I was 8 or 9. I've been listening to this chicken little bullshit for at least the last 30 years and nothing has changed. I'm reasonably confident I will continue to own the guns I have and perhaps more until the day I die.

I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about some asshole big government republican administration taking these firearms than any Democrat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. I haven't seen hardly any post claiming this admin is going to seize firearms.

I'm not sure where you got that idea.

[slackmaster]

30. Your rifle is actually not named "Browning Automatic Rifle" - It's named "BAR"

The name "BAR" is applied to the modern semiautomatic hunting rifle as a homage to the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, not as an acronym. The Browning Automatic Rifle was well-liked by soldiers and Marines who carried it. The name BAR became a household word among them.

In terms of design, the two weapons share little in common. None of the parts are interchangeable.

You won't find yours referred to as "Browning Automatic Rifle" in the owner's manual, Browning's Web site, or any other sanctioned source.

http://www.browning.com/products/catalog/family.asp?webflag_=002B

[aikoaiko]

31. Ah, the "I've got mine, to hell with everyone else" response.

When people use say a law will "take guns away" it is a simple shorthand for laws that would prevent people from buying certain guns in the future. My son is 4 years old and I'm protecting his right to keep and bear arms as well as mine, yours and others by arguing against Federal guns bans.

[Tim01]

34. Were you here when they passed the last AWB? It happened.

[tularetom]

35. Not sure what you mean by "here"

But yeah, I was living then in the same house on the same 40 acres I live in now.

I read the act at the time and decided none of it applied to me. I don't have any semi automatic rifles with pistol grips or flash suppressors and the two semi automatic shotguns I own have fixed magazines of four rounds. Furthermore I can't envision what I would do with any weapon that was banned under the 1994 act.

But just so you understand, I oppose bans of any kind, firearms, marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, you name it. Bans do not fucking work. I just don't get into a hysterical hissyfit about it.

[Tim01]

36. I don't agree with you, but I understand what you are saying.

Agree to disagree.

[benEzra]

50. It may not have affected you, but it did adversely affect tens of millions of others,

including my wife and I. And something far more draconian, like H.R.1022 et seq, would affect far more, and far worse.

[jody]

40. One should not draw inferences re population parameters from a sample of size one particularly if

it's personal experience.

[jody]

37. I try to reconcile myself to posts by DUers who are ignorant of AWB and RKBA but every thread like

this always attracts a few.

Perhaps we need a single essay limited to facts about RKBA and we should encourage DUers to read it carefully before making posts that demonstrate gross ignorance.

[Howzit]

41. Overt bans aren't needed when gun owners can be controlled by means of this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn?iref=24hours

[derby378]

53. First, however, CIFTA has to be ratified by the Senate

It's like Watership Down all over again: "All the world will be your enemy, prince of a thousand enemies, and if they catch you, they will kill you. But first, they have to catch you."