Obama should not reinstate assault weapon ban, gun enthusiasts assert

Last week's announcement that 730 people across the United States had been arrested during a 21-month investigation targeting Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel underscored the scope of a simply-described cross-border problem that cannot be easily solved.

Cartel members smuggle drugs into the U.S., where demand is insatiable and worth billions, and smuggle high-tech weapons from the U.S. into Mexico to protect their interests against rival drug leaders and Mexican authorities.

About 6,000 deaths in Mexico during the last 13 months have been attributed to the narco-war, and it's feared a similarly high level of drug-related violence will spill into the U.S.

But is reinstating a ban on the sale of so-called assault rifles in the U.S. part of a solution? Probably not.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder said during a news conference last week that the Obama administration ought to consider renewing a 10-year ban that expired five years ago.

Naturally, hunters, target shooters, general gun enthusiasts and supporters of the 2nd Amendment cringed. Many countered that the ban did not reduce crime in the U.S. and that any spike since the expiration cannot be attributed to the resumed sale of semiautomatic weapons to private citizens.

"The problem of criminals breaking the law to acquire forearms and illegally smuggling them across the border is not remedied by legislation that would violate the rights of Americans to own semiautomatic firearms," Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said in a news release.

"These types of firearms, which are erroneously called assault weapons, are used by millions of Americans for hunting, sporting and personal defense purposes."

Interestingly, the 1994 ban applied to semiautomatic weapons, which automatically reload but fire only one round per squeeze of a trigger. Ownership of fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns, has been heavily regulated since 1934.

But such points are moot. Banning the sale of either type of weapon in the U.S. probably would do no good.

As long as the Mexican cartels can make billions selling drugs across the border, they'll continue to line up like salmon at the mouth of a stream -- in this case border towns beneath California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas -- and do what it takes to push their product.

If they can't purchase their weapons in the U.S., they'll acquire them elsewhere. If the weapons exist, the cartel warriors will own them.

Sadly, the only surefire solutions to this problem are a) persuading millions of Americans to kick their habit, and/or b) legalizing best-sellers such as marijuana and cocaine, making the illicit and bloody market far less lucrative.

Neither seems likely, although the latter solution appears to be gaining more support after every big massacre.

-- Pete Thomas

Photo (top): Man aims a .50-caliber rifle during an exhibition in this 1996 file photo. Credit: Patrick Downs / Los Angeles Times

Photo (bottom): Mexican soldiers patrol the main drag through Rosarito Beach past a sign that advertises one of the seaside tourist town's most popular destinations. Credit: Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[DDS -- NRA Life Member]

The 1994 AWB was not about crime control. I didn't say that. Its chief sponsors did. How could it have had any impact if the regulated firearms were used in less than one percent of firearms related crime? But the American press and some of the American people proved to be just as gullible as Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center (the bill's real author) predicted.

Now Eric Holder wants to "re-instate" the 1994 ban due to crime in Mexico. But the only bill in congress doesn't just "re-instate" the ban, it drastically expands it. Trust me, folks, this ain't about crime in Mexico. Just like the carnival shell game, what they say is only designed to keep you from focusing on what they are doing.

[Fleiter]

Claiming that American gun stores are the cause of Mexico's cartel violence is silly. The gangs down there are not buying GRENADES in Texas gun stores. Their weapons come from one place: Mexican Army arsenals.

[JSJ]

Under no circumstances should we ever conceder modifying our constitutional rights because our neighbors in the south can’t enforce their own laws. The AWB did nothing to reduce gun violence in the United States and that’s a good indication that the ban simply is not necessary. We need to enforce the laws that are already on the book and protect the rights of our citizens to defend themselves. This is especially necessary in these difficult economic times because most municipalities are cutting back on services… While all local governments will tell you that law enforcement activities are not being affected, it’s only a matter of time till they are.

[Jack]

Pete are you kidding me?!!

Real life is not as simplistic as you make it sound. Right now US is a big armory for the narco-traders. If arms and ammunition are not readilly available, their capacity to terrrorize and kill THOUSANDS of Mexicans.

Unfortunately the American penchant for drugs and assault weapons (Do you really need a 50 caliber gun to "hunt" a deer?) is going to destroy Mexico leading to more illegal immigration to occur.

[Felipe]

Yeah right Mexican arsenals! Come on for the almighty dollar high-powered guns are bought in the US then sold to Mexican drug cartels hence turning Mexico into a national security issue for the United States. We blame Mexico for everything but we consume the drugs $26 billion and counting. I love what Tim Rutten said from the LA Times AK-47s are legal but smoking a joint is a federal crime.
We need a massive crackdown on those gun dealers on the US side who knowlingly sell guns and muntions to the drug cartels that soon will be in our neighborhoods. This is a national security issue.

[brettstrodamus]

No rational hunter needs an assault rifle to take down a critter. To suggest that they do is the weakest argument ever. Any hunter that bad should not be allowed to hunt, period.
Home defenders don't need an assault rifle. Try a short barrel 12 guage "room broom", that'll liquify whatever it is unloaded on. Again, to say that assault rifles are necessary outside of a war zone is stupid, if not severely retarded.
Want to examine your future in an assault rifle America full of right wing nut jobs and cartel/gang driven crime? Spend a few nights just south or east of Yuma and enjoy the almost constant sound of automatic assault rifle fire. Just a minor change takes it from semi to full auto, and only an idiot would suggest it is our military out there doing that at night, it is not. Really enhances the feeling of civilized safety and well being.
I own guns, to be sure, but outside of war zones I've travelled in I've never seen the need for assault rifles.
The second amendment was written at a time when flintlocks were the norm. It's kind of like the old hunting and fishing treaties that were written when the indians hunted with sharp sticks and fished with baskets and nets woven from grass. If you want to keep whining about the amendment or those treaties then use the materials that were the standard when the amendment or treaties were written...everyone gets the right to keep a flintlock over the door and the indians can hunt and fish to their hearts content using sharp sticks and woven grass baskets. But don't try to suggest that an ancient amendment foresaw the rise of automatic assault rifles (yeah yeah, semiauto but like I said that's just a word game) or that those hunting and fishing treaties foresaw powerboats with twin evinrudes and racks of halogen lights and bank to bank nets.

[Dan]

it starts with taking away the assault rifles... then those pesky shotguns... then those deadly rifles... and now that you mention it... handguns are dangerous also... How far do you want it to go... Eventually having an angry thought will get you taken away...lol...

[ABJones]

An Assualt Weapons Ban. Nice idea and I do understand where it's coming from, but I am very much against any ban on firearms. Think about it for a minute. Drug dealers are criminals. Create a law that makes it illegal to own a specific kind of weapon. Are criminals REALLY going to care? They are already criminals, whats another crime. My argument against it includes two things. One, look back at the shoot out that occured in North Hollywood in 1997. These men already had high powered rifles and completely out gunned the police for a long time. The police went to local gun dealers to even out the odds. The point I'm making here is that the criminals are going to get the weapons, law or no law, and the good law abiding citizen is going to be out gunned and therefore be under increased threat. Poorly armed or unarmed citizens make very easy targets. If you'll notice that in states with conceal and carry laws for instance, robberies and homicides are actually down as compared to areas that do not have these laws, such as D.C. up until just recently. And yes I have actually searched many records databases to confirm this.
The second point I want to make is that if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk. Stupid analogy, I know, but most people have heard it and know what it means. Congress passes this law and takes Assualt Weapons away. The next step is trying to reduce handguns in some way, either through making ownership requirements so rediculous that almost no one can get one or by placing laws in the books that makes people afraid of being harrassed by the justice system just for owning one, makeing it a hassle to own a handgun. The next step is to say that hunting rifles or shotguns are too dangerous to use, say with todays population increasing so much that people are to dense to use them anywhere safely. This is just a speculation, not a rumor I have heard. What I'm saying here is that even if you can't ban guns completely, given enough "bricks" laws can build a "wall" to make it almost impossible to own one, therefore taking our 2nd Amendment away without actually banning it.

[Kevin P.]

"Assault weapon" usually means a gun that look scary to the uninformed, but functions no different from other firearms.

The Assault Weapons ban was born in deceit - in the words of gun control activist Josh Sugarmann:

Assault weapons"just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms"are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons"anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun"can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Link: http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

It is amazing how many people have been taken in by this fraud.

[Michael]

Mexico already bans private citizens from owning firearms. Guess who's ruling the country and the government can't do anything about it. Ban guns here from legal citizens and the criminals will get the guns from China and Russia. Another brilliant solution from the Democrat idiots who already gave away our national security by creating a welfare state to buy votes.

[Steve]

Maybe we should ban people who don't pay federal or state taxes from voting. After all, they have representation without taxation so they let politicians think for them. They cause more damage than a rifle with a grip, oh, sorry, an assault rifle.

[Guns Save Lives]

Gun control always as a predictable effect - more people get murdered.
http://www.flattrack.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=37347&catid=4

The Democrats [always] want to take away our 2nd Amendment rights one piece at a time until all law-abiding citizens are disarmed. The same play-book was used in England.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/717

Gun facts:
http://gunfacts.info/

[DAR]

The thing everyone forgets to mention is that the second amendment is not about people hunting, it is about the people being able to protect themselves from a corrupt government and keeping that same government in check. Ex: Socialism

[jack burton]

brett sez:

No rational hunter needs an assault rifle to take down a critter. To suggest that they do is the weakest argument ever. Any hunter that bad should not be allowed to hunt, period.
Home defenders don't need an assault rifle.

Jack responds...

Stupidity is forever but ignorance can be cured. Brett has absolutely no clue about guns, but if you want to know much more than he does than go here...

http://hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not

[jack burton]

Brett sez:

The second amendment was written at a time when flintlocks were the norm. It's kind of like the old hunting and fishing treaties that were written when the indians hunted with sharp sticks and fished with baskets and nets woven from grass. If you want to keep whining about the amendment or those treaties then use the materials that were the standard when the amendment or treaties were written...everyone gets the right to keep a flintlock over the door and the indians can hunt and fish to their hearts content using sharp sticks and woven grass baskets. But don't try to suggest that an ancient amendment foresaw the rise of automatic assault rifles (yeah yeah, semiauto but like I said that's just a word game) or that those hunting and fishing treaties foresaw powerboats with twin evinrudes and racks of halogen lights and bank to bank nets.

Jack responds...

Yes... and that is why the First Amendment never, ever, once covered freedom of speech on radio, TV, high speed presses, and the internet. Freedom of speed only is available with quill pen and manual presses.

[John O.]

First off for the poster above talking about the "room broom" a shotgun with a barrel that is "short - Under 18 inches" is an NFA firearm and will require a ton of hassle to own unless you like prison time. Also as a collector for Civil War, WWI and WWII firearms I find it irritating that we keep trying to push these stupid laws to make us "safer", really do you think that more laws will stop a killer from killing? Have you seen what they make in prison? A plastic spoon can be turned into a weapon in a few seconds. A car can kill more people then any rifle. Also Cop killer rounds are made up, it is just another gift from Hollywood movies. ANY hunting round will cut down a cop in a flak jacket. Even a deer slug for your "room broom" will take out a cop with a vest. I will close by saying ever since the evolution of the thumb the first thing we did was pickup a club and start killing each other. Maybe we should ban thumbs, that would keep the Mexicans safe for sure... Also I have been to Mexico and you can buy an AK full auto for about $50 off the street in under 30 minutes, trust me they are not getting these from the USA. These are NOT modified semi autos but the real thing that was imported from Russia and China. American firearms are not cheap and to think we are the cause for the Mexicans having weapons is as stupid as it gets. If you want to make a change in this world lets set down some hard punishments on the CROOKS! not the people, chop off a hand or two from a drug dealer and see how much longer they keep selling. Gang members who want to shoot up the streets, that is what prison is for. No room for them you say? How about a spending bill to build some big prisons, I am sure we have an extra trillion laying around anyway. If I see one more bogus gun bill I am going to puke. If you don't like guns may I suggest you go spend just a little time learning about them (maybe a day?) and then if you still don't like them just don't buy them and support harder punishments for those who use them wrong. Don't ban the rest of us because you are a clueless lemming who listens to the words of his master in DC. As for the poster who talked about an AK47 being legal and Joint is not, well think about this my friend, we live in a land that punishment of a convicted murderer (Death Pen) is disliked but abortion of the unborn and unwanted is a right for all???? I think we have bigger issues then Mexico at the moment. Maybe Obama could spend a little more time trying to fix our dollar and less time trying to find a way to spend mind.

[Tom Jones]

Anyone trying to say "no one needs an assault rifle to take down a critter" doesn't realize that the typical hunting rifle is more powerful than the soccer mom scaring AK. The assault rifle defined by the 1994 ban was defined by cosmetics. Remember when several manufacturers easily changed their weapons to comply with that bill and the Brady Campaign, among others, claimed they EVADED the law in doing so?

Most people I've talked to IRL, or online, that favor bans typically have very little understanding/experience with how guns work. They're making decisions based on emotion, not fact.

[Manuel Gonzalez]

Now, lets think about it? Massive amounts of drugs are smuggled from Colombia to Mexico by boat, plane, sub, you name it,,, Could it be possible they also smuggle in guns, grenades, RPGs, etc??? Nah,,never Be serious, the real heavy duty cartels have full auto weapons Americans only dream of having. They also buy from yes, the Mexican Army! Most of the heavy duty killers are ex cops and soldiers who are trained in these things. Think about it, guns for the most part are illegal in Mexico, and everyone and their mom has one. Gee, that seems to have worked as well as drugs being illegal here. Yes, the U.S. has a drug problem, that probably only some type of legalization will help. And yes Mexico has become worse than Colombia, and is fast spinning into anarchy due to the narco cartels, and the government not being able to stop them due to corruption. Blaming Americans for gun smuggling on a large scale is tantamount to taking away cars because some drunks still drive, And also when some people say during the time of the Revolution only flintlocks were allowed so we should shut down the modern type firearms, I agree on one condition. The first amendment should only allow print material from that time. No assualt T.V.s, or internet, cable, movies radio, since assualt media is destroying our society as badly as your premise of assualt guns...(which they really aren't since they are only semi autos, not like the real full auto ones they buy illegally from former Soviet states, China, and many other countries!) I have been to Mexico more times than I can remember because my family is from there, and dare tell me what I am saying isn't true.

[AL D]

"The second amendment was written at a time when flintlocks were the norm. It's kind of like the old hunting and fishing treaties that were written when the indians hunted with sharp sticks and fished with baskets and nets woven from grass. If you want to keep whining about the amendment or those treaties then use the materials that were the standard when the amendment or treaties were written...everyone gets the right to keep a flintlock over the door and the indians can hunt and fish to their hearts content using sharp sticks and woven grass baskets. But don't try to suggest that an ancient amendment foresaw the rise of automatic assault rifles (yeah yeah, semiauto but like I said that's just a word game) or that those hunting and fishing treaties foresaw powerboats with twin evinrudes and racks of halogen lights and bank to bank nets."

Then maybe you should express your opinion with a quill pen since computers were not around when the 1st Ammendment was wrtiten. Get real.

[Stephanie C]

In no way should a gun ban be reinstated. We are the United States of America. This country was fought for and the price in part was the blood of some of my ancestors. The Revolutionary War was to overthrow a tyrannical government so that we could be FREE. Free to speak, free to worship and free to protect ourselves from anything and anyone, foreign and domestic. Our forefathers said we have the right to own whatever the military has....I find it wrong that we cannot legally own automatic rifles (although I could not afford to feed one). To quote the second ammendment, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government." In the militia act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated BY LAW to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. If you do extensive reading you will find that the framers of the constitution used militia to refer to the citizens at large and the "select militia" to refer to the National Guard. Therefore, in no way should socialist invaders(in thought) take semi auto or any other weapon from the people. It is the right and duty of the people to own and bear arms of the military--whatever that may be. If you LIBERALS are in MY country and want to be socialist please feel free to go to a socialist country there are plenty of them out there. This country I love is about FREEDOM. Please do not take that from me, my children, the blood of my forefathers and the millions of red blooded Americans that love this country, our rights, and our constitution. Criminals should lose their freedoms and the law abiding patriots should be FREE.

[brettstrodamus]

OK, lets go one by one and I'll use small words and short sentences for you since you guys seem to be all about knee jerk reaction and not too bright.

Jack, you are more or less an idiot. That's ok though, it's your right to be one. If you think the media but for quill pen and parchment should be banned then ok.

John, no one said anything about "under 18 inches" so don't put it in quotation marks and try to attribute it to me, it just makes you look even more ignorant.

Tom, you support my argument re: firepower and hunting rifles and there being no need for assault rifles in hunting. We're talking about number of rounds, not fps. Thanks for your support.

Al, same answer for you as for Jack. Quill pens are fun to use but remember to blot the ink before you drag your sleeve through it.

Glad to see the smart kids were let out to play, I suspected they would be and wasn't disappointed.

Do I think there'll be an outright ban on guns? No, I don't. Are they readily available everywhere? Yes they are. Can I get one off the street or at a gun shop? Sure. Can they be made at home? Absolutely.
The point is to quit using the same old tired arguments for why you want assault rifles and be honest about it. You are afraid of the dark and want to kill without having to face your opponent. It's the equivalent of taking a "sound shot" in hunting, when some goofball shoots toward a noise without seeing a target clearly.
It's like the gun shop owner in Phoenix that told me when I asked about the waiting period to buy an AK-47 and he told me 10 minutes. I said I was surprised since California would make a guy wait two weeks and his reply was "Hell boy, if you're going to shoot your wife today you'll still do it in two weeks so why wait?"

[Tom Jones]

You had to resort to ad hominem, because you couldn't reply to the points brought up by several people. That doesn't display greater intelligence or bravery. No one is fooled.

Have you ever even shot a rifle? Are you seriously going to claim that there aren't semi-automatic hunting rifles? Do you realize what rate of fire you can achieve with even a bolt action firearm if you are proficient? Claiming I supported your argument is far from the same as showing it.

[Chuck]

If the second amendmant was written at a time when only flint locks were available.... Then why can't I go to my local gun shop and by a cannon? That falls into the second amendmant of thaat time... Doesn't it? There are allready federal regulations on firearms that the vast majority abide by. The solution to Mexico's problem would be to close our borders and have our men and women in the armed services enforce our borders... It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. This means law abiding citizens.

[stocks]

to brettstrodamus,

assault weapons, i.e. battle rifles;

certainly it is not about hunting or fishing. in a time when the flintlock was state of the art it was prudent to have one hanging over your hearth. would you wish to throw off your government or similar aggressor with a flintlock in this day? you say that you have walked through other's war zones. fine. i will take this time to thank you for your service. that being said; your experience should not lend to the naive position that with the geo-political changes in the landscape that such events cannot take place hear on our land.

nonsense... you keep your flintlock, and keep you powder dry my friend.

[Granpere]

It's too bad that there's always someone like Bret who needs to throw a tantrum when people prove them wrong. He demonizes anyone who opposes his views, because he needs his crusade to feel superior to those "gun toting hillbillies". He hasn't read the original law, he's just been told that it bans machine guns. He says that a semi-auto is easily converted to an auto, because that's what he's heard from other people who know nothing about guns. He thinks a ban is a great idea despite similar bans on alcohol, drugs and illegal immigration failing miserably. He complains about knee-jerk reactions, yet trots out the same old, "you'll shoot your wife", "you're not man enough to wrassle a criminal to the ground", "who hunts with a machine gun" nonsense. It's pretty much a waste of time to even talk to people like this, but I understand people wanting to make sure that he's not the only voice heard.