In case anyone missed it, the Democratic platform released this week calls for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. This is probably just rhetoric as almost everyone believes that the issue is a non-starter, however it only seems fair to take them at their word considering that most are doing the same with the GOP.
Mike Dwyer
Mike Dwyer is a former writer and contributor at Ordinary Times.
Thanks to your generosity, we were able to upgrade our service plan. Hopefully this will help us address some of our performance issues.
on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’Sure, the internicide fight is happening now. GOOD. That's what is supposed to happen after a party…
on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’I am 100% down with saying "Harris could not possibly have won this election". But I have to square… on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’You and I don’t actually disagree about the voters getting what they vote for and getting it good an…
on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’I think there are other possibilities. It's possible that the real inflection point was Biden's deci…
on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’The difference between losing every single toss-up state and a landslide will need to be explained t… on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024That short term focus has been democrats Achilles Heal for decades. The GOP suffers no such delusion… on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’Someone pointed out that Harris's budget was not $1 Billion but one-and-a-half (the NYT: How Kamala… on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’Have you seen the breakdown of the voting demographics? I've got no problem showing them again: You'… on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024MattY has been spending a few cycles talking about "The Groups". It strikes me that The Groups are e… on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’Of course she did- that was the strategy they chose- to embrace Cheney and try and make a play for w…
Moving Picture of a Handy Man Around the House
December 17, 2024
Somebody is Always Taking the Joy out of Life
December 16, 2024
December 15, 2024
December 14, 2024
on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’ on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’ on Are Republicans Waking Up? on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024 on Are Republicans Waking Up? on Are Republicans Waking Up?
on Are Republicans Waking Up?
on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’ on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024 on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’ on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’ on Are Republicans Waking Up? on From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’ on Are Republicans Waking Up? on Are Republicans Waking Up?
I wonder Mike, as someone who’s only vague idea of guns comes from action movies and Call of Duty, what actually qualifies a gun as an “assult weapon?”
I feel like it would have to include all guns, but clearly that would be unconstitutional, so what exactly is the cut off, and is it a technological definition, or a legal one (i.e. purely made up)?Report
I’m not a gun guy, but my understanding is that the term “assault weapon” was made up along with the law. It invokes “assault rifle” which is a real thing (guns like the M16 and AK 47), but assault rifles were already illegal prior to the ban.Report
Alan – Not true. ‘Assault rifles’ were very much legal and remained so during the ban. The only real change was magazine capacity and some cosmetic stuff.
I assume you are talking about fully-automatic rifles i.e. machine guns. Those were not illegal to own before the ban but they were highly restricted. No change on that during the ban or after.Report
As a practical matter, post-1986 machine guns were illegal to own before the AWB; pre-1986 machine guns had been heavily restricted since the 1930s and were limited to people with FFLs who paid a separate Special Occupational Tax (SOT).
Regardless, as you suggest, the AWB applied only to semi-automatic firearms; it did not touch the legality/illegality of fully-automatic firearms.Report
Basically “guns we think look particularly scary”.
Unless held by one of those militarized police forces we’ve got, of course. Because anyone questioning the cops Hates America.Report
I wish the Democratic party would take that part of their own platform seriously. I think we all know they won’t.Report
The section’s. the same as the 2008 platform, so…Report
Ethan,
Here is the definition from the 1994 bill:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
– Folding or telescoping stock
– Pistol grip
– Bayonet mount
– Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
– Grenade launcher
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 suppressor
– 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 a fully 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 magazineReport
EEsh… even I can say “this is a camel, not a horse!” if any one of these things is just peachy (including a grenade launcher???) but two is verboten? That’s just loony.Report
Kimi,
It kind of shows how silly the law was. Most of these items are completely benign cosmetics and 4 of them would not be a problem meanwhile even I can say that a grenade launcher is probably not a good idea.Report
For lawd’s sake! I hope if they do bring the law back, they write it better this time!
This is just… embarrassing.
(a bayonet mount is just to make a gun into a pike, which hasn’t been a decent tactical move since they got the bullets to go where people were aiming them to go).Report
I still wouldn’t support it but they would get far more suport for a magazine capacity restriction than a more broad AWB.Report
Yup.Report
I still learnt bayonet fighting during basic training in ther army. This was late 2003 early 2004. I suspect that bayonets are still useful once you run out of bullets or in close quaarters which can happen in both urban and jungle situations.Report
How long did they spend on it?
Close quarters and pikes aren’t generally a good idea.
Better they teach you half-a-dozen other things, honestly (including siegecraft)Report
I’m already on record as being dismissive of partisan platforms and so I’ll stick with that. I think before you take a party’s platform plank a serious policy matter, you need evidence that it’s actually something the party will push to implement.
But this sure is silly. They should try to define “pornography” while they’re at it. How the weapon is used matters a great deal, but the kind of grip on the weapon is just plain not the issue. May as well ban white cars because more people drive drunk in white cars than any other color.Report
I respectfully dissent from Burt.
Do I think that the GOP will move to reinstate DADT? No, no I do not. I think it would be manifest silliness for them to do so, and they aren’t that silly. I think the overlap between that plank and actual policy is nil.
But. I think it reflects the general attitude of the party regarding gays. They are perfectly willing to harness anti-gay sentiment for partisan purposes, and presuming the party writ large could wave a magic wand they would make things broadly worse for people like me. For people who don’t care much about gay rights issues, it’s not a big deal and shouldn’t be. But for me it gives a window into how they would tend with regard to issues of paramount importance, and is an absolute deal-breaker.
If gun issues are of paramount importance to you, then I think it is sensible to include this part of their platform in your decision about how to vote. If knowing the Democrats, given their druthers, would enact a ban you would strongly oppose, then I feel it is perfectly reasonable to vote against them. I tend to be pretty lenient regarding gun laws and gun issues are of low priority to me, so this is neither here nor there. But for you? I say if it matters that much, then you most certainly should consider it when casting your ballot.Report
Well said.Report
This is really good, Dr. S.Report
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57499326-76/you-dont-bring-a-3d-printer-to-a-gun-fight-yet/
Perhaps Mike, you can give us a post on that?
Or maybe this is good fodder for a symposium?Report
Ethan,
I can’t imagine the quality of those is good enough for more than a round or two – but plastic and rubber weapons are definitely a problem. You can buy very cheap rubber knives that will go through plywood.Report
The thing is, if I can print it in plastic, I can, with a very minimal amount of effort, use the plastic part to produce a casting for a more durable metal part. It may not be up to the quality standards of an industrial process, but it’ll be good enough for more than a few shots, and without introducing too much error into the aiming.Report
Mad Rocket Scientist,
You are correct but at the point of using metal why not just machine it properly?Report
Maybe because you don’t have metal working tools?Report
I don’t see the average person casting parts in metal either.Report