Democrats are having a bit of an issue getting their “assault weapons” ban to the floor, all while a main sponsor explains what it would really do
Support erodes for a ban on assault weapons
As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation, they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban.
The overwhelming majority of House Democrats — 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage — are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens — a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups — making a ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.
The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.
“A frequent charge against Democrats”
“Let’s be honest,†said Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.â€
So, it is about taking weapons away from law abiding citizens. But, wait, I thought any push for a new ban wouldn’t affect current owners? No? Isn’t that what they tell us? That this bill would simply outlaw the new sales of the hundreds of firearm models (the 1994 ban only banned 19)? It sounds like they are trying to take them away from citizens.
(The 1994 assault weapons ban) also outlawed magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, while allowing people who already had such weapons to keep them. But it had a sunset provision, and Congress refused to renew it when it expired in 2004, in part because Democrats were nervous that it could cost them reelection.
What happens when you try and actually ban magazines that hold more than 10 round and take them away from citizens?
Um, whoops? https://t.co/YcHWnYAaPX
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) September 11, 2019
Not an exageration
A New Jersey State Police spokesman said not a single large-capacity magazine has been turned in since the law went into effect nearly nine months ago. Residents can also bring them to their local police departments.
Remember, Australia has only seen about 20% of weapons turned in from their ban, and New Zealand isn’t seeing that many turned in.
“Let’s be honest,†said Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.
No, you BELIEVE (without foundation) that every other bill will keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.
Anybody know what belief without evidence is called?
And what that road paved with “good intentions” leads to?
Bueller…?
“…Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.”
Actually. It’s just the same demands from the same activists groups as always. Not “mounting public demands”. The public has gotten used to the activists jumping on every mass shooting and now just dismisses them. Cry “wolf” enough times and people stop responding.